Ross M10

svt1940

svt1940

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
76   0   0
Location
Somewhere in Canuckistan
Hi guys, i took my Ross yesterday for a fews shots and i made a small video to share. And against all what the internet can say, i still have my face intact!:p Seriously, i didnt make serious accuracy test, was mainly for testing the action and its sooo smooth:)
Joce
[youtube]w_vyRm4fidc&feature=plcp[/youtube]
 
Last edited:
.
Must be an exception to the MYTH. No smoking crater, no jams, no flying bolts, no blood. What kind of entertainment video is that? Laugh2

Actually, pretty good video. It shows just how smooth the Ross can be. Our members here are gradually learning that the Ross is a lot of fun, IF used properly.
.
 
Polar_Hunter said:
Great video! Kind of makes a fellow wonder why other gun makers didn't addopt the straight pull bolt design.
Click to expand...

some did, tyhe swiss k-31, 1895 lee navy, etc

they were generaly found to be more tiring to fire repeatedly and due to the nature of having more parts to get dirty were more work to clean with little benefit
 
Lots of sporters, Maddawg, but the prices vary. I put out a "WTB" on the EE last year and got a good deal on one for $100 with a rough stock.
 
Polar_Hunter said:
Great video! Kind of makes a fellow wonder why other gun makers didn't addopt the straight pull bolt design.
Click to expand...

The most important thing for military equipment is reliability. Straight pull designs generally don't have the same initial extraction leverage as turn-bolt ones and they can get jammed with mud or grit more easily under field conditions. (Mind you, the Swiss M1931 has a pretty good reputation.)

Do some reading on the Ross Rifle in battle with the Canadian Expeditionary Force in World War One. It's not a pretty story. From the Official History of the Canadian Army in the First World War:

Behind the gas cloud came the German infantry wearing their mouth protectors. On the 8th Battalion's front they were met not only by the 2nd Field Artillery Brigade's shrapnel barrage but with steady enfilading small-arms fire from the right rifle company, which had escaped the gas. The men of the centre and left companies who were still able to fight manned the parapet and emptied their Ross rifles into the advancing enemy, desperately jarring loose with boot heel or entrenching-tool handle stubborn rifle bolts that repeatedly jammed with the rapid fire
Click to expand...

The Ross was a political purchase and became a political football. While it was an excellent sporting, target and sniper rifle, it was monumentally unsuited for use by line grunts in the mud of WW1 trenches. Troops began tossing theirs whenever they could get their hands on the more reliable Lee-Enfield and eventually Ottawa gave in and bought Lee-Enfields officially.

I like mine, but I wouldn't want to have to carry it into battle.
 
Polar_Hunter said:
Great video! Kind of makes a fellow wonder why other gun makers didn't addopt the straight pull bolt design.
Click to expand...

I think the best example of a similar style of action in a military rifle is the Austrian M1895. I believe Charles Ross was even accused of copying it. The big problem with straight-pull mechanisms comes from their poor primary extraction (poor leverage as the fired casing is being pulled free of the chamber wall). The problem can be solved by making the brass cartridge casing slightly harder. The Austrians were able to do just that during WW1 because they controlled their own amunition manufacture but the Canadians could not. During the war Ross rifles worked well enough with ammunition made in Canada because it was manufactured specifically for that rifle. When Canadians had to use cartridges manufactured in some of the British factories that did not control casing hardness the same way (they really didn't have to worry about it much because the Lee-Enfield is pretty ammunition insensitive) they had trouble, especially when the rifle was hot. That, by the way, is the real reason the Ross was withdrawn from front line service in 1916 - they couldn't guarantee a supply of Canadian made ammunition.

The rotating bolt head idea is fairly common in a lot of modern military rifles and machine guns. Primary extraction problems in current weapons are usually solved by either lower pressure ammunition (e.g. current German 7.62 x 51mm) or harder brass (e.g. NATO standard 7.62 x 51mm which is much harder than either the older .30-06 or .303).
 
odjig said:
That, by the way, is the real reason the Ross was withdrawn from front line service in 1916 - they couldn't guarantee a supply of Canadian made ammunition.
Click to expand...

Well, Sam Hughes, the Minister of Militia and Defence, the man who pushed the Ross in the first place, always claimed that it was British ammo that caused all the problems. There was considerable debate about that and we will probably never now. One of the major factors, of course, is that the troops had lost faith in their primary weapon. I guess having to pound on the bolt with a pick handle to get it to open when you are being overwhelmed by the enemy might do that.
 
NOW YOUVE GONE AND DONE IT - STARTED THE ROSS RIFLE MAD MINUTE VIDEO COMPETITION!

No way now to resolve the poor initial extraction/bad British ammunition/tight chamber debate. We do know that Lee Enfields had trouble with certain British Ammo too and that the Brits were supposed to have appropriated the correct size Canadian Ammo for their machine guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom