I purchased a Ross Mdle. 1905 today. Spent about an hour cleaning it before heading out to the range. Plenty grimy. Shot great. I had never messed with a straight pull rifle until today. I thought it was more fun than a lever gun! This was a .303 gun. Shot plenty straight. Goes through ammunition rapido. Anyone else fool with one of these rifles?

I have picked one up plenty of times at auction. They were very well made, I guess the Canucks are good for something!

Caution, however when taking them apart because IIRC, this was a rifle that if the bolt was reassembled incorrectly, it would send it back through your face, totally ruining your day.

Hopefully someone can say I'm wrong on that one.

-Spencer

quote:

Originally posted by ShopCartRacing:
I have picked one up plenty of times at auction. They were very well made, I guess the Canucks are good for something!

Caution, however when taking them apart because IIRC, this was a rifle that if the bolt was reassembled incorrectly, it would send it back through your face, totally ruining your day.

Hopefully someone can say I'm wrong on that one.

-Spencer

Only one model of the Ross has a bolt that can be reassembled incorrectly. If this happens, the bolt head fails to rotate into the locked position when the bolt is closed. I don't recall which model it is.

BUT, if you realise that the bolt head has to rotate to the locked position when you close it, only an idiot would fail to see that that did not happen (unless, in the heat of battle, it was overlooked!!).

If one knows rifles, one can make sure the bolt locks properly when it is pushed into battery!!

The Ross was a failure as a miliotary weapon, but is a great sporting rifle. I would love to have a nice Ross .303!

quote:

BUT, if you realise that the bolt head has to rotate to the locked position when you close it, only an idiot would fail to see that that did not happen

Yes true...and there was a few idiots during the war.

IIRC the guns that did this were .280 Ross chambered and not .303 Brit.

This is good to know as it might be helpful to someone that don't know of the history of the Canadian rifle.

The Model 1905 Ross rifle, actually invented by a Scot, is safe enough to fire, given reasonable condition. However, the Model 1910 bolt can be improperly assembled and then drive back into the shooter's skull upon firing, this is not good for your composure and can affect your groups.....

The problems experienced at early WWI battles by the heroic men of the "Old Red Patch", the First Canadian Infantry Division, with issue Ross rifles were, in part only, due to design; the major cause of this was inferior ammunition produced in the U.S.A. on contract for the Canadian Expeditionary Force. When we used superior British issue .303, most of the problems ceased to exist.....hardly surprising.

Then, we led the B.E.F. to victory when we broke the Hindenburg Line, using Lee-Enfields which we should have had at the outset. I wouldn't own a Ross rifle and a lot of other Canucks whose people fought and died with them feel the same way. Personally, I would rather have a "Tommygun", god being on the side of the, etc....

quote:

The problems experienced at early WWI battles by the heroic men of the "Old Red Patch", the First Canadian Infantry Division, with issue Ross rifles were, in part only, due to design; the major cause of this was inferior ammunition produced in the U.S.A. on contract for the Canadian Expeditionary Force. When we used superior British issue .303, most of the problems ceased to exist.....hardly surprising.

Well, at least you have to admit that the Tommygun was not a Canadian innovation......

BTW, IF it was an ammo problem, why are you so against the rifle? And why did you issue "Smellies" to replace them, if "the problem had ceased to exist"??

Thet jus dun makeno sense, nither.......

The "Tommygun" was one of the truely great American inventions in the firearms field, along with the Colt 1911, the .45ACP and the Win. 1886/71 rifle(s). Damn right I don't like the Ross design because a battle rifle should function flawlessly and it didn't; it was too long for trench warfare and not sufficiently rugged. It was like using a contemporary American production sporter for a DGR, instead of one of the superb examples made by Winchester, Savage, Remingon and so forth in the '50s. Much the same is true of rifles now made in Europe and I prefer stuff that works, regardless of who makes it.

The "Smelly" did the job and still does, even an illiterate Afgan ragtop can't break one and they copy them, too.

BTW, nice try with the small, but, meaningful misquote..........

quote:

The "Tommygun" was one of the truely great American inventions in the firearms field,

As far as military shoulder weapons goes this is possibly the single best thing ever put in the hands of a soldier. Millions of them was given to the Russians and they loved them. One could have an entire thread over military shoulder weapons but the Italians, French, and Mexicans probably won't post very often.

quote:

Originally posted by kutenay:
..."the major cause of this was inferior ammunition produced in the U.S.A. on contract for the Canadian Expeditionary Force. When we used superior British issue .303, most of the problems ceased to exist.....hardly surprising."


Actually, Canadian Forces archives show it to be the Brit ammo which was the problem, not the
Yankee ammo. The Brit ammo was basically too large for the Ross chamber. Forced in, along with a bit of gritty mud, carbon, and other grime, it was often almost impossible to extract after being fired.

Many of the not-very-knowledgeable unit armourers in the line units blamed the bolt stop, the locking lug arrangement, etc., but the primary problem as tested later by the pros, was determined to be oversized wartime production ammo issued by the Brits for the rather "generously chambered" Smellies. The other items may have contributed a bit, but were not the basic problem according to CF documents.
---------------------------------------------



Then, we led the B.E.F. to victory when we broke the Hindenburg Line, using Lee-Enfields which we should have had at the outset. I wouldn't own a Ross rifle and a lot of other Canucks whose people fought and died with them feel the same way. Personally, I would rather have a "Tommygun", god being on the side of the, etc....

To each his own as far as whether they would own a Ross or not. The Ross of W.W.I was the Model 1910, which used a multi-segmental-lug locking arrangement. The Model 1905 is an entirely different animal, with two big solid lugs. I used a 1905 .303 Ross with commercial ammo and my own handloads for aout 10 years in the North, and it never did anything but kill what it was pointed at...very reliably too.

I think that the initial ammo used in these was American, although you are correct in your comments about SOME British ammo issue, you do not cite your sources; my info. comes from Dancocks, Granatstein, Morton and other Canadian historians. My point was simply that the comments about Canucks, etc, were not only not factual, but, some Yankee products also were/are less than stellar....and our performance in WWI was "the pride and honour of the Royal Army" and greatly exceeded that, on a per capita basis, of other Allied nations, certainly the USA.

Oddly enough, I am a Canadian who is PROUD to be one and I have zero patience with loudmouths who presume to make negative remarks about Canada. The fact is that Canada is the BEST country on Earth and always will be!

quote:

Oddly enough, I am a Canadian who is PROUD to be one and I have zero patience with loudmouths who presume to make negative remarks about Canada. The fact is that Canada is the BEST country on Earth and always will be!

We (U.S.) certainly had enough problems with our ammo, as well. Most of the failures of the "low-numbered" Springfields were due to the use of faulty government ammo (soft brass) that permitted gas to get into the brittle receivers and make them burst.

You certainly have plenty to be proud of, as Canada has some of the most beautiful country left on the earth-as does Alaska!

But it seems to me that you also have some liberal politicians in charge of things, at least in some provinces, that are trying their best to ruin it for you. Of course, so do we!!

Having lived enough years n each country to q

Having lived in each country long enough to qualify at least twice for each nation's social insurance pension (social security in the U.S.) , I hope maybe I have a pretty fair view of both. Each has it's own advantages , strong, and weak points. Neither has the highest standard of living in the world for the "average" resident. Nor has either a very good quality of national level politicians, in my view.

At any rate, it is important to note that the ammunition made for the Brits by U.S. manufacturers was made to Brit specs, within Brit established tolerances, and was inspected (and accepted) by Brit inspectors before shipment to Britain in WWI (and WW II).

As always, the Brits didn't bust their butts over the well-being of the "Colonials" they suckered into one of their Royal Family in-fighting wars, whether Gurhka, Anzac, South African, or Canadian, including the quality of ammo provided to them.

As to sources, I refer you to MOD/CF forces archives of the period. You can go to Ottawa and peruse them at your leisure, as I have done. I did not write down specific citations, as I never envsioned needing them for this conversation when I was last there 25 years ago.

The easiest thing to get hold of today is the video-tape "Vimy, Making of a Nation", produced and distributed at least partially for the various Canadian "Service Institutes" such as RAUSI (Royal Alberta United Services Institute) or its B.C. or Saskatchewan equivalents. In that tape, which is a brief history of Canadian Armed Forces efforts in W.W. I, you will see/hear a discussion of the Ross controversy, the politicians involved, and how it ended up costing the Canadian Minister of War his cabinet position. The content of the tape also is taken primarily from Canadian MOD (Ministry of Defence) archives.

BTW, Roger Phillips, co-author of the definitive book and standard reference work "The Ross Rifle Story" was one of my neighbors when I lived for a few years in Regina. He and I knew each other well enough that we went the 500 miles each way to a Calgary Gun Show or two together in my car. ("Those were the days, my friend..." as the song goes.)

Best wishes,

AC

The salient point is that the ammo was American, as I said, however, this problem was not confined to any of the combatant nation's supplies, check into the Canadian boots, webbing and so forth.

I am not really much of a video watcher, the lying BS of the popular "The Valour and the Horror" by the scumbag McKenna brothers ruined my appreciation of popular historians or wannabe historians. I am fairly well versed in Canadian History as relatives and friends of mine are history grads; one of them was a close friend of his grandfather's law partner, Cec Merritt, a name I am sure you recognize.

So, I tend to go to original documents and even verify my readings from even the eminent Canadian historians I cited as I do not take my country's history lightly, given the length of time my family has been here. Anyway, I would still rather have a Tommy gun than a Ross, Mod. 1905 or 1910!

BTW, the Canadian Minister of War you refer to, Major-General Sir Samuel Hughes, was my great=grandmother's first cousin; his younger brother Lachlan commanded the brigade that my grandfather, a Captain, served in for a time and Major-General Garnet Hughes also was involved somehow, for awhile. My grandmother explained all of this to me in 1962 and I have read about some of it since; as I understand it, the Ross Rifle was only ONE of Sam Hughe's errors leading to his eventual removal, he was a very important force in founding the C.E.F., but, he was a whacko and Borden was right to get rid of him.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kutenay:
The salient point is that the ammo was American, as I said]


I am sorry, but I believe we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The salient point as I see it is that the ammo was made to Brit design standards and issued by the Brits to Canadians whose rifles were NOT designed to take ammo of those dimensions. It would not have mattered if it was all made in Buckingham Palace, given those specs.

I have gathered some interesting info on the Ross. An old friend of mine had one and we used to shoot a lot. It was super accurate and in new condition.

The 303

quote:

Originally posted by kutenay:

Then, we led the B.E.F. to victory when we broke the Hindenburg Line,

Kutenay,

I agree with the sentiment of your post but would point out that to be in a position to do this was down to the BEF and French holding on for 3.5years.

We often overlook the contribution of the French. They did have a huge section of the line and did fight a campaign (Verdun) that I think was bloodier than the 3 battles of Ypres.

I have a Ross, .303 chambering. I haven't shot it yet, though. I need some small parts to the butt trap. Anybody have any idea where they might be obtained?

A bit of relevant information regards the Ross Rifle debate: This is a quote from the materiel in my library, and is the text of a communique from one who was in a position to know the facts of the situation:

"From: Field Marshall Commanding-in-Chief, B.E.F.,
Sir John French

To: War Ofice, London, General Headquarters,
12th June, 1915,

In continuation of my telegram No. Q-37 dated 11th inst. I have the honour to transmit for the information of the Army Council a copy of a report submitted by a committee appointed to make certain tests in order to ascertain whether repeated complaints which had reached me regarding the Ross rifle were justified.

It will be seen from the report of the committee that while this rifle works smoothly and well with ammunition of Canadian manufacture it is very liable to jamb when using ammunition of English make.

I intend shortly to employ the Canadian division in an offensive operation and as there is no supply of Canadian ammunition immediately available, I have decided that, in view of of a definite statement made by the committee and the reports I have received of a want of confidence in their rifles on the part of the infantry of this formation, it is necessary immediately to re-arm the Canadian division with the Lee-Enfield rifle. Instructions have been issued for this to be done at once, utilizing for the purpose the rifles referred to in my letter No. O.A. 2-99 G, dated 8th June, 1915.

It will not be necessary to re-arm the Second Canadian division if the necessary supplies of Small Arms Ammunition become available by the time this division is sent to France.

It is understood the trouble with the English ammunition is due to the fact that the cartridge fills the chamber so tightly as to cause a jamb.....

I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obediant servant,
J.P.D. French"

-----------------------

It is worth noting that the rifles did function well with even English-make ammo of the Mark VI design. It was the Mark VII design of cartridges which jambed the rifles, and then not until the rifle had been fired 3-8 shots and was therefore "warm" from firing.

There are a great deal more copies of this sort of correspondence available in my reference materials, but this should be enough to lay to rest the question. It likely also goes a long way to explaining how a rifle which was winning every major full-bore (high-power) international target match in the world immediately prior to The Great War proved so miserable in troops' hands in the trenches.



: