the snipers liked them.
The Ross Straightpull Rifle M-1905 and M-1910
- Thread starter Drachenblut
- Start date
the snipers liked them.
Most if not all of that was forced on Ross by Canadian Government committees.
That wasn't the rifle he wanted to build.
The .280 Military Match would have been an awesome weapon, that was his heart's desire. But it wasn't to be.
The .280 Military Match.
Just absolutely WOW!
I have seen two of them and have been mightily privileged to handle one which was (literally) unfired. Absolutely incredible piece of equipment; there just are no other words.
Thing that really gets me is that Canada, and Canadians, could build something like THAT a hundred years ago..... and today we're making overpriced die-cast copies of a 53-year-old American design.... and spending tons more money on a sniping rifle (albeit a good one) when we had a rifle that would do the job, a century ago.
As Sidney the Profound (my drunken Egyptian wizard) would say, "Oh, HUMANS!"
Just absolutely WOW!
I have seen two of them and have been mightily privileged to handle one which was (literally) unfired. Absolutely incredible piece of equipment; there just are no other words.
Thing that really gets me is that Canada, and Canadians, could build something like THAT a hundred years ago..... and today we're making overpriced die-cast copies of a 53-year-old American design.... and spending tons more money on a sniping rifle (albeit a good one) when we had a rifle that would do the job, a century ago.
As Sidney the Profound (my drunken Egyptian wizard) would say, "Oh, HUMANS!"
Hi, guys, I'm back!
I have taken my morning bottle of Prozac, washed down with another of rum. Now I can begin to address these considerations.
Claven 2 has done a good job in identifying the bolt-stop as the culprit in so many of the problems with the Mark III Ross in field service. The thing was too small and it did pein. As well, it offered too little impact area for the left-rear locking-lug and so, when people started kicking the bolt-handles back on this piece of PRECISION equipment, there was metal deformation. Try slamming a Mauser bolt backward with a boot-heel: I'll betcha something will give out, sooner or later. As soon as Ross discovered the problem, a brand-new bolt-stop was designed and rushed into production. Enough were made for the entire Canadian Corps and rushed to the troops without charge. This new bolt-stop could be fitted to a rifle quite quickly and it offered about double the impact area for the left-rear bolt lug. This did away with the peining problem completely. Rifles with the modified bolt-stop are in the overwhelming majority today (I just looked at 9 ex-military rifles and they all have it, although my sporter, of course, does not). If you are buying a Ross today, your chances of running into this problem are somewhere between 'nil' and 'extremely faint'.
However, this did not address the damage to the left-rear lugs, so a fresh supply of bolt-heads was made and sent, these ones being specially tested to assure adequate hardness. It must be remembered that the Government of Canada refused to designate the Ross Rifle Company as a defence-critical facility: Ross had a tremendous staff changeover as people showed up, worked long enough to get some training and then went South to where the American plants were paying more money. Ross's factory was, essentially, a training-field for Winchester and Remington employees who were working on the P-'14 project.
A deformed left-rear lug WILL impede the operation of the rifle. I once obtained a Bubba Ross with a deformed left-rear lug that was so bad that I had to use a block of wood for a drift and hammer the bolt out of the rifle. The bolt-sleeve was bent so badly from abuse that the bolt would no longer reciprocate at all and had to be forged back into shape. Once the sleeve was straightened and the bolt-head was replaced with a new factory spare which I happened to have lying around, the rifle worked fine; there had been NO deformation of the vital INTERNAL lugs in the action. This was the ONLY military rifle I have encountered which had this kind of damage and I am quite certain that this damage was inflicted long after the war, as the rifle had been used for a number of years for hunting before finally being discarded. BTW, this is the ONLY military 1910 I have run into which still had the original bolt-stop. Today, it works fine.
As to chamber dimensions, Ross used the drawings which he had obtained from ENFIELD, so his specifications were identical to theirs. The problem arose from the fact that the Ross action simply was so incredibly heavy in the locking area. A Lee action, on undergoing Proof, actually stretches the chamber .002" bigger in diameter; this is why Lee-Enfield barrels are so darned easy to put on... and so utterly miserable to remove. With the massive Ross action, this expansion of the chamber did not take place, which left the rifles with relatively-tight chambers. Normally, this would not have been a problem, as Lee-Enfield chambers already were known to be a bit loose. But nobody told this to Ross or to any of his people, so the rifles went out with tight chambers. This was fine with Ross, as a tight chamber was (and is) known to produce better accuracy. Later, after the rifles had been used with ammunition which had failed Proof, this became a problem and the Ross chambers were reamed larger, often disastrously so.
This is often used as a criticism of the Ross, but if you look carefully at many Lee-Enfields (and ALL of them after the middle of the War) you will see an "LC" stamp. This indicates a larger 'cone' or chamber and it became standard about the middle of the War.... because of bum ammo..... but nobody ever bothers to mention this tiny, little, unimportant, insignificant FACT.
And then there is the 'lack of extraction power' argument. This is a common argument against ANY straight-pull rifle. All I will say there is that likely I have had a Ross Rifle as hot as any living person... and I have had no troubles. Of course, I DO make sure that my bolts are lubricated properly inside.
Captain George Dibblee, DCM, 5th Battalion, Canadian Mounted Rifles, was a cowboy before the Great War and had extensive firearms experience. When he quit being a cowboy, he worked for the NWMP as a guide. He joined the CMR right after the outbreak of the War and worked himself from Private to Captain. He received his DCM for Regina Trench and he was there the day that (later) General Pearkes won his VC. He knew what he was talking about. He told me (after I queried him specifically about this) that, "The Ross Rifle was UNPOPULAR due to its length and weight. You couldn't get into a dugout with your rifle slung. In our outfit, we had NO trouble with the Ross. But then, we kept our rifles CLEAN, unlike some outfits where equipment was never cleaned."
I would think that this statement, along with the certain knowledge that (a) Ross had virtually no support from the Government, and (b) everything was done as quickly as possible to remedy relatively small defects which grew to big defects through abuse, pretty much sums things up.
We must remember always that the 1910 Ross entered field service in the War without having undergone a full-scale field trial which would have revealed its problems. The SMLE, in contrast, was a design which had specifically been manufactured for 7 years already without change, and which, in its essentials, dated back to 1888. There had been LOTS of time to remedy perceived problems with the SMLE, NONE to do the same job with the Ross, which had only entered production in 1912 and which had not been available in sufficient numbers at the 1913 Militia Concentration for a full-fledged field trial.
I think that, considering this, the Ross was a pretty darned good rifle. It HAD to be, or we would not be here, 98 years later, still arguing its pros and cons. And there's STILL nothing short of an AI to rival it in sheer accuracy.
That says a lot, right there.
I have taken my morning bottle of Prozac, washed down with another of rum. Now I can begin to address these considerations.
Claven 2 has done a good job in identifying the bolt-stop as the culprit in so many of the problems with the Mark III Ross in field service. The thing was too small and it did pein. As well, it offered too little impact area for the left-rear locking-lug and so, when people started kicking the bolt-handles back on this piece of PRECISION equipment, there was metal deformation. Try slamming a Mauser bolt backward with a boot-heel: I'll betcha something will give out, sooner or later. As soon as Ross discovered the problem, a brand-new bolt-stop was designed and rushed into production. Enough were made for the entire Canadian Corps and rushed to the troops without charge. This new bolt-stop could be fitted to a rifle quite quickly and it offered about double the impact area for the left-rear bolt lug. This did away with the peining problem completely. Rifles with the modified bolt-stop are in the overwhelming majority today (I just looked at 9 ex-military rifles and they all have it, although my sporter, of course, does not). If you are buying a Ross today, your chances of running into this problem are somewhere between 'nil' and 'extremely faint'.
However, this did not address the damage to the left-rear lugs, so a fresh supply of bolt-heads was made and sent, these ones being specially tested to assure adequate hardness. It must be remembered that the Government of Canada refused to designate the Ross Rifle Company as a defence-critical facility: Ross had a tremendous staff changeover as people showed up, worked long enough to get some training and then went South to where the American plants were paying more money. Ross's factory was, essentially, a training-field for Winchester and Remington employees who were working on the P-'14 project.
A deformed left-rear lug WILL impede the operation of the rifle. I once obtained a Bubba Ross with a deformed left-rear lug that was so bad that I had to use a block of wood for a drift and hammer the bolt out of the rifle. The bolt-sleeve was bent so badly from abuse that the bolt would no longer reciprocate at all and had to be forged back into shape. Once the sleeve was straightened and the bolt-head was replaced with a new factory spare which I happened to have lying around, the rifle worked fine; there had been NO deformation of the vital INTERNAL lugs in the action. This was the ONLY military rifle I have encountered which had this kind of damage and I am quite certain that this damage was inflicted long after the war, as the rifle had been used for a number of years for hunting before finally being discarded. BTW, this is the ONLY military 1910 I have run into which still had the original bolt-stop. Today, it works fine.
As to chamber dimensions, Ross used the drawings which he had obtained from ENFIELD, so his specifications were identical to theirs. The problem arose from the fact that the Ross action simply was so incredibly heavy in the locking area. A Lee action, on undergoing Proof, actually stretches the chamber .002" bigger in diameter; this is why Lee-Enfield barrels are so darned easy to put on... and so utterly miserable to remove. With the massive Ross action, this expansion of the chamber did not take place, which left the rifles with relatively-tight chambers. Normally, this would not have been a problem, as Lee-Enfield chambers already were known to be a bit loose. But nobody told this to Ross or to any of his people, so the rifles went out with tight chambers. This was fine with Ross, as a tight chamber was (and is) known to produce better accuracy. Later, after the rifles had been used with ammunition which had failed Proof, this became a problem and the Ross chambers were reamed larger, often disastrously so.
This is often used as a criticism of the Ross, but if you look carefully at many Lee-Enfields (and ALL of them after the middle of the War) you will see an "LC" stamp. This indicates a larger 'cone' or chamber and it became standard about the middle of the War.... because of bum ammo..... but nobody ever bothers to mention this tiny, little, unimportant, insignificant FACT.
And then there is the 'lack of extraction power' argument. This is a common argument against ANY straight-pull rifle. All I will say there is that likely I have had a Ross Rifle as hot as any living person... and I have had no troubles. Of course, I DO make sure that my bolts are lubricated properly inside.
Captain George Dibblee, DCM, 5th Battalion, Canadian Mounted Rifles, was a cowboy before the Great War and had extensive firearms experience. When he quit being a cowboy, he worked for the NWMP as a guide. He joined the CMR right after the outbreak of the War and worked himself from Private to Captain. He received his DCM for Regina Trench and he was there the day that (later) General Pearkes won his VC. He knew what he was talking about. He told me (after I queried him specifically about this) that, "The Ross Rifle was UNPOPULAR due to its length and weight. You couldn't get into a dugout with your rifle slung. In our outfit, we had NO trouble with the Ross. But then, we kept our rifles CLEAN, unlike some outfits where equipment was never cleaned."
I would think that this statement, along with the certain knowledge that (a) Ross had virtually no support from the Government, and (b) everything was done as quickly as possible to remedy relatively small defects which grew to big defects through abuse, pretty much sums things up.
We must remember always that the 1910 Ross entered field service in the War without having undergone a full-scale field trial which would have revealed its problems. The SMLE, in contrast, was a design which had specifically been manufactured for 7 years already without change, and which, in its essentials, dated back to 1888. There had been LOTS of time to remedy perceived problems with the SMLE, NONE to do the same job with the Ross, which had only entered production in 1912 and which had not been available in sufficient numbers at the 1913 Militia Concentration for a full-fledged field trial.
I think that, considering this, the Ross was a pretty darned good rifle. It HAD to be, or we would not be here, 98 years later, still arguing its pros and cons. And there's STILL nothing short of an AI to rival it in sheer accuracy.
That says a lot, right there.
Last edited:
Are you sure it's an LC stamp? Do you not mean the HV/SC stamps on the barrels? SC = "short cone" modified. It wa sa change in the chamber dimensions to make Enfields compatible with MkVII and MzVIIIz ammo. Or maybe I'm just having a brain fart and mixing the two up?
Fragile: You're thinking of the MkII. The MkIII was not very fragile at all - the word "tank" comes to mind.
Rear sight: Which one? The Ross was made with at least 6 different sights which evolved throughout the war. Some were elaborate, others less so. None were much more elaborate than a No.4Mk1 singer sight
Magazine: Tyhe MkII mag was pretty complex, but the MkIII mag is no more complex than a Mauser or SMLE...?
Length: Got me there, though it should be noted the Ross with bayo is the same length as an SMLE with bayo...
Extraction power: The Enfield is NOT noted for its extractor power either as it's not a cam-assisted extraction like on a Mauser or P14. At least the Ross had controlled round feeding, unlike the SMLE.
The left locking lug on the Lee action operates in a cam and provides great primary extraction power.
The MkIII Ross mag cannot be field stripped for cleaning unlike the SMLE, GEW98 and other arms useing a Mauser style mag, and the M-N. In fact it appears to be a permanent assembly.
The Ross Battle Aperture Sight as fitted to the MkIII has a battle sight set for 500 yd way beyond the ranges at which a battle sight would be used in trench combat. The elevation and windage adjustments are not secured and a touch will change their setting. The sight lacks guards like on the SMLE or P14 making it vulnerable to damage. A WWi vet told me they were told to only use the battle sight only and not the aperture and to aim low.
The MkIII Ross mag cannot be field stripped for cleaning unlike the SMLE, GEW98 and other arms useing a Mauser style mag, and the M-N. In fact it appears to be a permanent assembly.
The Ross Battle Aperture Sight as fitted to the MkIII has a battle sight set for 500 yd way beyond the ranges at which a battle sight would be used in trench combat. The elevation and windage adjustments are not secured and a touch will change their setting. The sight lacks guards like on the SMLE or P14 making it vulnerable to damage. A WWi vet told me they were told to only use the battle sight only and not the aperture and to aim low.
No, I'm talking about the sight on the Mk.III None of the ones I've had have worked properly, in one case because someone had dropped it and bent the sight, in another because the worm wheel threads have been hammered by folding down on the receiver. I'd be ashamed to turn out workmanship like the one I'm using now.
The last one I owned jammed if you put more than three rounds in it. It appeared to be impracticable to try to take the mag apart - certainly in the field.
One of mine had the big one, and one did not. I know someone else here who's got one with the small stop as well.
LC is the Large Chamber stamp you see on some Rosses. SC is the mark on most surviving Sht LE barrels.
They did have trouble with poor ammunition with Enfields as well initially. Poor quality control in ammo can be expected in wartime.
It sounds like you had a rather poor example of the Ross MkIII. Much like some of the crap MkIII*'s Ishapore made, I suppose the odd Ross was a lemon as well.
One thing I will say though, the Enfield was proved to 18.5 Tons, the Ross to 28 Tons. Now that is impressive even by today's standards. And that is not theoretical proof, that's the old copper crush method!
One thing I will say though, the Enfield was proved to 18.5 Tons, the Ross to 28 Tons. Now that is impressive even by today's standards. And that is not theoretical proof, that's the old copper crush method!
It should be mentioned that the pressures in both cases are
(a) Imperial Long Tons of 2240 lbs each, and
(b) WORKING pressures, not Proof pressures.
Proof pressure was much higher.
So that is 41,440 lbs versus 62,720 lbs actual WORKING pressure. There was no selection of actions for the .280: they just used what came off the line. They were ALL that strong, it's just that each action was proofed for the round the rifle was being made for.
Gotta admit, that's pretty impressive even today.
As to finding unaltered Ross bolt-stops in England, yes, that's the one place it would be likely to find them. The mods were done in France.
And they're still fun!
(a) Imperial Long Tons of 2240 lbs each, and
(b) WORKING pressures, not Proof pressures.
Proof pressure was much higher.
So that is 41,440 lbs versus 62,720 lbs actual WORKING pressure. There was no selection of actions for the .280: they just used what came off the line. They were ALL that strong, it's just that each action was proofed for the round the rifle was being made for.
Gotta admit, that's pretty impressive even today.
As to finding unaltered Ross bolt-stops in England, yes, that's the one place it would be likely to find them. The mods were done in France.
And they're still fun!
Last edited:
Odd about the sights, though.
I agree that they should have had protecting wings or something. The Mark III* which was made for England did have such. This would have shown up before the War, had there been rifles and time for a proper trial.
As to the battle sight, it was no worse than the battle sight on the US Springfield Model of 1903, which was set at 547 yards. At least, with the Ross, you had the option of using the aperture sight, which COULD be set for shorter ranges and works very well indeed when so set. The Ross Battle Aperture Sight as fitted to the Mark III has two scales: one in hundreds of yards (with intermediate markings, of course) and one in minutes of muzzle elevation. The drift-adjustable aperture, though, could be a little tighter, but this varies with age and wear and rust and dirt. It's hard, at this remove in time, to say what they were like when new., although I do suspect that they didn't creep about all by themselves.
I agree that they should have had protecting wings or something. The Mark III* which was made for England did have such. This would have shown up before the War, had there been rifles and time for a proper trial.
As to the battle sight, it was no worse than the battle sight on the US Springfield Model of 1903, which was set at 547 yards. At least, with the Ross, you had the option of using the aperture sight, which COULD be set for shorter ranges and works very well indeed when so set. The Ross Battle Aperture Sight as fitted to the Mark III has two scales: one in hundreds of yards (with intermediate markings, of course) and one in minutes of muzzle elevation. The drift-adjustable aperture, though, could be a little tighter, but this varies with age and wear and rust and dirt. It's hard, at this remove in time, to say what they were like when new., although I do suspect that they didn't creep about all by themselves.
longbranch*
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Victoria,BC.
Chamber
Believe it states in the RRS somewhere that chambers stamped LC were reamed "over there" while those stamped with E were done at factory in Canada.
Geoff
Believe it states in the RRS somewhere that chambers stamped LC were reamed "over there" while those stamped with E were done at factory in Canada.
Geoff
The Ross is a story of what might have been with adequate field testing and refinement prior to being used in the trenches. It is but one of a number of illustrations of how promising Canadian designs never made the grade because of small domestic demand and economies of scale, a cold R&D and industrial base which meant longer lead times and higher costs, abundant supplies of foreign equipment, and the imperative of commonality with allied logistics systems.
This has been the story of our military equipment procurement through history and remains the case today. Current examples are our Italian/ Austrian/American licence built trucks, German tanks, and various foreign designed small arms and crew served weapons. About the only exception that comes to mind is the Canadian LAV armoured vehicle which is only a viable production possibility because sales to the USMC have lowered the unit cost and kept a warm R&D and production base for the past 25 yrs. Another exception are the Canadian designed patrol frigates (CPF) which came at a fearsome cost due to the need to re-create a design and ship building capability from scratch-something we tend to do about every 20-25 yrs. In the case of the CPF programe politics prevailed and we ate the huge costs necessary to make the ships in our defunct Quebec and maritime shipyards.
Back to the Ross. The bottom line was that it was a miserable failure as a service rifle. For a variety of reasons it failed the test of combat. I always enjoyed them on the range, but they are long and unwieldy, and butt-ugly to boot!
This has been the story of our military equipment procurement through history and remains the case today. Current examples are our Italian/ Austrian/American licence built trucks, German tanks, and various foreign designed small arms and crew served weapons. About the only exception that comes to mind is the Canadian LAV armoured vehicle which is only a viable production possibility because sales to the USMC have lowered the unit cost and kept a warm R&D and production base for the past 25 yrs. Another exception are the Canadian designed patrol frigates (CPF) which came at a fearsome cost due to the need to re-create a design and ship building capability from scratch-something we tend to do about every 20-25 yrs. In the case of the CPF programe politics prevailed and we ate the huge costs necessary to make the ships in our defunct Quebec and maritime shipyards.
Back to the Ross. The bottom line was that it was a miserable failure as a service rifle. For a variety of reasons it failed the test of combat. I always enjoyed them on the range, but they are long and unwieldy, and butt-ugly to boot!
The Ross Mk III would have worked very well if we could have issued our in spec Canadian made ammo to our troops with them.
If the government had bought the chamber cleaning sticks Ross came up with as well, couldn't have hurt.
Unfortunately, the Brits found our ammo so good that they issued it to their guys, and gave us the oversized crap that jammed their guns too.
If the government had bought the chamber cleaning sticks Ross came up with as well, couldn't have hurt.
Unfortunately, the Brits found our ammo so good that they issued it to their guys, and gave us the oversized crap that jammed their guns too.
- Location
- Smithers, B.C.
It is great to see such a discussion here! I have learned so much from the debate. It seems to me, what I shall do, with my love of carbines, is find a sportered Ross Mk.III 1910, with a cut barrel, and see if I can splice some wood on, and maybe Mannlicher forestock it, after all, I understand Mr. Ross and Herr Mannlicher debated on the design. If you look at a M95 Bolt and a Ross 1905 Bolt, you can see clear lines of heritage there. Don't give me any "the Swiss had it" as they used Mannlicher's design too! All the same, a great gun is the Ross, if I get a sporter and mod it to a "Canadian Carbine" I will post it up for all the collectors, who have 2500 dollars in their pockets, to lose their lunch.
Ah yes, Kevwat's Frankenross! A very nice rifle. That would have been a fine service rifle.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=219871&highlight=ross
- Location
- Smithers, B.C.
Wow! I would love to do one like that. Any tips how?
It is great to see such a discussion here! I have learned so much from the debate. It seems to me, what I shall do, with my love of carbines, is find a sportered Ross Mk.III 1910, with a cut barrel, and see if I can splice some wood on, and maybe Mannlicher forestock it, after all, I understand Mr. Ross and Herr Mannlicher debated on the design. If you look at a M95 Bolt and a Ross 1905 Bolt, you can see clear lines of heritage there. Don't give me any "the Swiss had it" as they used Mannlicher's design too! All the same, a great gun is the Ross, if I get a sporter and mod it to a "Canadian Carbine" I will post it up for all the collectors, who have 2500 dollars in their pockets, to lose their lunch.
There is a Ross at the gun shows, an older gent has been dragging it from show to show. He or someone made a custom stock with longitudinal grooves and a Mannlicher style stock. A very nice piece of work. It's sitting at $425.
It's more of a fancy sporter than a mil style like Kevwat's.
I wonder where the REAL one went to? Ross made one up with a 26-inch barrel and woodwork that would fit the brackets on the artillery limbers, offered it to the Gummint. They said 'No", of course, even though the Army really wanted them.
Every conceivable obstacle was put in the path of the Ross Rifle, It is no small miracle that it stumbled and fell. The miracle is that it still was so good, and had such possibility, that we are still debating about it now, a century after the patents were issued, 98 years after the pilot models were constructed.
Says SOMETHING for the old girl, anyway.
And I REALLY want one like that!
Every conceivable obstacle was put in the path of the Ross Rifle, It is no small miracle that it stumbled and fell. The miracle is that it still was so good, and had such possibility, that we are still debating about it now, a century after the patents were issued, 98 years after the pilot models were constructed.
Says SOMETHING for the old girl, anyway.
And I REALLY want one like that!
