# Ross rifle good?



## The Basket (Mar 18, 2017)

I am looking at the Ross with interest. Good rifle badly built in a war that didn't suit it?
The Ross was a heavy long rifle designed for ultra long range target shooting fired prone. Like the P13, Ross believed the Boer war favoured such rifles. However poor metallurgy and poor ammo and the fact the Ross was too high class for its own good meant that mud and rain and trenches did it no favours.
So...The Ross is either the best rifle in ww1 or the worst. And both have proof of argument.
How strange is life.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 18, 2017)

.... some turned up in the Yugoslav-breakup wars, IIRC.


----------



## yulzari (Mar 18, 2017)

Ironically they dealt with all the problems just as it was being swapped out for Lee Enfields. 

The Latvians were very happy with it as their standard rifle. The Yugoslav ones were probably ex Canadian, ex Latvian, ex Soviet Union given to Yugoslavia. Target rifle standards of accuracy.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Mar 18, 2017)

A target rifle a good battle rifle ain't.
But it was up and running and finally working and then gets pulled which is ironic because it was on the front line when it wasn't working. 
The straight pull rifle certainly gets my interest and the Ross was said to have had the sweetest. 
Although the British bought more than Canada but was not use in large numbers but was used as a sniping rifle.
Even saw use in Ww2 as a home guard rifle with the British. So long lived for a failed weapon.


----------



## Milosh (Mar 20, 2017)

The Ross was converted into an automatic rifle > the Huot.
Huot Automatic Rifle - Wikipedia

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Mar 20, 2017)

Looks as though 4 or 5 Huots were built.
Although a very interesting design for sure

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Mar 31, 2017)

Just saw a show comparing the Ross to the Enfield, they were saying that ammo type was an issue plus there was a problem with the bolt that kept the popularity of the Ross down.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Apr 3, 2017)

The ammo was of poor quality than what normally fed the Ross and the metallurgy was poor so it wasn't necessarily the Ross fault but the SMLE was just a better rifle. 
Popularity of the Ross was poor because it wouldnt work! Almost the only advantage the Ross had was range and that wasn't much of an advantage in the trenches.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Apr 29, 2017)

I read somewhere the lineage of the Lee-Enfield goes back to the Krag-Jorgenson rifle, via the Lee Navy rifle.
True?


----------



## dogsbody (Apr 29, 2017)

Elvis said:


> I read somewhere the lineage of the Lee-Enfield goes back to the Krag-Jorgenson rifle, via the Lee Navy rifle.
> True?



Actually, no. Lee–Metford - Wikipedia


----------



## Elvis (Apr 29, 2017)

Ah ha!....but.....



M1885 Remington-Lee said:


> The *M1885 Remington–Lee* (also known as the M1885 Lee, and "Navy M1885") is a bolt-action, box magazine repeating rifle designed principally by James Paris Lee......The design was incorporated by the British into the Lee–Metford and Lee–Enfield rifles, thereby becoming one of the most widely used rifle designs of the 20th century.



....so maybe I'm half right? (TBH, I did call it "The Lee Navy Rifle" which is different. Apologies for the mis-quote)


----------



## Glider (Apr 29, 2017)

All I can add to this is in WW1 the Canadian troops were initially equipped with the Ross rifle but it proved unreliable and they were reequipped with the Lee Enfield as quickly as they could,
It was one of the scandles of the war that such a poor front line weapon was produced in such numbers and the front line troops paid in blood for the fortunes that the designers made.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Apr 30, 2017)

The design of the Ross wasn't that bad just it's manufacturing and the fact it turned up in a mudbath. It wasn't the ideal weapon as it was long and heavy for trenches but it was designed for the Veldt and not the Somme. Horses for courses. It was a target rifle and not suited to ww1.
The Krag is not the Lee and vice versa although in Navy service the Lee design was no where near as success in American service as British. 
Mauser was considered the gold standard and the Americans and Japanese had Mauser type rifles. The British were going to replace the Lee with the Mauser inspired P13 but couldn't because war started.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Apr 30, 2017)

Thank you Basket, I never addressed that.
I do understand now that the Krag rifle has nothing to do with the Lee-Enfield, thanks to the link that Dogsbody left in his response to my question.
I was thinking of the Lee-Remington rifle and know it was used in Naval service, but I called it "The Lee Navy Rifle" and that was wrong.


Elvis


----------



## The Basket (Apr 30, 2017)

M1895 Lee Navy rifle is certainly acceptable name unless you're talking about another rifle. The M1895 was 6mm and straight pull so was certainly different from the Lee Enfield. 6mm was the smallest calibre of a major nation until NATO 5.56mm and also rare for an American rifle was in metric. The M1885 was more similar to the British Lees and was purchase by the USN in 45-70 calibre. To my knowledge wasn't called Lee Navy as the M1895 was.


----------



## Glider (Apr 30, 2017)

The Basket said:


> The design of the Ross wasn't that bad just it's manufacturing and the fact it turned up in a mudbath. It wasn't the ideal weapon as it was long and heavy for trenches but it was designed for the Veldt and not the Somme. Horses for courses. It was a target rifle and not suited to ww1.
> The Krag is not the Lee and vice versa although in Navy service the Lee design was no where near as success in American service as British.
> Mauser was considered the gold standard and the Americans and Japanese had Mauser type rifles. The British were going to replace the Lee with the Mauser inspired P13 but couldn't because war started.



My understanding was that the design was seriously floored when used in any combat situation. Almost as soon as it entered service the Canadian troops wanted it replaced. Its certainly true that the Ross was very suseptable to jamming due to dirt but dirt is a factor that applies to any combat zone not just the Western Front. The screw system in the bolt was a major problem area.

Lieutenant Colonel Ironside (later Field Marshal) was with the Canadian troops and in his memoirs stated that he had seen Canadian troops going out into no mans land to retrieve Lee Enfields at night to replace the Ross Rifle. That alone says it all


----------



## The Basket (Apr 30, 2017)

The Ross was a hunting sporting rifle designed for ultra long range target shooting. Throw in Canadian nationalism and poor metallurgy and poor quality ammo and mud and it becomes a mess. Also the Ross was relatively new which didn't help and the gun making industry in Canada was also new. The whole thing was a perfect storm of poop. The design and mud are only part of a bigger puzzle.


----------



## Elvis (Apr 30, 2017)

The Basket said:


> M1895 Lee Navy rifle is certainly acceptable name unless you're talking about another rifle. The M1895 was 6mm and straight pull so was certainly different from the Lee Enfield. 6mm was the smallest calibre of a major nation until NATO 5.56mm and also rare for an American rifle was in metric. The M1885 was more similar to the British Lees and was purchase by the USN in 45-70 calibre. To my knowledge wasn't called Lee Navy as the M1895 was.


I was thinking of the '85 Remington-Lee Rifle. I quoted a segment from Wiki's page on that gun in an earlier post.

Elvis


----------



## The Basket (Apr 30, 2017)

Ah the M1885. You had me confused when you wrote Lee Navy. But good show as it made me think. 
As a British person, the Lee action is certainly dear to my heart. 
It would have made far more sense if the Canadians licence built either a Lee action or Mauser action for thier rifle. But plenty of politics and national pride and good old bloody mindedness gets in the way. Not sure why the SMLE was not allowed to be licensed to Canada. Any one know why?


----------



## Elvis (May 1, 2017)

According to the World of Guns, Britain refused to issue _a sufficient supply_ of Lee-Enfield rifles to the Canadians during the second Boer war. Why, they didn't say, but it was the reason why Canada adopted the Ross Rifle into Military service, even though it had already failed preliminary testing.
Simply put, they had no other choice.



World of Guns Ross Rifle page said:


> The only fact that Britain refused to supply Canada with enough Lee-Enfield rifles during the second Boer war resulted in adoption of the .303 caliber Ross Mark I rifle in 1902.


----------



## The Basket (May 2, 2017)

As with all military arms, there is always a political aspect and this one is no different. Sir Sam Hughes...Canadian minister of militia and defence during early days of ww1..wanted a Canadian rifle and he supported the Ross well beyond the call of duty. He was mad for it and this clouded his judgement. When the Ross fell so did he.


----------



## Elvis (May 3, 2017)

Good point, but we're still back to your question - _why_ did the British choke of supply of SMLE's to the Canadians?
Could it be there just simply weren't enough guns to go around?


----------



## The Basket (May 4, 2017)

There was a shortage of SMLE early on in the war as older Lees were used and P14s made in USA and even Arisakas were bought from Japan and the British were the biggest customer for the Ross.
Why the British didn't allow SMLE per war I don't know. However the Ross once in production would have been difficult to stop and it's failure on the western front was yet to be seen. So maybe in hindsight it was bad decisions but a bad rifle in peacetime is no big deal and can be swept under the carpet but only becomes clear in wartime.


----------



## parsifal (May 4, 2017)

Ross rifles were retained for some time as snipers rifles thereafter, attesting to their exceptional accuracy. In 1917 they were used in the conversion to the Huot automatic rifle. It was an okay conversion, and cost just $50 to do as compared to the $1000 for the comparable Lewis Gun


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Oct 12, 2017)

One of the primary reasons the Ross failed, was that the British spec ammunition was far looser in tolerance. When paired with new manufactured Canadian ammunition, it worked fine

EDIT: Obviously there were other factors, the bolt assembly procedure being on of them, but the rifle wasn't as bad as let on. And mud affects all bolt actions, not just the straight pulls


----------

