Enlarged chamber marking?

[Tom-M]

Does the "E" shown on this rifle indicate that the chamber has been enlarged?

If so - exactly how does this effect the performance of the rifle?

Newby that needs an education.

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.

[Ax.303]

If everything else is in good order it should perform just fine. These rifles originally had tight chambers for some of the issued ammo. When these were enlarged they were marked "N" or "LC" depending on where the work was done. The "E" means it came direct from the Ross factory with a larger chamber.

[smellie]

The actual problem was not the Ross Rifle. The problem was the ammunition, the Army accepting large batches of ammo which never should have been accepted; some was fat enough to jam a Lee-Enfield. So the ammo was issued to the mere "colonials" with their small-chambered rifles... and troubles occurred.

When the chambers were relieved, and when new chambers (as yours) were factory-made, the chambers became big enough to digest anything which might be supplied. This means, of course, that they actually were too big. Because of this, Ross Rifles have developed a reputation for wildly oversize chambers and for being really hard on brass.

To minimise the expansion of your brass, your best bet is to use one of Ed's famous O-rings on first firing. I found a big bag of such things at our local dollar store in the girls' department: they are sold in bags of 100, at $1 a bag for tying pony-tails. One of these on the base of your cartridge will keep the shell central in the chamber when you fire it for the first time. Expansion thus will be controlled and equal all the way around the casing, resulting in NO weak spots. After that, you just neck-size your brass, lubing the insides of the case-necks or just using one of those fancy new Lee Collet Dies. You will find that in a good, tight Ross, you will have almost ZERO lengthwise stretch in your brass. I have a couple of boxes here which are on their 15th firing and still haven't been trimmed because they haven't stretched enough to require a trim!

Most important on a Ross M-10: be absolutely certain that the bolt is assembled corectly. Go to the Knowledge Library and download a copy of the 1913 Manual and you're away.

Most important single thing about a Ross: have fun!

And welcome to the Wonderful World of Ross Rifles!
.

[bogtrotter2]

Thanks for the info on the "E". I have shot mine quite a bit and knew it had the enlarged chamber because the fired cases looked sort of like a double bottleneck. It is one of the battleship Canada rifles that went to Chile and the markings on the receiver ring and the barrel have been defaced by the p--sed off Chileans and I did not know what the "E" indicated. For the record it shoots off better than I do by far but a younger friend of mine shot it and did quite well so I know the rifle and my reloaded cases are good.

[bogtrotter2]

One more question for Smellie. There were some of the territorial regiments at the start of WW1 (or as I prefer to call it Act 1 of the World War)were using the long Lee's (mk 1 star) when they were sent to France and they had many problems with the ammunition issued. Was that due to the same variations in the 303 that caused the problems with the Ross?

[TonyE]

No, the problems encountered with the L.E. Mark I* rifles was different. These rifles were sighted for the older heavy 215 grain Mark VI bullet which was round nosed, and the magazine lips were set up to feed this ammunition. Since the regular army werere using the later (Post 1911) Mark VII ammunition the Territorials were issued with this in the field. This had the lighter 174 grain pointed Mark VII bullet and this did not feed well in magzines set up for Mark VI. Consequently their rifles frequently jammed due to mis-feeds causing the round to tip up as it was being fed. Picture shows the two rounds below.

Returning to the original question of the problems with the Ross, I have to disagree with Smellie about the cause and the "E" chambers. Whilst it is certainly true that there were problems with some British ammo (more on that below) the real cause was the way the Ross was made.

When the problems first occurred it was found by Lt.Col. Harkom, the technical advisor to the Canadian Standing Small Arms Committee, that Ross chambers were undersized. The British specification for teh mouth of the chamber was .462", yet the Canadian specification was .460". This was compounded by two factors. Ross was chambering his rifles to .458" and furthermore the rifles were gauged before assembly and not before. Therefore when the barrels were breeched up any over zealous tightening resulted in the chambers being squeezed even tighter. Since Bitish ammo was being made to a specification of .462" it was trying to fit in a .458" or tighter chamber.

Now for the ammo problems. It was also found that some British ammo, particularly that from Birmingham Metals and Munitions Co., made during the great production expansion of 1914/15 had cases that were too soft. They would be forced into the tight chamber, expand when fired and because of the wrong hardness gradient become completely stuck.

It transpired that the reason the Ross rifles had worked in Canada was that Dominion Arsenal (the Canadian ammunition facility) was only accepting and passing minimum dimension cartridges. Quite how the situation had been allowed to arise whereby Canada was manufacturing rifles and ammunition to different tolerances to the imperial norm is not known.

Harkom instructed that chambers should immediately be manufactured to .462" and from 9th July 1915 these rifles were marked with an "N" on the chamber for "Normal". As the problem persisted the chamber dimension was increased to .464" on 15th August 1915 and it is these rifles that are marked with an "E" for "Enlarged".

For rifles already in the field in the UK Harkom had all the chambers of the 2nd Canadian Division reamed to .464" before they sailed to France. These are marked "LC" for "Large Chamber".

Thus it can be seen that the Ross problems were principally of Ross's own making and cannot be put down simply to badly made British ammunition.

Subsequent Ross problems with too small bolt stops and soft or brittle lugs are another story...and that was certainly a Ross problem!

Regards
TonyE

[Ax.303]

I`m with smellie on this one.

It is true that the Ross was being chambered to smaller dimensions, actually .459.
While the Lee Enfield was chambered at .462.

The Ross chamber was changed from .462 to .460 and was approved by the Canadian Small Arms Committee in Aug. 1911. This was recommended by Sir Sam Hughs to increase performance, which it did.
It was always assumed by the Ross Rifle Co. that their chambers would not be required to accommodate the high limit cartridge. The Canadian Dominion Arsenal ammunition was manufactured too lower limits.

This does not change the fact that the Ross would have preformed much better with most other ammo. Even with the distortion from the breeching up, Which was considered minor.

The Lee Enfield with the larger chamber was also having all sorts of trouble with the same ammo. And it barely worked at all in machine guns.

Here is part of a report on the ... LEE ENFIELD ... in II Corps dated Apr. 6 1915.

"with the majority of the rifles it is impossible to fire rapid",
"the extractor does not work when the bolt lever has been raised",
"the breech not fitted to MK VII S.A.A."
"the extractor is too week and fails to grip the rim of the cartridge";...

The soft bolt -brittle bolt-problems where glitchs, (not necessarily of Ross` making) that might have been taken in stride had the it been fed half decent ammo from the start.

[Ax.303]

It should be noted:
The bolts being used with this ammo, were of the proper steel. They would have held up well even with the small bolt stop. As long as they were not being hammered open to clear sticky cartridges.

[smellie]

And there is a small point which, it seems, must NEVER be mentioned.

That is that the Rifle, Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield Mark III and the ensuant Mark III* ALL were manfactured with a LARGER CHAMBER beginning in 1916.

Bum ammo was a very real problem. Mud, mishandling and mayhem simply contributed to this.

The main point is that the Ross story was essentially a POLITICAL story, and a very ugly one at that. Considering that the rifle itself had never had a proper field trial prior to the War, I think the Ross acquitted itself very well. The actual problems were relatively minor: bolt stop too small, leading to deformed left-rear locking lugs. That problem was solved for 30 cents a rifle. The mud problem could have been looked after for 5 cents a rifle, payment for a Breech Cleaning Stick, but the Government said "No". The problem of the rather great length and weight of the Ross Rifle could have been looked after by the Government saying "Yes" to the prototype Mark III Short Rifle which the Ross plant actually built, which the Army had requested.... but the Government said "No".

As to the tales of massve and monumental failure in combat, especially at St. Julien in Second Ypres. I interviewed two of the last survivors of that fight, 57 years after it took place. Neither man could be induced to say a single word against the Ross Rifle. One was angry enough that he nearly punched my lights out just for suggesting that there MIGHT have been a problem with the rifles. Between the two men, they expended over 400 rounds in the gas attack. That likely was the single worst rifle-to-rifle engagement ever fought.

And here's a query: it is well known by EVERYONE that the Canadian Corps almost universally rearmed itself at Second Ypres with the Rifle, Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield Mark III. What I want to know is where a Division's worth of Lee-Enfields came from. The Canadians were on the British RIGHT. On the CANADIANS' RIGHT were the French Colonial troops..... who were equipped with Mannlicher-Berthiers. So where did all these Lee-Enfields suddenly materialise from? Flying saucers? Little green men? Remember, BHQ at St. Julien RAN from the attack; I have spoken with two eyewitnesses to this. These were the guys who WROTE the Battalion War Diaries. Cover-up? Politics? Bald-faced lies? Where did all those Lee-Enfields suddenly come from?

As to the Ross, my grandfather used one with great success, sniping. He was 54 B'n CEF and would not say a word against the rifle; 54 wasn't even overseas until Second Ypres was history. I knew and interviewed a man who made it Private to Captain with 5th CMR, CEF, also who would not say a word against the rifle, although he did allow that 5CMR kept its rifles clean.... "unlike some other oufits who never cleaned their equipment". (Capt. George Diblee, DCM)

Those of us who have rifles which came from the old HMS CANADA are most fortunate. Our rifles might have been knocked about (mine certainly was; it is DA 426) but they were not SHOT during all those years in foreign service. My rifle, as yours, is a better shooter than I am....... (come on, Smellie, be honest: it's a better shooter NOW than you ever WERE!) and it is one of the earliest Mark IIIs and happens to be 30, possibly 31, years older than I am. The one and only time I took it and a mate into a match at CFB Shilo, it certainly turned heads, I'll say that much. After it performed the way only a Ross can perform, there was a sudden spate of Ross Rifles being dragged out of storage, cleaned up and taken to the ranges.

But that still leaves the LC stamping on a whole LOT of Lee-Enfields!
.

[TonyE]

........But that still leaves the LC stamping on a whole LOT of Lee-Enfields!
.

Interesting info. Can you give an example please or perhaps quote the List of Changes Para. for this.

Thanks.
TonyE