When I soot my ross m-10 I have minimal barrel lift. The other rifles I have jump up but the ross stays put. Is it the heavier barrel? Is it because it was made in Canada and to a higher standard than a mosin or steyer or k-31. My LE rifles don't shoot like a ross and the action feels looser than the the ross. I think I would prefer to go into combat with a tomy gun with the drum magazine and a ross rifle on my back for picking off Nazis far away.
Ross shoots so much beter than my other milsurps
- Thread starter larrysmith
- Start date
Loose = Reliable in alot of cases, Which I believe was proven in the field tests between the LE and Ross, Some of the more knowledgeable collectors here have some great info on trials between the two rifles. Being in possession of a few Milsurps, Mosins, Carcanos, Mausers, Lee Enfields and such, My newest acquisition is a K31 I must say its hard to beat the fit and finish of this rifle, and from what Iam hearing accuracy as well, Cant wait to get it out for some shooting time
My grandfather was with the 13th.bttl. 42nd.reg. BLACKWATCH,from Montreal.He LEFT his ross and picked up a L.E at the 2nd.battle of YPRES APRIL.1915..........Along with most of the lads that could find one (L.E.) that speaks volumes about the ross on the battle field.
The original ross rifles were issued to the MOUNTIES who had problems with them from the start....
An accurate rifle,but not a battle rifle. I have had and sold a m-10 and a .22 target ross.at present,i have a model 1905 III ross. so I have nothing against any of the ross rifles.I especially like .280 sportsters.
First or second WW, Iwould certainly have trusted my life to the unstoppable 10 round LEE ENFIELD.... With a tommy gun,its spray and pray.......it does not take long,IF YOU SURVIVE,
to realize its not the noise and rapid bursts that count,. its hits and the L.E. did hit for a very looooooooong time.....but that's just M.H.O.
The original ross rifles were issued to the MOUNTIES who had problems with them from the start....
An accurate rifle,but not a battle rifle. I have had and sold a m-10 and a .22 target ross.at present,i have a model 1905 III ross. so I have nothing against any of the ross rifles.I especially like .280 sportsters.
First or second WW, Iwould certainly have trusted my life to the unstoppable 10 round LEE ENFIELD.... With a tommy gun,its spray and pray.......it does not take long,IF YOU SURVIVE,
to realize its not the noise and rapid bursts that count,. its hits and the L.E. did hit for a very looooooooong time.....but that's just M.H.O.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
The only 303 I ever attempted gopher shooting with in South Saskatchewan, was a sporter Ross.
It was accurate enough indeed!
I should not have let that one go......the one and only 303 Brit I miss. lol
It was accurate enough indeed!
I should not have let that one go......the one and only 303 Brit I miss. lol
I am just reading 'the red watch' after i picked up one of their Ross rifles last year at a gun show. In the book the author is very fond of the ross and according to him even the germans respected it. there was a few sniper on sniper matches the Ross easily won. but like every one knows its just the bad British ammo that could clog up a ross. this dude said before going into an offensive battle he made his guys polish every round. I'm sure not all units would take that time and effort.
- Location
- Beaverlodge, Alberta
The Ross is an interesting animal. It has a very colorful history. I've been reading a book by Frank Iriam, titled In The Trenches, 1914-1918. He went through a lot of the earlier battles with the Ross and his reports on the rifles performance were favourable.
The Ross lacks primary extraction as all straight pull rifles do. It also was never given the chance to be perfected for a number of reasons. It was Canadian being number one. A Lee-Enfield will jam up solid in certain conditions as well. If it gets mud or ice on the left side of its locking lug the rifle will not open until it is cleared of mud. The Rosses locked up if really dirty or badly corroded from gas etc. Iriam said the Ross was better than the LE in a gas attack however because the bolt could be kicked open if badly rusted, whereas a LE bolt simply could not be turned and in so could not be forced backward once rusted. Badly out of spec ammo would lock both rifles up. If you had problems with a stiff action beginning to happen kicking or beating the bolt open would compound the problem by deforming the rearmost locking lug.
The MkI Ross given to the RCMP was a very early prototype basically. It was a total piece of junk. I own and shoot one. A diamond in its roughest form. It has feeding, extraction and reliability issues built in. The MkIIs are not much better. But the MkIII was a very big improvement. Had the Earlier rifles not made such a bad impression I think the MkIII may have made a bit better standing. Keep in mind also that Canada had almost no armourers in France when the Ross was in use, and that our military ordered a chicken sh*t method of heat treating the bolt in the field that complicated matters greatly.
The Ross was basically developed and pressed into service too quickly, and that was its end.
The Ross lacks primary extraction as all straight pull rifles do. It also was never given the chance to be perfected for a number of reasons. It was Canadian being number one. A Lee-Enfield will jam up solid in certain conditions as well. If it gets mud or ice on the left side of its locking lug the rifle will not open until it is cleared of mud. The Rosses locked up if really dirty or badly corroded from gas etc. Iriam said the Ross was better than the LE in a gas attack however because the bolt could be kicked open if badly rusted, whereas a LE bolt simply could not be turned and in so could not be forced backward once rusted. Badly out of spec ammo would lock both rifles up. If you had problems with a stiff action beginning to happen kicking or beating the bolt open would compound the problem by deforming the rearmost locking lug.
The MkI Ross given to the RCMP was a very early prototype basically. It was a total piece of junk. I own and shoot one. A diamond in its roughest form. It has feeding, extraction and reliability issues built in. The MkIIs are not much better. But the MkIII was a very big improvement. Had the Earlier rifles not made such a bad impression I think the MkIII may have made a bit better standing. Keep in mind also that Canada had almost no armourers in France when the Ross was in use, and that our military ordered a chicken sh*t method of heat treating the bolt in the field that complicated matters greatly.
The Ross was basically developed and pressed into service too quickly, and that was its end.
The Ross is a finely constructed, typically very accurate rifle, however it proved to be a poor Battle Rifle. Saying that sometimes offends Canadian patriots who will blame it on the fact that it required special ammo for example, but in battle it's a "shoot what ya got" situation, and it's a dirty environment - battle rifles need to be designed for that, and "loose and sloppy" wins the day. I find it strange that the K31, which is along with the Ross, among the most finely constructed and most accurate milsurps out there, would be held up as an example of an inferior rifle.
FRANCOIS BOIVIN
New member
If we talk about precision nothing can discard a Ross rifle for that time(and today....) Unfortunately, when it was send to the FRONT in wwI, like flying pig said it was not fully ready....
The first big trouble has been the chamber dimension at his base was too small and tight (.458/.459 thousands of an inch). The Enfield was bigger and the ammunition too (.462 thousands of an inch) so the ross was too tight for british ammuntion and it has to be modified or Enlarged to get the dimension of the british Enfield ammo which, was the major provider for ammuntion. Problems of extraction from the Ross have been noticed at his first around may 1 1915 by telegram, to the officer and follow to prime minister of defence. Many soldier lifes LOST
and injury have been report from this defect...Unfortunately....
So all the Ross have been enlarged to British dimension and a bit further more to .464 thousands of an inch from july 8 to sept 30th 1915 and their receiver were marked LC or E stands for Large Chamber or Enlarge chamber and for those in the wwI theater in France, they have been reamed at the Sandling England facility.
But even if the Ross have been enlarged to british specs ammo by the sept 30th of 1915, it was more a range rifle than a Field rifle and the lost of human lifes in the First Canadian Division (1 C.E.F.) which arrived in France in February 1915, for the Battle of Ypres in April 1915 and the Battle of Festubert May 1915....have been desastrous... A Rossophilia was inherent in the troops seeing their soldier trying to re-armed their Ross lever, jamed facing death... The Ross rifle has been retract for the battle field in june 1916...and Civilian have been inform of this fact in January 1917....Six months later....The only remaining Ross Rifle on the wwI theater have been the M-10 mkIII sniper equiped with a Warner-Swasey telescope which were extraordinary precise rifles....
I have been shooting Ross MK-II and MK-III and they shoot so well, they are incredibles rifles...but like it has been so well documented in those books: The Ross Rifle Story, Sir Charles Ross and his rifle and Ross Rifle a Question of Confident, They were builded in extreme close tolerances which was the PRIDE of Sir Charles Ross and were not friendly with dirt and grit of the trenchee, but were FAMOUS on the Range and settle many records at Bisley world competition shooters.
The first big trouble has been the chamber dimension at his base was too small and tight (.458/.459 thousands of an inch). The Enfield was bigger and the ammunition too (.462 thousands of an inch) so the ross was too tight for british ammuntion and it has to be modified or Enlarged to get the dimension of the british Enfield ammo which, was the major provider for ammuntion. Problems of extraction from the Ross have been noticed at his first around may 1 1915 by telegram, to the officer and follow to prime minister of defence. Many soldier lifes LOST
and injury have been report from this defect...Unfortunately.... So all the Ross have been enlarged to British dimension and a bit further more to .464 thousands of an inch from july 8 to sept 30th 1915 and their receiver were marked LC or E stands for Large Chamber or Enlarge chamber and for those in the wwI theater in France, they have been reamed at the Sandling England facility.
But even if the Ross have been enlarged to british specs ammo by the sept 30th of 1915, it was more a range rifle than a Field rifle and the lost of human lifes in the First Canadian Division (1 C.E.F.) which arrived in France in February 1915, for the Battle of Ypres in April 1915 and the Battle of Festubert May 1915....have been desastrous... A Rossophilia was inherent in the troops seeing their soldier trying to re-armed their Ross lever, jamed facing death... The Ross rifle has been retract for the battle field in june 1916...and Civilian have been inform of this fact in January 1917....Six months later....The only remaining Ross Rifle on the wwI theater have been the M-10 mkIII sniper equiped with a Warner-Swasey telescope which were extraordinary precise rifles....
I have been shooting Ross MK-II and MK-III and they shoot so well, they are incredibles rifles...but like it has been so well documented in those books: The Ross Rifle Story, Sir Charles Ross and his rifle and Ross Rifle a Question of Confident, They were builded in extreme close tolerances which was the PRIDE of Sir Charles Ross and were not friendly with dirt and grit of the trenchee, but were FAMOUS on the Range and settle many records at Bisley world competition shooters.
Last edited:
.
Dont forget that the Ross Rifle M-10 MKIII ARE STAMPED ON THEIR RECEIVER: NOT ENGLISH MADE tell us a lot about the pride of Sir Charles Ross...
The stamping "NOT ENGLISH MADE" has NOTHING to do with the pride of Sir Charles Ross in his product. That stamping was placed on many surplus rifles, including SMLE, Lee-Enfield, P-14 Enfields, Mausers and such. That is a requirement of BRITISH PROOF LAWS and is stamped by the Proof House when the rifle is proof fired before being offered for sale as Surplus to the Public.
The "tight chamber tolerances" was mandated by the Canadian Government of the time. It did NOT require "special ammo" but was chambered for the higher quality Canadian ammunition that was held to specifications and tolerances that the British made.
SMELLIE has already commented on the POLITICAL side of the Ross rifle and the decisions to both adopt and exchange it. Many of the Ross rifles exchanged by the Canadians were then issued to the Royal Marines.
Dont forget that the Ross Rifle M-10 MKIII ARE STAMPED ON THEIR RECEIVER: NOT ENGLISH MADE tell us a lot about the pride of Sir Charles Ross...
The stamping "NOT ENGLISH MADE" has NOTHING to do with the pride of Sir Charles Ross in his product. That stamping was placed on many surplus rifles, including SMLE, Lee-Enfield, P-14 Enfields, Mausers and such. That is a requirement of BRITISH PROOF LAWS and is stamped by the Proof House when the rifle is proof fired before being offered for sale as Surplus to the Public.
The "tight chamber tolerances" was mandated by the Canadian Government of the time. It did NOT require "special ammo" but was chambered for the higher quality Canadian ammunition that was held to specifications and tolerances that the British made.
SMELLIE has already commented on the POLITICAL side of the Ross rifle and the decisions to both adopt and exchange it. Many of the Ross rifles exchanged by the Canadians were then issued to the Royal Marines.
Last edited:
Others might have a different opinion concerning the standards of manufacture of the Ross by comparison with the K31. My K31, bought in a R&GC store back in 1989, has had over 8000 rounds down it whilst in MY possession, and still makes tidy five shots groups around an inch at 100m. Diopter, here, shoots his in serious competition with milsurp ammunition, and can do better than me.
tac
Lee Enfield
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Republic of Alberta
Yes they were issued to ships companies and Marine recruit drill rifles...deliberately second and third line service as they were supplementing Winchester 1892 & 1894 carbines and Japanese arisaka rifles.
In my opinion one of the major failings of the Ross MkIII is the lack of support for the bolt body, which creates a situation of vulnerability to wear.
The military investigation pointed to the reduced chamber dimentions (an effort to simply increase velocity) and the fact that the improperly hardened bolts (from the factory) were damaged by impact against the poorly designed (and far to small) bolt stop.
Then compound that with the emergency effort to regarded the bolt lugs...after all there is a war on, and people were dying because Canadian troops were stuck in rear positions without serviceable rifles.
I have several Ross rifles (3 MKII** and 2 MkIII) and have examined several others (disassembly and repair).
If, if, if... the MkIII Ross had been equipped with a non-segmented bolt, a larger and stronger bolt stop which supported more of the bolt lug,and a receiver which supported the bolt lugs during their entire length of travel it would have been a much better gun...
Let us be thankful that they didn't go into combat with the pre MkIII Ross with the useless Harris platform magazine...
Just not a gun designed for service conditions in any way.
Beautiful hunting and target rifles though.
Although the Ross, much-loved though it still is, was something of a failure in real terms, another battle rifle designed by a Canadian covered itself in glory from 1936 to 1957 in the hands of the United States, and lives on in countless variants still in use all over the Free World.
I give you John Garand.
tac
I give you John Garand.
tac
I interviewed several men who actually used the Ross in combat.
These included a Lance-Corporal and a private from the 8th Battalion: Royal Winnipeg Rifles. They used their Rosses through the gas attack at St. Julien, 23 April, 1915, changing rifles only when they were too hot to be reloaded. Their pickup rifles were Rosses, also. Remember, that was ONE COMPANY attempting to hold off THREE DIVISIONS; possibly it was the single most horrific rifle engagement ever fought. Each man expended over 150 rounds. Ranges were "too close to miss".
Another was a man who made it from Private to Sergeant, then picked up a DCM and a Field Commission, then on to Captain by war's end, with 5th Canadian Mounted Rifles.
Another was a sniper with 54th Battalion, the "Kootenay Regiment". He did a night shot at an enemy sniper at 400 yards, using the FLASH from the Mauser as an aiming-point. There was no more sniping against the 54th for some time afterwards.
NOT ONE OF THOSE MEN HAD A BAD WORD TO SAY ABOUT THE ROSS.
They ALL defended the Ross Rifle. One man, Pte. Alex McBain, A Coy, 8th Batt, became so emphatic I feared that he would have a heart attack. "It's all lies! There's nothing wrong with a God-damned Ross Rifle!"
Perhaps we should listen to the accounts of the men who actually used them. Instead, all we get is, "I read a book that said they were crap".
Collect some wartime cartridges and MEASURE the things.
Then ask yourself what that "LC" marking on 1916-and-later SMLEs might mean.
The OP of this thread announced that his Ross shoots exceptionally well.
Then everyone jumped on him.
MY Ross shoots exceptionally well also. SO do a lot of others.
If you want proof, get a Ross, load for it, enter some matches and WIN them.
I know of NO other Great War rifle which will put its bullets on top of each other at 100 yards, off the bags.
As far as the Winchesters in the Royal Navy, there were too few; their main rifle was the Ross, right through the SECOND war.
"We received a shipment of Japanese rifles. The Arabs, knowing their worth, promptly threw them away." T.E. Lawrence, "Seven Pillars of Wisdom"
I say no more, deferring to Those Who Knew.
These included a Lance-Corporal and a private from the 8th Battalion: Royal Winnipeg Rifles. They used their Rosses through the gas attack at St. Julien, 23 April, 1915, changing rifles only when they were too hot to be reloaded. Their pickup rifles were Rosses, also. Remember, that was ONE COMPANY attempting to hold off THREE DIVISIONS; possibly it was the single most horrific rifle engagement ever fought. Each man expended over 150 rounds. Ranges were "too close to miss".
Another was a man who made it from Private to Sergeant, then picked up a DCM and a Field Commission, then on to Captain by war's end, with 5th Canadian Mounted Rifles.
Another was a sniper with 54th Battalion, the "Kootenay Regiment". He did a night shot at an enemy sniper at 400 yards, using the FLASH from the Mauser as an aiming-point. There was no more sniping against the 54th for some time afterwards.
NOT ONE OF THOSE MEN HAD A BAD WORD TO SAY ABOUT THE ROSS.
They ALL defended the Ross Rifle. One man, Pte. Alex McBain, A Coy, 8th Batt, became so emphatic I feared that he would have a heart attack. "It's all lies! There's nothing wrong with a God-damned Ross Rifle!"
Perhaps we should listen to the accounts of the men who actually used them. Instead, all we get is, "I read a book that said they were crap".
Collect some wartime cartridges and MEASURE the things.
Then ask yourself what that "LC" marking on 1916-and-later SMLEs might mean.
The OP of this thread announced that his Ross shoots exceptionally well.
Then everyone jumped on him.
MY Ross shoots exceptionally well also. SO do a lot of others.
If you want proof, get a Ross, load for it, enter some matches and WIN them.
I know of NO other Great War rifle which will put its bullets on top of each other at 100 yards, off the bags.
As far as the Winchesters in the Royal Navy, there were too few; their main rifle was the Ross, right through the SECOND war.
"We received a shipment of Japanese rifles. The Arabs, knowing their worth, promptly threw them away." T.E. Lawrence, "Seven Pillars of Wisdom"
I say no more, deferring to Those Who Knew.
Smellie - let's do a little air clearing,please. I never said that the Ross was a piece of junk. I took exception to the comment that the K31, by comparison with the Ross, was a piece of junk on a par with the Russian Mosin-Nagant. As a keen shooter of Swiss small-arms since the middle 1960's as a schoolboy, I stand by my comment. The Swiss never made a piece of military junk in their entire manufacturing existence as even a casual glance at any Swiss military arm would readily show.
For many years here in UK the appearance of a Ross in the military match usually meant that everybody else not shooting one packed up and went home. Since the rising popularity of the IG11, K11 and K31 here over the last few years, that is becoming increasingly rare.
tac
For many years here in UK the appearance of a Ross in the military match usually meant that everybody else not shooting one packed up and went home. Since the rising popularity of the IG11, K11 and K31 here over the last few years, that is becoming increasingly rare.
tac
Not particularly interested in Ross's but won the big Ross book as a door prize at a shoot a couple of years ago (am at work and can't recall the authors names). Quite a painful read- the personalities and politics dominate the story. Not, in my opinion, much to be proud of in this debacle as a Canadian. How good the rifle is/ was is not something I'm qualified to comment on but, according to the book, a lot of the supreme target rifle mythology is based on specially prepared guns, not off the shelf examples. And today, 100 years after the fact, with WW1 rifles in wildly different states of preservation, range anecdotes don't mean much. I suspect the Ross owners that get 6 inch groups don't bother to tell us.
milsurpo
milsurpo
OK but what if say a guy like me has spent years testing and keeping notes regarding the accuracy of only good condition as issued first war rifles? Would it be a tall tale for me to say that when it comes to accuracy the Ross mk3 in my opinion is the best. I have a book with years of carful handwritten notes regarding only milsurp accuracy.
Now even when I compare it to second war rifles or rifles of that Era I still have yet to dethrone my ross as top milsurp in the rack. I try hard to out shoot my ross groups with everything from a k31 to a turk mauser. Haven't done it yet with an as issued rifle.
I once beat my ross with a very nice Swede fsr match rifle but I'm thinking that's not a fair competition.
As for the small bolt stop, I don't ever seem to smash my bolt into the stop so I can't comment as to wether that creates damage or not.
I'll admit 2 more points. Once I put mud in my ross action to see if it would jam. Not just any mud but manitoba gumbo which is about as sticky and heavy as mud gets. One rotation of the bolt and it stripped the mud out of the locking area and away she went.
As for how strong is the mk3. I'll also admit to a reloading mistake that I made several years ago. While shooting cast bullets I had one that went boom. It had to be a double charge of red dot so about 30 grains. Yep it happened and yep I'll admit to it.
The ross fired that load no problem, action and barrel held. In fact I didn't know anything happened except I couldn't open the bolt. Anyhow I can say that the ross is strong as I still have my eyes and face.
And I'll let those who were there say wether they were reliable or not.
Last edited:
Phat Eagle
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Fraser Valley, BC
The Ross is a beauty (though I'd want a Mauser if going into trench warfare with a WW1 rifle. I need to know it'll work above all else), but I have to agree with Tac.... The Swiss Rifles are built like their watches, and among the nicest milsurps out there. To be fair, the K11 would be the contemporary to the Ross, but they're still contenders.
