Ross vs. Mauser???

@tinman

You do not have to own something to know it has problems.
If you wanted a certain car, and there were lots of bad reviews on said car, and that car was only good in certain contions, and overly complicated, and could be assembled and used dangerously. Would you buy that car to make your own OPINION? No, you'd say in my opinion and based on this data, I don't like it.
Why is it so different with guns?

@smellie
But the fact is, they aren't straight pulls, they are semi auto. If they went into ROSS mode, they'd be in the shop! Haha
 
Last edited:
AR, apparently your book learning and the hearsay you have heard out trumps the years of first hand knowledge any one could possibly acquire. So there is no point in talking to you. You most enjoy the sound of your own voice.
janice
 
Interesting reading about the Ross guys, thanks for the detailed posts.

Some of the people in this thread own one or more Ross rifles, but how many are still out there - and any best guesses as to how many may still exist in original military form?

I'd like to find one myself...!
 
I had a bunch of Greek .303 ammo, HXP75, that seemed to have sticky brass. Not high pressure or anything, but it gave hard bolt lift on all of my SMLE's and No'4's. The same ammo functioned flawlessly in my Ross rifles and my P-14. I still don't like the 1910 Ross. Charger loading it does not work all the time, and the rear sights on many of them seem rather sloppy. One of mine had a windage adjustment that would never stay put. I keep reading "accuracy, 1/4" groups, yada yada" but the thread was about what rifle you would pick if going to war. Accuracy is not everything in such a situation. I would want a rifle that I am CERTAIN is reliable. I don't think any rifle can be absolutely, 100% reliable, but the Mauser comes close.
 
Twosteam-

Way to jump in with nothing to ad.

Why don't you add something valid?

Are my commonsense points too much to refute?


The Ross may be accurate, and served some guys fine.
I'm not refuting WW1 vet testimony, just stating facts.
But the facts show exactly what I've said.

This is still my opinion, you don't have to agree.
Even though you insult me, ill take the high road and not insult you back.
 
Last edited:
Well this turned into a pissing match fast.

End of the day the mauser's built to be more user friendly and resilient to a greater range of issues. The ross is a more complex design that isn't as friendly regarding manufacture, and with poor press and so little public interest in a rare and unfamiliar design it's not surprising it hasn't been manufactured. I shoot and have hunted with both Gew/K98's and rosses (full and sporterised). Both have ended up far dirtier and in more adverse conditions than I would have liked and both functioned flawlessly.

Realistically the OP's scenario was a bit unrealistic, however within the limitations of a dry static battle with no influences of artillery, gas, tanks etc, it would probably be something of a tie. Maybe slight edge given to the ross for speed of shooting.... but considering that wars aren't fought in a vaccuum, and mud being a given in trench warfare, while completely ignoring all other influences, I return to my estimate that the Gew 98 would have the edge due to being somewhat more intuitive and tougher under a wider range of adverse conditions. With this in mind, I believe the ross is a better rifle in terms of quality, function and accuracy, as long as you don't live in a mud puddle with people trying to kill you.
 
CanadianAR said:
@tinman

You do not have to own something to know it has problems.
If you wanted a certain car, and there were lots of bad reviews on said car, and that car was only good in certain contions, and overly complicated, and could be assembled and used dangerously. Would you buy that car to make your own OPINION? No, you'd say in my opinion and based on this data, I don't like it.
Why is it so different with guns?

@smellie
But the fact is, they aren't straight pulls, they are semi auto. If they went into ROSS mode, they'd be in the shop! Haha
Click to expand...

K well once again we will agree to disagree!

And clearly your 2nd,3rd and 5th hand knowledge trumps me owning and shooting a Ross and Mauser and doing comparisons on them.

Now your comment about Smellie makes me laugh! The man behind the computer screen has forgotten more about military weapons then you or I will ever know!

Nuff said, Im done trying to have a constructive conversation based on my own real world knowledge with those who read too much and shoot too little!!

Cheers
 
Your range results in NO way simulate real world battle conditions. End of story.

Are Rosses accurate? Im sure they are.
Could they be used successfully in the field? Im sure they could be. But were they? Not by many.

I dont understand what everyone is getting so pissy about, the ross rifle did not live on for various reasons. THAT IS A FACT, thats all Im saying.

To appease all the ross fanatics, i just wont comment anymore as there is no point.
 
The one factor everyone is forgetting is who is shooting the ross rifles and who is shooting the Mauser? Gas Canadians, they pee on a rag and stay and wait and put a bullet in you. Any battle canadians are in they win or fight until out of ammo. No contest I would rather be holding a ross standing with 100,000 pissed off and mean canadians than a bunch or isiots wearing pointy helmets. Even if the ross jams you have an even more pissed off canadian to deal with. Canadians sometimes just had to put the word out or raise a flag and the Mauser holders would turn and run. It has happen enough times in history.
 
Nelson84 said:
The one factor everyone is forgetting is who is shooting the ross rifles and who is shooting the Mauser? Gas Canadians, they pee on a rag and stay and wait and put a bullet in you. Any battle canadians are in they win or fight until out of ammo. No contest I would rather be holding a ross standing with 100,000 pissed off and mean canadians than a bunch or isiots wearing pointy helmets. Even if the ross jams you have an even more pissed off canadian to deal with. Canadians sometimes just had to put the word out or raise a flag and the Mauser holders would turn and run. It has happen enough times in history.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Tim Horton's Coffee and Timbits too! Then just pound your chest like a Gorilla and run straight forward into the Maxim MG's......takes you right to Burger King!
 
Nelson84 said:
The one factor everyone is forgetting is who is shooting the ross rifles and who is shooting the Mauser? Gas Canadians, they pee on a rag and stay and wait and put a bullet in you. Any battle canadians are in they win or fight until out of ammo. No contest I would rather be holding a ross standing with 100,000 pissed off and mean canadians than a bunch or isiots wearing pointy helmets. Even if the ross jams you have an even more pissed off canadian to deal with. Canadians sometimes just had to put the word out or raise a flag and the Mauser holders would turn and run. It has happen enough times in history.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken on your history. Cluny Macpherson was from Newfoundland a totally different country ;)
 
@ CanadianAR:

What you are doing, Sir, is demonstrating for me a point which I have been trying to make for a very long time.

Thank you.

The point is this: ignorance, fearmongering and the mass media together are more influential than actual historical fact and objective evaluation and testing.

Ralph Nader made millions by trashing the Corvair, otherwise a nice little car.

Borden got rid of the utterly incorruptible Sir Sam Hughes...... and the British slapped the "Colonials" down and into "their place" by trashing the Ross.

Good to see that the lies and stupidity have lasted almost a century without any improvement.

Restores my faith in Truth In Reporting!

We now can accept Shiny Pony as Our Nation's Saviour!
 
Nelson84 said:
The one factor everyone is forgetting is who is shooting the ross rifles and who is shooting the Mauser? Gas Canadians, they pee on a rag and stay and wait and put a bullet in you. Any battle canadians are in they win or fight until out of ammo. No contest I would rather be holding a ross standing with 100,000 pissed off and mean canadians than a bunch or isiots wearing pointy helmets. Even if the ross jams you have an even more pissed off canadian to deal with. Canadians sometimes just had to put the word out or raise a flag and the Mauser holders would turn and run. It has happen enough times in history.
Click to expand...

As a Canadian soldier I am glad that you stand behind us and are proud of those that served before us. However in reading this post and your other posts regarding WW2 from other threads I can't help but get the impression of arrogance and that you have a somewhat convoluted sense of history. If you think the Krauts were pushovers and utterly stupid, you have been watching too many episodes of Hogans Heroes.

In WW1 the Somme cost both sides over 500,000 casualties including many Canadians. Often overshadowed by the Normandy campaign, the fiercest fighting on the Western front during WW2 was in Italy particularily at Ortona where the Canadians and the Germans fought tooth and nail. We incurred 2300 Canadian casualties during that battle. The Normandy campaign resulted in around 220,000 allied casualties including 18,000 Canadians vs 320,000 German losses.

Yes we won, and Canada fought hard and we should be proud, but let's not be ignorant about it and always remember what it cost us.
 
Seems like an innocent poll type question stirred up a hornet's nest. The fact remains that the Ross was originally designed as a sporting/target rifle NOT a main battle rifle. Though very strong in design, primary extraction was weaker than a turnbolt and the design was changed radically so many times over the space of ten years(double column mag to single column, twin licking lugs to multiple lugs etc.) for a number of reasons. It simply does not measure up to the premier battle rifles of the time though a strong and very accurate rifle. Ned Crossman, the American gun writer felt the Ross model 10 sporter was THE PERFECT RIFLE, high praise from an American. Sam Hughes deserves much credit for the rapid mobilization of the first Canadian division and the speed with which it got to England as well as the fact that Canadians remained in Canadian units and were not fed piecemeal into British formations as replacements. But no more blind and bombastic political hack ever interfered in military affairs in Canada before or since. As far as "incorruptible", check out the amount of military contracts for completely shoddy goods that were awarded to Hughes friends during 1914 and 1915, absolutely disgraceful.
 
Aren't there a lot of modern sporting designs that use a turning bolt like the MkIII? Remington 760,742 etc and Browning BAR semi autos come to mind.

If it came to it I would want whatever the men around me had and what I could get ammo for. If I had a choice it would be a Ross with a good cleaning kit and good ammo, but I'm clumsy and if there's a puddle I'd drop it in it and then I'd be one of the ones in trouble. Ha ha.
 
Nelson84 said:
The one factor everyone is forgetting is who is shooting the ross rifles and who is shooting the Mauser? Gas Canadians, they pee on a rag and stay and wait and put a bullet in you. Any battle canadians are in they win or fight until out of ammo. No contest I would rather be holding a ross standing with 100,000 pissed off and mean canadians than a bunch or isiots wearing pointy helmets. Even if the ross jams you have an even more pissed off canadian to deal with. Canadians sometimes just had to put the word out or raise a flag and the Mauser holders would turn and run. It has happen enough times in history.
Click to expand...

I sense a dire need for more study of serious military history here. Johnny Canuck was no superman and it took a lot of bloody noses and dirty drawers in both wars to get what was an untested citizen army up to speed and performing effectively on the battlefield. The Germans were a well seasoned and professional army in WW2 and it took a very steep and costly learning curve to catch up to them.

One thing that always struck me during my time in the Army was how thin the veneer of civilization really is. You can take a bunch of educated, joe-cool, young men and put them out in the field, deprive them of sleep, showers and regular meals for a even a week, then stress them a bit more with tasks to accomplish while carrying a pack and weapon, take away their vehicles and add some rainy or cold weather, to say nothing of being shot at, then see how quickly they revert to the basics and just who steps up and gets the job done. Its a great way to sort out the leaders from the pretenders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom