Canadian Rangers Lee Enfield rifles to be sold off.

#61
The Ross was a Canadian rifle. Wonderful target/hunting weapon. Crap for the military. Sam Hughes a crazy old bugger in WW1 our M.o.D insisted on it being issued, even on proof that it was causing more death to users than the enemy. Made a good sniper weapon. Canadian soldiers were to be charged with lose of weapon if picking up a Lee Enfield from dead Brits.
The Ross was the preferred snipers rifle of the CEF during the whole of the Great War. Great piece of kit as long as you didn't get it dirty or have to use rapid fire. Then there was that slight bug with the bolt and how was that put together again?
 
#62
Iirc, that got corrected in later marks.
It certainly was accurate.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#63
The story behind the fix was a field workshops expedient of heat tempering parts of the bolt and the bolt stop in the receiver. The problem was QC of that and QC over ammunition which spelled the end in general service for the Ross. I had one and I often fired the rifle with the bolt release in the open position by mistake and it never failed.
I seem to recall my M10 having the bolt release double up as a mag cut off as well although I could be a dribbling loon on that one.
 
#64
The Ross was the preferred snipers rifle of the CEF during the whole of the Great War. Great piece of kit as long as you didn't get it dirty or have to use rapid fire. Then there was that slight bug with the bolt and how was that put together again?
If I recall, there were two problems with the bolt. One was that with one model of Ross it was possible to assemble it wrong if you took it apart (which you weren't supposed to do), such that it could be fired without being locked. That one was fixed fairly quickly with a rivet which prevented that. If you have the model of Ross which had this style of bolt, you should check for this.

The other problem was the factory had a bad batch of steel from the supplier, and edge of one of the lugs could develop burrs when it hit the stop when pulled back. The burrs made it difficult to close the bolt.

The third major problem (that I can recall) was the chamber was originally spec'd as being very tight, as that is what the target shooter types recommended for best accuracy. Both Ross and the people in government behind its acceptance were enthusiastic target shooters. It worked fine on Canadian ammunition, but some British war time ammunition from some suppliers wouldn't fit, although the Lee Enfield had no problem with it.

The above would not be a big deal in a civilian hunting or target rifle, but what makes a good civilian rifle is not necessarily the same as what makes a good military rifle. Once its reputation was tarnished by the above problems, the average soldier didn't trust it any more and wanted a Lee Enfield instead.
 
#65
The Mk 3 M-10 Ross was the final mark, and the one that was used in WW1..

The bolt can be assembled wrongly and it will fire from an open bolt, however it is easy to spot.. There needs to be a 1" gap between the bolt head and the sleeve when the bolt is in the rifle.. if the bolt head is hard against the sleeve it is wrong.. There are lots of perfectly safe M-10s around with no rivet, which I think was only fitted to rifles in France.

There is a good video about the Ross on the Forgotten Weapons website..

Myth and Reality of the Ross MkIII
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#66
In 1944 our Royal Marine Commandos in Burma were issued with Garands in place of their No.4s Don't know if other units got the same.
 
#68
What an idiot! Firing into the air in complete disregard that the ullet will have to come down somewhere again.
It's India.. they are used to bullets falling from the sky there!

(My uncle, who was a surgeon in the colonial medical services in the 50s, used to make a fortune from digging bullets out of the shoulders of wedding guests in the Trucial States...!)
 
Last edited:
#69
I am old enough to have talked to WW 1 veterans. The look of hatred at the memory of being issued that weapon was something to see. The Ross rifle was a piece of crap FOR USE IN COMBAT. As long as Sam Hughes was M.O.D. the whole supply system in Canada was riddled with corruption. Yes it was good for sniping and target shooting. It's a proven fact that Cdn. soldiers were charged with loss of weapon if they picked up a fallen British soldiers Lee Enfeild so as to be able to be safe when using a superior weapon.
 
#71
I'm assuming our PM, Bozo The Clown, will want to ensure that any surplus .303 Enfield's should be handed over to his buddies in ISSIS or other assorted muslim terrorists.
 
#72
I'm assuming our PM, Bozo The Clown, will want to ensure that any surplus .303 Enfield's should be handed over to his buddies in ISSIS or other assorted muslim terrorists.
Or rather than just assuming, you could you know simply read the first post in the thread which says they will be given free of charge to those Rangers who want them (I can't imagine anyone turning that down) and some being turned into cadet drill rifles.

But why read posts in the thread when you can make up inflammatory posts about Muslims?
 
#73
Or rather than just assuming, you could you know simply read the first post in the thread which says they will be given free of charge to those Rangers who want them (I can't imagine anyone turning that down) and some being turned into cadet drill rifles.

But why read posts in the thread when you can make up inflammatory posts about Muslims?
You don't know Bozo the Clown do you? Please note I did say, "Surplus".
 
#74
Does anyone know whether the replacement of the rifle was the subject of debate or controversy? People can (understandably) get sentimental about such things.
It's sad on an emotional level but seems to make sense on a practical level.

A different design of course, and now used in smaller numbers than the No.4 in Canadaa, but a Danish Arctic patrol unit still uses the M1917 Enfield.

Edit: amusing / lazy caption in one photo in the CBS article: 'Harjit Sajjan greets people at the announcement of new rifles and a new plane for N.W.T. Canadian Rangers.'

We can see he is greeting people. Who are they? Aircrew? Rangers?!
 
Last edited:
#76
Does anyone know whether the replacement of the rifle was the subject of debate or controversy? People can (understandably) get sentimental about such things.
It's sad on an emotional level but seems to make sense on a practical level.

A different design of course, and now used in smaller numbers than the No.4 in Canadaa, but a Danish Arctic patrol unit still uses the M1917 Enfield.
There hasn't been much interest from the public in the issue. It is quite possible that some of the Rangers are sentimental about their Lee Enfield, but they will be offered to be allowed to keep them privately, so that may mollify those ones. The new rifle seems to be getting positive comments and apparently it was getting more difficult to maintain the old ones.

Edit: amusing / lazy caption in one photo in the CBS article: 'Harjit Sajjan greets people at the announcement of new rifles and a new plane for N.W.T. Canadian Rangers.'

We can see he is greeting people. Who are they? Aircrew? Rangers?!
The normal Rangers are in red, the others appear to be air crew. The RCAF 440 Squadron has Twin Otters to support northern operations and SAR and are based in Yellowknife.

There were two announcements made, one was the start of delivery of the new rifles, and the other was the start of the process for buying replacements for the Twin Otters. This is why there were two sets of people there. Bombardier sold the rights for the Twin Otter (originally a de Havilland Canada design) to another company, Viking Air, who currently produce a modernized version. I would not be overly surprised if the replacement were to be new Twin Otters from Viking, as they seem to fill the requirements very well. I didn't mention the planes in my previous post as they were off topic for the thread.
 
#77
There hasn't been much interest from the public in the issue. It is quite possible that some of the Rangers are sentimental about their Lee Enfield, but they will be offered to be allowed to keep them privately, so that may mollify those ones. The new rifle seems to be getting positive comments and apparently it was getting more difficult to maintain the old ones.


The normal Rangers are in red, the others appear to be air crew. The RCAF 440 Squadron has Twin Otters to support northern operations and SAR and are based in Yellowknife.

There were two announcements made, one was the start of delivery of the new rifles, and the other was the start of the process for buying replacements for the Twin Otters. This is why there were two sets of people there. Bombardier sold the rights for the Twin Otter (originally a de Havilland Canada design) to another company, Viking Air, who currently produce a modernized version. I would not be overly surprised if the replacement were to be new Twin Otters from Viking, as they seem to fill the requirements very well. I didn't mention the planes in my previous post as they were off topic for the thread.
Thank you for the information.
In fairness, the new rifle looks beautiful and the specification is impressive.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#78
In 1944 our Royal Marine Commandos in Burma were issued with Garands in place of their No.4s Don't know if other units got the same.
Thank you for the information.
In fairness, the new rifle looks beautiful and the specification is impressive.
Off topic but yes, units working under US forces and US supply chain would often be equipped completely, similar issue in the Korean war with 41 Commando.
 
#79
In 1944 our Royal Marine Commandos in Burma were issued with Garands in place of their No.4s Don't know if other units got the same.
That would have been in place of their No 1s. Looking at wartime newsreel footage the first appearance of the No 4 in anger seems to have been D-Day, with both the Far East theatre and the Italian campaign retaining No 1 more or less till VE/VJ Days.
 
#80
Thank you for the information.
In fairness, the new rifle looks beautiful and the specification is impressive.

Given that the primary threat/use is apparently supposed to be angry polar bears, I wonder why they didn't take the opportunity to go to a much heavier calibre? I know 7.62mm ball is relatively cheap, but I wonder what the Rangers might have preferred.

(For angry polar bear, I think I'd personally go for .458W in a semi-auto, with a drum magazine...)
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top