Ross vs P14
- Thread starter ENFIELD1911
- Start date
Ed, if you are ever up this way, be sure to drop around!
The Coffee's on, the ammo is loaded, you can take your pick of half a dozen Rosses.......
....and Wolverine's range is only 4 miles from town!
Funny that the US would rebarrel an M-1917. Sure, it would handle boat-tailed slugs better, but it now had a barrel life of 3,000 rounds, down from 15,000 or more. No real trouble by the million but, just try buying them one at a time!
I lived in Vancouver at one time, so I can understand why the search for aliens there. If you were to live there a couple of weeks and get involved in local politics, you would understand also. BC and California likely are the only places in the world where your Vegan welfare-recipient City Councillor can get his orders direct from the Galactic Reptilian Overlord..... and nobody cares!
The Coffee's on, the ammo is loaded, you can take your pick of half a dozen Rosses.......
....and Wolverine's range is only 4 miles from town!
Funny that the US would rebarrel an M-1917. Sure, it would handle boat-tailed slugs better, but it now had a barrel life of 3,000 rounds, down from 15,000 or more. No real trouble by the million but, just try buying them one at a time!
I lived in Vancouver at one time, so I can understand why the search for aliens there. If you were to live there a couple of weeks and get involved in local politics, you would understand also. BC and California likely are the only places in the world where your Vegan welfare-recipient City Councillor can get his orders direct from the Galactic Reptilian Overlord..... and nobody cares!
Its the guy pulling the trigger and how much he bribes his units armourer to get the best rifle and ammo is all that matters.
What is the matter with you Canadians, all you guys have now are the left over rifles held together with duct tape.
And any war movie history buff knows Sgt York and his American made M1917 Enfield rifle never missed. (You guys remember the rifle the Americans redesigned to make it shoot better by getting rid of those silly five groove British barrel)
And what is a Ross rifle? (Ed remembers his American 1950s grade school nuclear attack training and ducks and covers)
Sorry, but ever since "The X-Files" came on TV I have been wondering "WHY" so many American FBI agents were looking for aliens in Vancouver.
Or were they really looking for the mythical accurate Ross rifle.
They should have been looking closer to a place called Dreamland!
But.... getting back to the original topic, is there actually any evidence (real evidence) that standard issue Ross Mk III's were more accurate (or as accurate) as Lee Enfields, Model 1917's, etc? Anecdotal tales of accurized individual rifles don't prove anything- I have an accurized SVT 40 that might surprise a few. The successes at Bisley, if I understand what I'm reading in the big Ross Rifle book, didn't have too much to do with standard, as issued, army rifles. That book, incidentally, is a painful read. Not really a segment of our history to be terribly proud of.
milsurpo
milsurpo
That is precisely what people have been trying to tell you.
NONE of mine are accurised! I took the HMS CANADA rifle down exactly ONCE, to check for rust under the metal, when I bought it (1975) and it has not been apart since. If you can hold it and the ammo is good enough, it will slowly pile the bullets on top of each other at 100 yards.
TINMAN204's rifle is not "accurised" either; it just SHOOTS that damned good!
I have a Ross here that I slapped a 10-power scope onto. Actually, it is NOT an especially-accurate Ross. It is a solid 1-MOA rifle. The scope is a concession to my eyes; it helps ME to see the target. My BEST Ross is the HMS CANADA rifle; it wears its original 1913 iron sights. It is, quite literally, a single-holer.
Make sure there is nothing binding the barrel, make sure the screws are done up, clean the bore once in a while, feed them the best ammo you can cook up..... and nothing will touch one. That simple.
The only problem is that YOU have to know how to SHOOT.
NONE of mine are accurised! I took the HMS CANADA rifle down exactly ONCE, to check for rust under the metal, when I bought it (1975) and it has not been apart since. If you can hold it and the ammo is good enough, it will slowly pile the bullets on top of each other at 100 yards.
TINMAN204's rifle is not "accurised" either; it just SHOOTS that damned good!
I have a Ross here that I slapped a 10-power scope onto. Actually, it is NOT an especially-accurate Ross. It is a solid 1-MOA rifle. The scope is a concession to my eyes; it helps ME to see the target. My BEST Ross is the HMS CANADA rifle; it wears its original 1913 iron sights. It is, quite literally, a single-holer.
Make sure there is nothing binding the barrel, make sure the screws are done up, clean the bore once in a while, feed them the best ammo you can cook up..... and nothing will touch one. That simple.
The only problem is that YOU have to know how to SHOOT.
To me custom handloads are an important part of the "accurizing" process (along with a talented shooter). As an evaluation of the rifle in comparison to its contemporaries I'd be more interested in results with surplus or available commercial loads. Were there established government dispersion requirements for MkIII Ross's like those one can find for some military rifles? I would say all this talk is throwing down the gauntlet for Ross shooters at Rangerovers next "Ross Rifle Shoot" where, to date, the Ross shooters have not been on the podium! I'm not trying to be argumentative, Smellie, I just enjoy trying to extract decent accuracy out of a variety of old hardware and find this discussion interesting.
milsurpo
milsurpo
And both were designed because of the painful experience which came about because of the 7x57mm and Mauser rifle in South Africa.
I thought the main problem with the .276 British cartridge which was developed in 1909 was the fact that the British used cordite instead of the cooler and less erosive burning Ballistite powder used by Ross for his cartridge and the fact that the Brit's loaded their round with a heavier bullet and higher pressure loading than the Ross and World War 1 started before they could finish development work on this cartridge rifle combo.
And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Rifle accuracy always gets back to the same old 3 legged stool; the condition of the rifle, the quality of the ammo and the skill of the shooter. Most MILSURPS are mechanically capable of very good accuracy provided that they have a sound and unworn barrel, tight sights, a good trigger and proper stock bedding. Given sound mechanical condition you can enhance accuracy by using quality handloads and by refining your shooting skills, especially in maintaining a consistent trigger squeeze and sight picture.
All things being equal, I don't think there is much to choose from in the accuracy department among a Ross, P14, M1917, Finnish Mosin, Swede Mauser, Lee-Enfield or M1903 Springfield, or even an M1 Garand. At least that`s been my experience.
The M1917 did use the Enfield system of rifling, with 5 grooves and a left-hand twist, which was carried over from the P14. No less an authority than Julian Hatcher cites the Enfield system as superior in prolonging barrel life. I don`t know if there is any inherent accuracy advantage to it though. I`ve owned and shot a Long Branch No4 with a 6 groove right hand twist barrel and also a P14 with a 4 groove rt hand twist commercial barrel. Both were every bit as accurate as the original Enfield type barrels. During WW2 the US Army did re-barrel a number of M1917s with both 2 groove rt hand twist barrels made by Johnson Automatics and 4 groove rt hand twist barrels made by High Standard. I`ve never shot an M1917 with either of these barrels, but I have 2 M1903 Springfields which I re-barreled with NOS High Standard barrels and find to be as accurate as any others. I`ve also shot a number of No4s and 03-A3 Springfields with the 2 groove barrels which produced excellent results. In fact, many M1903A4 sniper rifles used selected air gauged 2 groove barrels.
That original .276 ctg for the P13 might have proven to be a real champ with modern propellants. I think the Brits got it right again with their short .280 ctg which was developed for their post-WW2 EM2 bullpup rifle and which was then set aside for the 7.62 NATO. Funny thing, neither of these are too far away from the 120 year old 7x57 Mauser which gave the Brits so much trouble in South Africa. And nowadays some people are plumping for a short 6.8mm ctg as an optimum round for a military rifle.
Rifle accuracy always gets back to the same old 3 legged stool; the condition of the rifle, the quality of the ammo and the skill of the shooter. Most MILSURPS are mechanically capable of very good accuracy provided that they have a sound and unworn barrel, tight sights, a good trigger and proper stock bedding. Given sound mechanical condition you can enhance accuracy by using quality handloads and by refining your shooting skills, especially in maintaining a consistent trigger squeeze and sight picture.
All things being equal, I don't think there is much to choose from in the accuracy department among a Ross, P14, M1917, Finnish Mosin, Swede Mauser, Lee-Enfield or M1903 Springfield, or even an M1 Garand. At least that`s been my experience.
The M1917 did use the Enfield system of rifling, with 5 grooves and a left-hand twist, which was carried over from the P14. No less an authority than Julian Hatcher cites the Enfield system as superior in prolonging barrel life. I don`t know if there is any inherent accuracy advantage to it though. I`ve owned and shot a Long Branch No4 with a 6 groove right hand twist barrel and also a P14 with a 4 groove rt hand twist commercial barrel. Both were every bit as accurate as the original Enfield type barrels. During WW2 the US Army did re-barrel a number of M1917s with both 2 groove rt hand twist barrels made by Johnson Automatics and 4 groove rt hand twist barrels made by High Standard. I`ve never shot an M1917 with either of these barrels, but I have 2 M1903 Springfields which I re-barreled with NOS High Standard barrels and find to be as accurate as any others. I`ve also shot a number of No4s and 03-A3 Springfields with the 2 groove barrels which produced excellent results. In fact, many M1903A4 sniper rifles used selected air gauged 2 groove barrels.
That original .276 ctg for the P13 might have proven to be a real champ with modern propellants. I think the Brits got it right again with their short .280 ctg which was developed for their post-WW2 EM2 bullpup rifle and which was then set aside for the 7.62 NATO. Funny thing, neither of these are too far away from the 120 year old 7x57 Mauser which gave the Brits so much trouble in South Africa. And nowadays some people are plumping for a short 6.8mm ctg as an optimum round for a military rifle.
You guys should read a little more about dry humor and then read about money, bankers, politicians and war, in the end the biggest reason the U.S. got involved in both world wars was so the banks that loaned the British money would get it back by calling it patriotism. And also remember the disagreement we Americans had with King George 238 years ago and not being part of the commonwealth. Or forget what Cecil Rhodes said about starting another war with America so he could exploit our resources. (reads as greed, money and politics)
So Just remember McDonald's merged with Tim Horton's and moved corporate headquaters to Canada so they could pay less taxes.
So I'm begging you Canadians to buy more McDonald's happy meals and help stop your Tim Horton's encirclement of Washington DC. (again)
Below, Tim Horton's restaurant locations and the partial encirclement of Washington D.C.
You guys should read a little more about dry humor and then read about money, bankers, politicians and war, in the end the biggest reason the U.S. got involved in both world wars was so the banks that loaned the British money would get it back by calling it patriotism. And also remember the disagreement we Americans had with King George 238 years ago and not being part of the commonwealth. Or forget what Cecil Rhodes said about starting another war with America so he could exploit our resources. (reads as greed, money and politics)
So Just remember McDonald's merged with Tim Horton's and moved corporate headquaters to Canada so they could pay less taxes.
So I'm begging you Canadians to buy more McDonald's happy meals and help stop your Tim Horton's encirclement of Washington DC. (again)
Below, Tim Horton's restaurant locations and the partial encirclement of Washington D.C.
I made my comment tongue in cheek, and yes the biggest reason any country goes to war is for profit, resources and power being wanted by those pulling the strings in the background. BTW it is Burger King and not McDonalds.
Don't tell anyone but my last name is Horton and we don't talk to cousin Tim's side of the family anymore because he wouldn't give me a free cup of coffee when I spent a week in Canada scouting for weak spots along the border and the Burger King invasion, MacDonald's was just my cover story in case I was caught.
Real evidence?? Let's see, I pull out 4 rifles that I own, all mint bores as issued with precisely loaded handloads that are the product of years of my testing for each rifle in each caliber.
I then shoot a group with each. My Ross wins if I do my part. Been that way year after year for me.
Also might I add, Smellie doesn't THINK Ross rifles are accurate he knows it!! 40 years of Ross rifles shooting the pants off of every other military rifle he can get his hands on prolly SHOULD qualify as "real evidence".
Now like I said earlier, the K31 MAY have a chance. MAY being the key word!
Last edited:
Not so fast there. We all have our sentimental favourites and I too have gotten good results with a Ross, but I think that I'd be more than happy to take the "Ross challenge" with a number of M1903 Springfields and a couple of Swede Mausers.
Much as the Ross intrigues me, I remain somewhat disquieted by it as a fighting rifle, a troubling thing for an old soldier. Put it down to mechanical tolerances, variable quality ammo, or whatever, but it did fail as a fighting rifle and was never rehabilitated in this role. There are some parallels to the M16 when it was first fielded in Vietnam; lack of troop training, inadequate cleaning supplies, and a switch to ball powder when the rifle had been designed around a ctg with extruded propellant. The M16 started off as a "Judas stick", but went on to become a world standard for reliability. Not so for the Ross, but it was always well thought of as a target rifle.
I'm not saying the Ross is the be all end and end all but I'm running out of surplus rifles to shoot against then. I can't speak about 1903 springfields cause I don't have to test, I'd love to play with one.
I do have a swede here that will out shoot both my Ross rifles but it's not "as issued" because it's a match rifle with diopters.
My favorite rifle is actually a sportered 71/84 Mauser. It's 3 Moa rifle but it sure is fun to make go BOOM!!
Here's some Ross groups I've shot with a stock 1915 MkIII rifle, no bedding and stock iron sights.
100m
Group measured out side to out side. Subtract .311" and you have a .351" 4 shot group center to center. Hole on the right is actually 2 if I remember correctly.
Here's another shot on the same day, bottom hole is 2. Group measures .823" if you go center to center.
100m cast loads (lee 180gr bullets with a gas check and 13.5 grains of red dot). I was checking my windage at this range, so I was raising the sights for each 3 shot group. All 3 are about 1"
200m groups with cast bullets. I have shot jacketed at this range but with the bullet shortage it's been awhile so I figured I'd post cast groups for fun!!
This one is about 2" or 2 Moa.
This one I was shooting for score again with my free cast bullets, pulled the 3 shot in the string!! DOAH!!
Just for fun's sake, and to prove a point. I love to shoot every rifle I own. My second favorite rifle is my 1861 3 band snider, she's a 12 Moa rifle!!. It's not all about accuracy for me!!
Still though I've shot several Ross rifles and they all have been amazingly consistent and accurate!!
100m
Group measured out side to out side. Subtract .311" and you have a .351" 4 shot group center to center. Hole on the right is actually 2 if I remember correctly.
Here's another shot on the same day, bottom hole is 2. Group measures .823" if you go center to center.
100m cast loads (lee 180gr bullets with a gas check and 13.5 grains of red dot). I was checking my windage at this range, so I was raising the sights for each 3 shot group. All 3 are about 1"
200m groups with cast bullets. I have shot jacketed at this range but with the bullet shortage it's been awhile so I figured I'd post cast groups for fun!!
This one is about 2" or 2 Moa.
This one I was shooting for score again with my free cast bullets, pulled the 3 shot in the string!! DOAH!!
Just for fun's sake, and to prove a point. I love to shoot every rifle I own. My second favorite rifle is my 1861 3 band snider, she's a 12 Moa rifle!!
. It's not all about accuracy for me!!
Still though I've shot several Ross rifles and they all have been amazingly consistent and accurate!!
Good shooting with the Ross and old "Sir Chuck" would be smiling, miserable old bu99er that he apparently was. When I visited Quebec City a couple of yrs ago I walked the Plains of Abraham where the Ross factory was and all signs of it are gone. This is a good old Canadian military manufacturing tradition that continues to the present; designing or building something for the military on a green field manufacturing site at a high cost with lots of political footballs ricocheting around, doing a limited production run, then decommissioning the plant and ultimately seeing it revert to a green field.
Yes, the Ross can be very accurate. But leafing thru my range log shows quite a few itty-bitty sub-MOA 100 groups from a number of M1903s, No4s, M1 Garands, M1917s, an M14, a P14, a Finn M27 Mosin, and a couple of M1896 Swedes, all in issue condition. Some of these are no doubt a gift from the gods of random bullet dispersion, but I'm still happy to claim them. The quest for MILSURP accuracy never ends. When I retired from the Army one of my resolutions, besides never living east of Manitoba again and living long enough to draw my pension for more yrs than I paid into it, was to put 5 shots into one ragged hole@ 100 yds with a MILSURP in stock condition. Thousands of rounds later I'm still working on this goal and I hope that I get there before my eyes crap out on me or I get the trembles.
Yes, the Ross can be very accurate. But leafing thru my range log shows quite a few itty-bitty sub-MOA 100 groups from a number of M1903s, No4s, M1 Garands, M1917s, an M14, a P14, a Finn M27 Mosin, and a couple of M1896 Swedes, all in issue condition. Some of these are no doubt a gift from the gods of random bullet dispersion, but I'm still happy to claim them. The quest for MILSURP accuracy never ends. When I retired from the Army one of my resolutions, besides never living east of Manitoba again and living long enough to draw my pension for more yrs than I paid into it, was to put 5 shots into one ragged hole@ 100 yds with a MILSURP in stock condition. Thousands of rounds later I'm still working on this goal and I hope that I get there before my eyes crap out on me or I get the trembles.
Weirdo stuff I've read:
- The Ross barrel was made out of chrome-molybdenum (I think); the article said the only other thing being made of it at the time were Ford truck springs, and he was adamant this was why Rosses shot so well. The guy was quoting a target series shot with a clamped Ross barrel that put all shots into a 6.5" circle at 1,000 yds.
The biggest compliment I read on Rosses was that although the average Canuck tended to leave his Ross in the mud next to the first dead Tommy who'd still had his Enfield, they were highly prized as snipers - by both sides.
The Ross book notes that the last international competition won by a Ross was the Running Boar in 1956, and the last person maimed by one was in a quarry near Kentville, NS in 1986. I attended the pre-view for the local annual hunting-season gun auction 35 years ago (when they still had such things) and found a Ross in original, unpinned dangerous condition; I did a brief twist and re-set the bolt. I'd'a given my eye-teeth to own it, but I had to work the day of the auction.
One of the big challenges the Ross had was that it was assembled by whatever unskilled labour could be lured to the factory in the middle of a hot conscription, and the metallurgy occasionally went by the wayside - which could result in soft bolt-heads. When the metallurgy was right, the Ross was unbelievably strong. I read in the Ross book of one test the armourers ran on a Ross; they jammed a bullet into the throat, chambered a complete round (i.e. with a bullet of its own) behind it and touched it off - they showed a picture of the remaining chunks of an Enfield they tried this on, the Ross fired it no problem. The armourers also assembled a couple cartridges with 44gr of Bullseye for powder - the Ross would fire these normally.
One design flaw they addressed was that the bolt stop was too small; under the impetus of rapid firing, continually reefing the bolt back against the stop would bend the back lug of the bolt head, and then needless to say this would wedge real solidly into the lock-up and your Ross has just quit. They cured this by making the bolt stop bigger, so more of the back locking lug hit against it, spreading-out the impact.
- The Ross barrel was made out of chrome-molybdenum (I think); the article said the only other thing being made of it at the time were Ford truck springs, and he was adamant this was why Rosses shot so well. The guy was quoting a target series shot with a clamped Ross barrel that put all shots into a 6.5" circle at 1,000 yds.
The biggest compliment I read on Rosses was that although the average Canuck tended to leave his Ross in the mud next to the first dead Tommy who'd still had his Enfield, they were highly prized as snipers - by both sides.
The Ross book notes that the last international competition won by a Ross was the Running Boar in 1956, and the last person maimed by one was in a quarry near Kentville, NS in 1986. I attended the pre-view for the local annual hunting-season gun auction 35 years ago (when they still had such things) and found a Ross in original, unpinned dangerous condition; I did a brief twist and re-set the bolt. I'd'a given my eye-teeth to own it, but I had to work the day of the auction.
One of the big challenges the Ross had was that it was assembled by whatever unskilled labour could be lured to the factory in the middle of a hot conscription, and the metallurgy occasionally went by the wayside - which could result in soft bolt-heads. When the metallurgy was right, the Ross was unbelievably strong. I read in the Ross book of one test the armourers ran on a Ross; they jammed a bullet into the throat, chambered a complete round (i.e. with a bullet of its own) behind it and touched it off - they showed a picture of the remaining chunks of an Enfield they tried this on, the Ross fired it no problem. The armourers also assembled a couple cartridges with 44gr of Bullseye for powder - the Ross would fire these normally.
One design flaw they addressed was that the bolt stop was too small; under the impetus of rapid firing, continually reefing the bolt back against the stop would bend the back lug of the bolt head, and then needless to say this would wedge real solidly into the lock-up and your Ross has just quit. They cured this by making the bolt stop bigger, so more of the back locking lug hit against it, spreading-out the impact.
