Royal Marine Ross rifles Part II

[buffdog]

Thank you for your enquiry regarding the Royal Marines and Ross Rifles – I’ve also had a quick look at the posts on-line too. From our own sources at the Museum I can tell you the following:

Ross rifles were issued later in the First World War, to those Royal Marines who were not serving with expeditionary forces. They were also used at RM Deal and at Infantry Training Centre Royal Marines (ITCRM) for recruit training in the late 1940s (notes from S M Othen, late SASRM).

This is based on information from volume 3 of the Royal Marines history and some notes left by someone who worked at the Small Arms School Royal Marines in the late 1940s. I am working on the assumption that those Rifles used by the Royal Marines were not the same ones issued during the First World War. Alas we have no detailed numbers of these weapons in our archive here.

I’m interested in the PLY numbers. Initially they look like Royal Marine Light Infantry Plymouth Division Service Numbers; however they are in too early a sequence, and in any event the numbers have to be rack numbers. What is interesting is that during the First World War the Royal Marines were administered through Port Divisions, with prefixes of PLY, PO (Portsmouth), CH (Chatham) and RMA (Royal Marine Artillery). There were also large numbers of men enlisted administered from Deal, whose service numbers started ‘DEAL …..’ Of course my question now is whether there are Rifles with these prefixes ? Was it just the Armourer at Plymouth who was marking with Plymouth rack numbers ? Or do the others exist but are not yet recognised ?

I’ve also been passed the following, much more useful, information from Tony Edwards of the HBSA (all of the attachments are his too):

The RN/RM gave up their Lee Enfields in November 1914 on Churchill’s orders to release weapons for the army. They were replaced in RN/RM service with Japanese Arisakas until mid 1916 when these were sent to Russia and the RN/RM received Ross rifles in their stead.

Great Britain had placed a contract with Ross for 100,000 rifles in late 1914 but they were late being delivered and there was much argument between the factory and British inspectors and eventually the contract was cancelled after about 66,000 had been delivered. These were the Mark IIIB (for British) version of the Canadian Mark III service rifle (the Model 1910 in Ross terminology) and differed in sights and stock details. At the same time GB received about 90,000 Canadian Mark III rifles from the Canadian Expeditionary Force who swapped them for Lee-Enfields after the Ross failed in the trenches. These seem to have got mixed up with the British contract rifles and been issued to armed trawlers, minesweepers etc.

In 1940 the Home Guard were issued with Ross rifles, mainly it seems the Canadian Mark IIIs, as were the RM and some army units for training.

I have also attached an excerpt that I found from 'Technical Problems Dealt with by Admiralty Departments' and a report of Home Guard weapon holdings dated April 1942.

There is a final Museum adjunct to this story. We have only one example of a Ross Rifle, not a Royal Marines issue one. It is marked on the stock ‘F G H A 105’. I’m taking this to mean Fort Garry Horse. If this is right would anyone be up for a swop ?
.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Cosine26]

Buffdog,
You sent me a message about my Ross MkII5* and the Royal Marines. Was this a mistake? I have no info that my rifle was ever used by the RM's. I really know little about the rifle except that I bought it in New York state for $7.50 about forty years ago. I now live in California.

[TonyE]

Just to add a little to the information I sent you and to the questions about other secondary weapons that you raised in your Part 1.

The Ross rifles used in WW2 by the RM training depots were certainly from WWI, but whether they were ex-Canadian Mark IIIs or British cintract Mark IIIB we cannot tell. Perhaps they were IIIBs and the IIIs went mainly to the Home Guard.

The Winchesters were indeed M1892s in .44-40 calibre, the Royal Navy buying 20,000 plus another 1,000 originally purchased for the army. These were inspected by Canadian inspectors which is why most have the DCP stamp although they were not a Canadian order. There were also about 5,000 M1894s in .30-30. I have serial numbers for about thiry surviving RN Winchesters and two were sold at auction here last week.

The Remington Model 14 1/2 pump actions in .44-40 were purchased for the Royal Naval Air Service.

The Rolling Blocks were 7mm and purchased direct from Remington, supposedly refurbished, but the Admiralty downgraded them to DP status.

The "Mauser 9mm carbines" is a misprint. It should read 7mm and refer to the Chilean rifles and carbines (actually Model 1912 short rifles) that were inherited from the two Chilean battleships being built in the UK and seized by us in 1914. There were also brazilian 7mm Mausers which came by a similar route.

More details of all these and many more are in Part 4 (Royal Navy) of my series of books on British secondary weapons in WW1.

Regards
TonyE