Printable View
29:15 Ross did not supply chamber cleaning sticks. He offered and they were refused.
30:12 "The Lee Enfield ate it up". No, but the ammo was blamed, not the rifle and the SMLE chambers enlarged also. No mention of poor quality US production ammo.
30:16 "Sam Hughes and Charles Ross wanted a target rifle, not a military rifle". Sam Hughes and his Small Arms Committee refused the short rifle offered by Ross.
30:50 "Pinching"? Very, very doubtful IMO. The barrel is massive: 1.07" dia at the thread roots, chamber walls .0304" thick at the chamber mouth. OD over the chamber past the threads: 1.31" Chrome Vanadium steel IRRC. "Pinching" sounds more like a euphemism for a QC problem, or under-sized chamber reamers, perhaps used by mistake or out of necessity?
To be completed.
I agree, not really possible to pinch the chamber.
Glad to see you guys are enjoying it. As for the concerns, I'm only as good as my sources and I relied heavily on The Ross Rifle Story as it's the only detailed book I could turn up.
1st Issue, you're right he did just recommend it. The book didn't make mention of a refusal so I misspoke.
2nd: The Lee-Enfield did have some issues with poor ammo but on the whole, without going into a separate discussion (that we'll reserve for the LE episode) the LE had an easier time with out of spec ammo from the start. Basically I didn't want to tell the same story twice and I'm holding it.
3rd: I'm not sure I understand, I mentioned that fact at 26:20. I even threw up a quote.
4th: I'm afraid that's my best interpretation from the book
"At the Ross factory he found that faulty manufacture was causing the "closing in" of chambers during the breeching-up"
"The July investigation was followed right through to the breeching-up operation... This suspicion was confirmed when it was found.... excessive pressure being applied by vice grips used to tighten barrels in receivers. The resulting "nipping" or closing in of the chamberes went undetected..."
"...ordered the Mark III chamber enlarged... and the gauging of all chambers AFTER breaching-up"
This book is a bit... nebulous and sort of repeats itself oddly. If I misinterpreted the passages above please let me know.
Also in the future please to comment on the videos so everyone can see any concerns. I don't think anyone can claim to have been completely correct on any old rifle topic but we'll keep doing our best.
The Ross was a great example of what happens when politics is involved, and also again proves that generals fight the last war, not the current one. The Ross was the product of the Boer War, fought over longer distances and in dry conditions. The rifle Sir Charles wanted to present (the .280 Military Match) featured among other things the enclosed magazine, but it was the committee that wanted that bizarre monstrosity that hangs underneath. The Ross was made to fine tolerances, and did not do well with dirt or crappy ammunition which had been rejected as unfit for even Lee Enfields. There has been a lot of misinformation about the Ross over the years, most of it promoted initially by the British government that wanted to discredit it and by the Canadian government that wanted to discredit Sam Hughes, but the fact is it WAS unpopular with the troops and even though chamber reaming and strengthening the bolt stop did solve its feeding issues at the front, Canadian soldiers were fed up with it and I think would have had a hard time trusting it. So, in reality, it likely did have to go. How it went was unfortunate, with the factory being seized, etc, and the peep sights on the Mk IIIB ("War Office Pattern") really were ahead of their time. What is amusing to the cynics among us (I'm one) is that although the British publicly trashed it, that didn't stop them from reissuing the Ross to the Royal Marines, the white Russians, etc etc.........also, if you ever take a look at an SMLE Mk V from 1923-1924 and compare the rearsight to that of the Ross MkIIIB, you will see an amazing similarity.
The Ross Rifle Story is unfortunately the only book which has been published on the Ross, and may well be unless a group of us get together to try and do a better job. How it is laid out is odd, and much of the information and assumptions in it have been proven to be incorrect. The chamber pinching was debunked, and one must remember was the conclusion of the investigating committee, which was hardly impartial. If you think about the amount of pressure which would be required to "pinch" a cylinder of the strength and construction of a Ross barrel, it becomes obvious it would be most unlikely.
I have a large collection of Ross rifles, including several examples of the predecessor to the Mk III, the Mk II** target rifles (which were originally called the Mk III!). Many years ago, I shot a few of the early ones using some surplus .303 ball ammo, and found that they jammed after about 4 fast shots. Not all did, but some did. They couldn't be opened again until they had cooled down.
Ed
The most serious problems with the Ross mkiii(1910) are related to the small bolt stop which bore only against the segmented part of the bolt head. and the segmented bolt head itself, great swept lug area, but is it really necessary?
In addition, there is very limited support for the bolt body by the receiver.
Both of these issues were exasperated by improper heat treatment (soft) of the bolt heads followed by the emergency program to Re harden (cyanide quench) the existing bolt heads in the UK by dragoon ed troops, resulting in brittle bolts...
Close examination of most 1910 bolt lugs will show deformation or cracking on the left rear lug where it impacts the bolt stop.
I have 2 Ross 1910s, one which is smooth as snot, the other is "sticky" and the bolt has slight deformation, swapping bolts between the 2 guns moves the stickiness problem to the other gun.
First I`d like to say I did enjoy this for the most part. Far better than most attempts I`ve seen so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Othais
To give you an idea of how bad the ammo was that was giving the Ross trouble. While the Ross had a far tighter chamber at the time and does have less primary extraction than the Lee Enfield.
Here are part of a report on LEE ENFIELD rifles in II corps dated April 6th 1915 (the first gas attack was on April 22nd 1915) with the same ammo.
"with the majority of rifles it is impossible to fire rapid".
"the extractor does not work when the bolt lever has been raised".
"the breach not fitted to Mk. VII S.A.A.
"The extractor is too week and fails to grip the rim of the cartridge."......
Don`t forget unless they were hogged out, lots of the early Rosses had tight chambers as well as tight bores (.300 as apposed to .303)Quote:
Originally Posted by boltaction
I also have a number of Ross rifles. And although I haven`t tried it with the MkII s, I have ripped through 30 or so rounds with a couple of different MKIII sporters a few times without a hitch.
You might want to check a few more than two bolts before you come to this conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
Most bolts you will see are fine.
I`m not saying it does not happen. I have seen a few over the years, but most I`ve checked are in great shape and I have checked a pile of them including commercial M-10s and even a Home Guard which have the small bolt stop.
It is one of the first things I look for.
The problem they had 100 years ago was the bolt heads were soft because they had the wrong carbon content. The fix made them brittle.
I would think most of those are long gone.
Sometimes the bolt will be sticky because it is dirty or worn internally.
Could it be done?Quote:
Originally Posted by boltaction
I would like to be involved in a project like that in any way I could. I do not have much knowledge to contribute on the topic but could surely manage what ever was assigned to me.
I am quite serious if someone wants to take the lead.
The bolt stop problem is quite real, but in my mind's eye it could have been easily solved. Instead of having Evelyn spaced mega overkill number of lugs, he simply could have made the left rear two lugs into one much heavier lug while retaining the other lighter lugs. I'm no engineer, but it would have been less machining too.
He could have also stuck with two lugs like how he did the Mk. IIs. Unfortunately by time they had fixed all the problems it was too late.
I not saying the bolt will not deform with long hard use.Quote:
Originally Posted by flying pig
But it is far less common than some people make it out to be. Especially with the over sized bolt stop.
Making the back two left lugs as one would have worked well.
I've been nursing a bolt head with a cracked lug for over a year now. I've been watching it closely for signs of further cracking. While it hasn't become worse, the damage is still there...
I have a box of bolt heads with broken lugs, like a half dozen of them.
I also have a rifle with a deformed cracked bolt head that I keep threatening to replace the head on. I dressed it up with a file, and it has been holding up for a couple years now.
I have three beat bolt heads in my junk box that were replaced sometime over last 100 years.
And then there are another eleven rifles in the safe with M-10 actions and a couple spare bolts with bolt heads that are in great shape.
Replace your bolt head. You`ll be good for another 100 years or so.
Could you share some up close photos of the cracking and breakage? It would be helpful to see what these things do when they begin to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by flying pig
Any rewrite would require the cooperation of the gentleman who now owns the rights to the original manuscript and has recently republished it. Kudos to him for doing so as original copies were in short supply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
I'll try to remember to in the coming weeks
Most of the original rifles I've seen with the early bolt stop were the Home Guard rifles. When the Bolt stop was updated, so was the front band (Forged instead of stamped) and the stock was thicker from the mid band forward. Mine has the larger Bolt stop, and there are no issues with deformation. It also cycles and extracts perfectly, although the cases do suffer the usual enlargement just forward of the solid head portion of the case from the enlarged chamber.
Ross' could have made the last two lugs on the left side solid, but it would have been even more of a nightmare to machine. The lugs in the receiver, and the bolt for that matter, are basically a form of coarse threads. Hence the "interrupted screw" designation when describing the locking lugs.
BTW, the Lee Enfield rifles also had problems with the crappy British Contract ammo, and rifles had to be sent to the rear areas to get the chambers enlarged. Funny how THEY didn't receive the same bad press as the Ross'
Ed,
I recently purchased my third Ross, two sporters and a Mark IIIB. The IIIB has a different rear sight, somewhat of a triangle and the small lever that is activated to unlock the inside peep sight allowing it to slide up and down is gone. So the peep just bounces around. Does anyone happen to have another of these sights that I could purchase? If I had the lever and spring it could be repaired. Thanks for the help.
Errol