Ross Rifle vs Lee Enfield mud test

Last edited:
They did that once already. It helped but probably not enough. The later mil spec MkIII rifles had a larger bolt stop.

I’ll take it further and say they may have needed a slight redesign in that they likely didn’t need all 7 locking lugs. Combining the left rear two lugs into a solid lug and grinding out the one rib in the receiver may have fixed this, and the action would have still been lots strong for the 280 cartridge. I’ve had several bolts flat out missing the left rear lug altogether.

You are correct that the 1915/16 enlargement of the Bolt Stop was inadequate. My Ross is an M10 Mk III (so stamped on the Buttstock) and shows evidence of peening on that last Left-side interrupted thread of the Bolt Head.

One would think that had unit Armourers simply ground down that Left Rear Thread on the Bolt-Head the problem could have been resolved for in-service rifles. That would not have addressed the problem of inconsistent British ammunition however....
 
We tend to forget that ball ammo was corrosive/erosive in those days (mercuric primers and cordite). With its limited primary extraction, a Ross with a rusty chamber became a problem in the trenches.
 
We tend to forget that ball ammo was corrosive/erosive in those days (mercuric primers and cordite). With its limited primary extraction, a Ross with a rusty chamber became a problem in the trenches.
I am not sure I 100% buy that though as there were other straight pull rifles in service in the trenches who didn’t share these issues but would have had similar corrosive ammunition (1888 Mannlicher and M90/95 Mannlicher variants).
 
Back
Top Bottom