So How Was The Steel in These Rifles?

[Claven2]

In fairness to Ross, there was a dizzying array of * changes to each Ross mark as the design was tweaked.

The bolt head issue really only showed up in sustained rapid fire under duress, and it’s not surprising to me it did not really show up until battle in the western front.

Had the 1916 version remained in service a few more months, it likely would have stayed in place, I think.

[Surpmil]

In fairness to Ross, there was a dizzying array of * changes to each Ross mark as the design was tweaked.

The bolt head issue really only showed up in sustained rapid fire under duress, and it’s not surprising to me it did not really show up until battle in the western front.

Had the 1916 version remained in service a few more months, it likely would have stayed in place, I think.

Yes, you've hit on what I was about to add to my previous post: did the deformation occur when there was no jamming due to soft or oversize ammo, bolts being kicked open etc.? It seems not as the rifle was declared to function properly with Canadian ammo in the report prepared under the authority of F.M. French in 1915.

Considering the lack of a full length forend, the unsuitable bayonet and attachment, the overall size and the complexity of the mechanism, the SMLE was a better choice for the trenches. Likewise, the wiser step would have been to make the Ross the standard sniping weapon throughout the BEF in a cut-down configuration with a suitable overbore mounting of the Aldis scopes. The SMLE was never suitable as sniping weapon; it would have been far better to use prewar CLLE's in that role, but those had probably all been scattered to winds by late 1915 like Kitchener's "New Army" they equipped.