Printable View
Not all Ross Rifles with enlarged chambers were marked at all. I had a MKII 5* (which I have donated to Canadian Museum) which had no marking indicating an enlarged chamber. Having fired it, I can assure you that it had the enlarged chamber. The fired case had an enlarged shoulder and a shortened neck.
FWIW
I now have a new question for Smelle. My CANADA Ross (DA188) has the inscriptions on the receiver ring defaced with Ross Rifle, Canada and M-10 scratched like many of the bring back Japanese rifles have the mum scratched out. Is yours similarly marked? Also the finish on mine has a mottled surface unlike my Ross II which is like most blued old rifles smooth appearing but mostly as if it in the white? I have assumed the mottled finish is from salt water exposure.
Indifferent ammunition procured in a hurry is and will continue to be a natural feature of wartime procurement, and a properly laid-out design ought to be able to cope with it. The Ross did not, in addition to its fragile, over-elaborate backsight, inherent lack of extracting power and unstrippable magazine
The Ross MK III is essentially an improved M-95 Mannliher action.
While all strait pull designs have lower primary extraction, the M-95 did a fine job as Austria & Hungary`s main infantry rifle in WWI.
The ammo we are taking about is was garbage.
No rifle will work well with over sized, soft ammo. The Lee Enfield was having all sorts of trouble with the same ammo. Not as much as the Ross, but it had .003" or more, larger chamber.
The machine guns could not use it at all.
As for the sights and stiff charger loading. Small things.
Don`t get me wrong the Lee Enfield is one of my favourite rifles. But the basic design had been around for over a decade when WWI broke out and they were still dicking around with the sights in WWII.
The MK III B Ross by the way, had a rear sight similar to the P-14 Enfield.
IMO. If the war would have started a year or two later things would have been a lot different.