Ross shoots so much beter than my other milsurps

Sorry to be so ignorant ...buffdog (about proof NOT ENGLISH MADE has nothing to.....) But Charles Ross was so pride of his rifles, reading about him a lot, lead me to that fact.
Thank you Tacfoley for your intervention. I fully agree with you Lee Enfield about the non-segemented bolt and the bolt stop re-inforced would have been another story...for ross rifle in the field.
Smellie you bring something so interesting interviewing Soldier that use Ross...wow you make my day, with respect.

And in fact the Chamber of Ross rifle were tighter than the Lee Enfield in many locations....And the British ammo made at Woolwich England was Different and a bit bigger in many specific locations. Out of 9 mesurements, 4 were bigger on the British Ammo. So in comparaison to Canadian D.C. ammunition....Yes the british ammo was different.
It is specify in this book, THE ROSS RIFLE STORY by Phillips, Dupuis, Chadwick from page 199 to 207 a bible of 475 pages of all the Ross.
Even if all the chambers were rimed by the 30 of september 1915, THE dammage was done....from spring battle in France and Belgium....
Have'nt been there...

A FORUM for me is a place to learn things, share knowing and help other to learn....no place for ego battle at all...thank you all !!!
 
Phat Eagle said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've got one of those as well ;) but that was not initially mentioned in the thread, and yes, THAT shoots like a house afire, too, even with open sights made for people fifty-one years younger than me.

tac
 
larrysmith said:
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.
Click to expand...

I havent shot my ross sporter too much but it is nice to shoot and seems accurate enough with open sites, picked it up cheap off outdoorsmen forum ($125), but I wouldn't mind if it was 45 acp, or 357 mag or something cheaper then 303b, which is $38 a box at the big box stores in calgary, in which case Id shoot it more, maybe even on a couple gophers.
 
FRANCOIS BOIVIN said:
Sorry to be so ignorant ...buffdog (about proof NOT ENGLISH MADE has nothing to.....) But Charles Ross was so pride of his rifles, reading about him a lot, lead me to that fact.
Thank you Tacfoley for your intervention. I fully agree with you Lee Enfield about the non-segemented bolt and the bolt stop re-inforced would have been another story...for ross rifle in the field.
Smellie you bring something so interesting interviewing Soldier that use Ross...wow you make my day, with respect.

And in fact the Chamber of Ross rifle were tighter than the Lee Enfield in many locations....And the British ammo made at Woolwich England was Different and a bit bigger in many specific locations. Out of 9 mesurements, 4 were bigger on the British Ammo. So in comparaison to Canadian D.C. ammunition....Yes the british ammo was different.
It is specify in this book, THE ROSS RIFLE STORY by Phillips, Dupuis, Chadwick from page 199 to 207 a bible of 475 pages of all the Ross.
Even if all the chambers were rimed by the 30 of september 1915, THE dammage was done....from spring battle in France and Belgium....
Have'nt been there...

A FORUM for me is a place to learn things, share knowing and help other to learn....no place for ego battle at all...thank you all !!!
Click to expand...

I like your contributions.
 
Hey guys, wise up- don't inform the public about this wonderful firearm. Most of us think that we do not have enough Ross rifles, the price will go up more. Quiet down!
jan
 
Lee Enfield said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you mean on the guide rails or the corresponding grooves on the bolt body, or somewhere else? The actions are case-hardened up to the barrel ring, so they shouldn't wear much. Not sure about the bolt bodies, though they do show case colours.

Lee Enfield said:
The military investigation pointed to the reduced chamber dimensions (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.
Click to expand...

I don't think we know exactly who insisted on the small chamber dimension, but it was approved by the Minister of Militia and the Standing Committee on Small Arms.

Lee Enfield said:
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.
Click to expand...

Same kind of problems they had in the US arms factories where staff turnover was sometimes 100% in three months and quality suffered so much a lot of the early P14s were DP or EY marked from new. Col. Harkom screwed up his re-hardening effort as well of course. It was a temporary problem that was fixed in later rifles.

Lee Enfield said:
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...
Click to expand...
Do you mean solid bolt head lugs? Nothing like as strong as the interrupted screw lugs. The interrupted screw lugs are also self-cleaning in that they can push dirt "out the end of" the screw threads in the receiver.

Lee Enfield said:
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.
Click to expand...

You really think the MkIIs were so bad? We have to remember when the Harris Lever came out, the Lee Enfield magazine was loaded by pushing in one round at at time. The Harris platform was a very good idea then and remains an excellent idea for sporting rifles today. Just as quick as a bottom opening Mauser mag and not vulnerable to damage when opened like the Mauser, as well as being a more controlled dump. It's surprising how many rifles even today can only be emptied by cycling the live rounds through the chamber or pushing down on the second round and shaking out the top round, again and again. Also makes it easy to correct rim jams if they happen.[/QUOTE]

Lee Enfield said:
Beautiful hunting and target rifles though.
Click to expand...

That too. I wonder why the MkIII had such an unhandy stock when the MkIIs and the sporting rifles had such a perfect grip and natural point?
 
Last edited:
Add to all of this the fact that the Federal Government refused to declare the Ross Rifle factory to be a war essential and you have the recipe for a disaster.

Sir Charles had to expand his production immensely, and that calls for highly-professional staff who know their jobs, cold.

But how do you keep that highly-professional staff when the American gun factories were paying much higher wages for skilled men?

Remember, Ross had a contract at a given price and everything was subject to Canadian taxation. Even his American-made machine-tools were taxed on importation.

One result was that Ross had a highly-professional staff at the beginning of the War. But, just to the South, Winchester was hiring, Savage was hiring, Remington was hiring, Colt was hiring, New England Westinghouse was hiring and Remington had that immense Eddystone factory (designed to build locomotives!) to fill with men. They had to come from somewhere.

The Ross factory spent three-quarters of the war training men to work in the AMERICAN factories, EVEN AFTER the quality of the Quebec-made Ross Rifle was KNOWN to be falling.

Sir Charles Ross's biggest ENEMY was not the Kaiser or his Army: it was the GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, headed by the lying politician who has his mug on the $100 bill.
 
Janice really has a point in Post Number 26 (above).

If Ross Rifles are so damned bad and so useless, why have the prices of them tripled in the past 3 years?

Only one possibility: more people discovering these truly GREAT rifles, and a limited supply.
 
Read the thread with interest, as I enjoy Canadian military history; opinions (even well formed opinions) on the various rifles are also interesting.

Somewhere recently on CGN I read that the 1st Btn CEF were told to surrender their Rosses and were then issued SMLE's. The Rosses were then cleaned and issued to the 2nd Btn CEF, with strict orders that the two units would not be allowed to converse.

Anyone have any ability to confirm/debunk this?
 
so what you are saying is the Ross went the way of Avro Canada after the arrow incident?

smellie said:
Add to all of this the fact that the Federal Government refused to declare the Ross Rifle factory to be a war essential and you have the recipe for a disaster.

Sir Charles had to expand his production immensely, and that calls for highly-professional staff who know their jobs, cold.

But how do you keep that highly-professional staff when the American gun factories were paying much higher wages for skilled men?

Remember, Ross had a contract at a given price and everything was subject to Canadian taxation. Even his American-made machine-tools were taxed on importation.

One result was that Ross had a highly-professional staff at the beginning of the War. But, just to the South, Winchester was hiring, Savage was hiring, Remington was hiring, Colt was hiring, New England Westinghouse was hiring and Remington had that immense Eddystone factory (designed to build locomotives!) to fill with men. They had to come from somewhere.

The Ross factory spent three-quarters of the war training men to work in the AMERICAN factories, EVEN AFTER the quality of the Quebec-made Ross Rifle was KNOWN to be falling.

Sir Charles Ross's biggest ENEMY was not the Kaiser or his Army: it was the GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, headed by the lying politician who has his mug on the $100 bill.
Click to expand...
 
Though the whole Ross affair is riven with politics and bungling the fact remains that the Mk. 3 Ross DID have serious issues with reliability in combat. This is born out by recorded statements of hundreds of Canadian soldiers both officers and enlisted men. Personally I think the Ross was a basically good design but needed a little more work before being a suitable infantry rifle for Canada. It was rushed into service and British ammunition was lousy. At the Second Battle of Ypres in 1915 Canadian soldiers died BECAUSE OF THE RIFLE AND AMMUNITION THEY WERE GIVEN BY THEIR GOVERNMENT. That is fact and indisputable.
 
Mike Webb said:
Though the whole Ross affair is riven with politics and bungling the fact remains that the Mk. 3 Ross DID have serious issues with reliability in combat. This is born out by recorded statements of hundreds of Canadian soldiers both officers and enlisted men. Personally I think the Ross was a basically good design but needed a little more work before being a suitable infantry rifle for Canada. It was rushed into service and British ammunition was lousy. At the Second Battle of Ypres in 1915 Canadian soldiers died BECAUSE OF THE RIFLE AND AMMUNITION THEY WERE GIVEN BY THEIR GOVERNMENT. That is fact and indisputable.
Click to expand...

The MkIII was not the best it could have been, 26" would have been long enough for the barrel, the chamber should have been larger, the magazine should have been in the stock or else a removable box like the Enfield, the bayonet blade should have been more like the Enfield/Arisaka, and a few other things as well.

But the issue of ammunition was in the hands of the British authorities and there is a letter from Field Marshal French in 1915 stating that the Ross was known to function well with Canadian ammo, but not with most other makes.

There was also a lot of political BS in this country surrounding the whole issue. As one British officer said, you could tell which party a man belonged to from whether he supported the Ross or damned it.

The average soldier is not a rifleman, most never even use their rifles in combat. They do carry them around a lot though and I think one of the vets Smellie interviewed[?] said most of the objection to the Ross was based on the length of the rifle making it hard to get in and out of dugouts with the rifle slung etc.

The SMLE was a more handy rifle that was better suited to the trenches; which was a happy coincidence since almost no one was expecting the next war to be fought in trenches! When it came out it was damned as a compromise rifle designed for infantry, cavalry and artillery. The barrel was considered too light as well, which it was. With the No4 they went back to the heavier barrel of the "Long Lees".
 
Last edited:
smellie said:
Add to all of this the fact that the Federal Government refused to declare the Ross Rifle factory to be a war essential and you have the recipe for a disaster.

Sir Charles had to expand his production immensely, and that calls for highly-professional staff who know their jobs, cold.

But how do you keep that highly-professional staff when the American gun factories were paying much higher wages for skilled men?

Remember, Ross had a contract at a given price and everything was subject to Canadian taxation. Even his American-made machine-tools were taxed on importation.

One result was that Ross had a highly-professional staff at the beginning of the War. But, just to the South, Winchester was hiring, Savage was hiring, Remington was hiring, Colt was hiring, New England Westinghouse was hiring and Remington had that immense Eddystone factory (designed to build locomotives!) to fill with men. They had to come from somewhere.

The Ross factory spent three-quarters of the war training men to work in the AMERICAN factories, EVEN AFTER the quality of the Quebec-made Ross Rifle was KNOWN to be falling.

Sir Charles Ross's biggest ENEMY was not the Kaiser or his Army: it was the GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, headed by the lying politician who has his mug on the $100 bill.
Click to expand...

Well it's a good story, the problem is the time frame is wrong.

P14 rifles were not delivered until 1916 for the earliest deliveries, while it was Ross m1910/Mk3 rifles manufactured before and early in the war which were the (original) problem guns.
 
The problem EARLY in the war was crappy, jamming, oversize, condemned BRITISH AMMUNITION which was KNOWN to be far enough out of spec to give trouble in a Lee-Enfield.

The P-'14s were manufactured by WINCHESTER, by REMINGTON and by REMINGTON EDDYSTONE, three of the factories which were drawing skilled men away from the Ross plant.

The CONTRACTS for the P-'14s were drawn up VERY early in the war, but it takes time to set up a factory, make the tooling, install the tooling, run it in, set the machinery to spec, start making parts, check them and then finally start assembling rifles, send them to England for inspection and only AFTER that, go into full production.

This meant that the FIRST men drawn away from the Ross plant were the ultra-critical TOOLMAKERS.

I have here P-'14 serial number W305. It was part of the SECOND pre-production lot sent to Enfield for approval and it is NOT identical to the mass-produced version.

The British factories had a slight advantage: they had been set up to produce the Lee rifle since 1888.
 
The crappy ammo was as much an American problem as a British one from what I've read. In fact some of the worst US stuff was far worse than anything the worst UK factories produced, that is mentioned in the Iriam book, and McBride mentions it too, as do others.

Stands to reason, since the US factories were not subject to any British authority, legal or moral, and in many cases had large German-American contingents in their workforces, who had zero interest in making anything effective for British contracts, and in fact were sometimes determined to do the very opposite. Colt machine guns made on Canadian contracts were recorded as being smuggled out of the factory at night so as to avoid obstruction by the "German-Americans" who worked there. The other overt acts of sabotage by members of that group are well-documented.

Iriam mentions being told by German PoW's that they were some of about 60,000 German reservists who were called back from North America in early 1914 for the coming war. You remember, the war that started by accident at Sarajevo!:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom