Ross rifle

Discussion in 'Shooting, Hunting and Fishing' started by crabby, Oct 8, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Have had one of these offered to me (or at least its presence known) through a couple of friends linking to a firearm's dealer.

    It's 2nd on my "too buy" list after a Lee-Enfield, which I obviously don't own yet. I'll be looking to purchase both within the next few years (no real rush, bar a lack of excitement in my life and I'd like to get out on a range occasionally).

    Anyone have any experience or knowledge on these? Mine basically extends thus:
    1. Apparently very accurate
    2. Apparently terrible reliability in the trenches due to too tight tolerances and so didn't like mud + heat.
    3. Something to do with the bolt carrier going in backwards and ruining the firer's day?

    Obviously no.2 is not an issue given that it will be completely pampered and I'll never put more than.... say 100 rounds through it in one go (100 seems quite a lot given the cost of the ammo!).

    Thoughts? Opinions?
     
  2. If you can't pwonounce "r" pwoperly, you can't have a Woss wifle. Simple as. :D :D :D

    MsG
     
  3. A mate let me fire his. I fell in love with it. Its not only very accurate, it behaves itself in the shoulder better than an SMLE or a Mk4. Follow through is smooth.
     
  4. ancienturion

    ancienturion LE Book Reviewer

    If it's in good nick, it is worth getting. I had one and loved it. Very accurate, not as kind to shoot as a SMLE but kinder than a No. 4. The Ross is a good rifle but needs TLC.
     
  5. After it proved suicidal for the Canadians to use one in battle due to terrible battlefield reliability, they relegated the Ross to a sniper role where, apparently, it excelled.

    Lesson learned: you're OK as long as you're a sniper, or not Canadian, eh? :D
     
  6. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    I had a Mk3 for about 10 years or more, I sold it to No4T as I needed to clear my ticket to create some 1 for 1 slots. It was very accurate despite me and also despite having a slightly worn barrel indicated by the armourers mark. I have some Ross Pamphlets and am happy to pass these on now. The rear sight of the M1910 Mk3 is a real treat but sadly very few people seem to use it correctly, the best bit I seem to recall was shooting it from the supine position at 1000 yds on Stickledown. Its probably the only service rifle with a long enough barrel to ensure you dont trim your toe nails without using fancy straps and grips in that position.
    It had a very tolerant chamber and the bolt issues were with earlier ones. It could be fired quite safely with the bolt removal button in the remove position, I did that a few times accidentally!
    look inside and you can see what a Victorian Arms designer thought was a great idea!
    I dont miss the range shooting of the old girls and it was time to move them all on, safe queens are no good in the long run!
     
  7. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    There was some good research done recently by an HBSA member on the war measures to keep the ross in service and it failed in the end due to mud, poor QC on wartime ammo (allegedly) and a lac of consistency to the emergency armourers measures which may have caused as many problems as the sought to solve. My Gt grandad was armed with one in 1915 as he was in the CEF but his stories sadly werent ritten dwn. My late Gt uncle told a few tales but they were WW2 emergency issues when the armoury burnt down type!
     
  8. I remember hearing summat in grade school about the bolt firing back through soldiers' faces on occasion, resulting in our guys stealing dead Tommies" Enfields. Any truth to this?
     
  9. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    The bolts before mk3 could be assembled incorrrectly causing such an event but with the mk3 you couldnt fit an incorrectly assembled bolt into the receiver!