100 years ago The Canadians preferred the Enfield

[Paul S.]

Some years ago, a Canadian friend who was researching her family history asked me, knowing my military background, about a notation in his battalion's war diary. She wanted to why her grandfather who, 'Sgt. _______ accidentally shot himself in the foot' whilst in the trenches, wasn't put on a charge and no disciplinary action was cited on his record. Mind you this was in February or early March 1916 after the battalion's arrival in France. The battalion's diary mentions being issued Enfield Rifles whilst still in England. Yet, pictures taken after 2nd Ypres show them with Ross rifles. My guess then was the possibility that someone else, a junior officer perhaps, had an N.D. Now I'm wondering if he might have been inspecting a Ross that was 'defective' and it went off.

Anyone care to offer a guess or hypothesis?

[browningautorifle]

After the things I saw take place over a life in the infantry, anything COULD have happened...to speculate could be jumping to false conclusions.

[Surpmil]

Um, no. Everything I have read says it was tight clearances of the Ross mechanism not bad ammo. The ross complex mechanism simply didnt stand up to the mud and dust in the trenches of WW1. Even if that was the case that the ammo was bad (and yes Im sure it wasnt as good as pre and post war) the Enfield's had no problem and hence were suited to being a battle rifle.

Now if you can provide some real evidence that the Ross rifle suffered directly from poorly made ammo, I'd love to review it. What I have read is snipers kept to batches of ammo and had to re-zero when they got a new batch but that is an accuracy thing and not functional. In any case the rifle had to meet the conditions that there were, having a prima donna rifle you cant shoot as you have no ammo is a quick way to end up dead IMHO, kind of like the early M16 A1s in Nam never needing cleaning.

---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 PM ----------



No not shot, but I have handled empty ones (and Ross's) as I consdered buy good examples. They may well have been a straight pulls but frankly they didnt impress me over a No4 in terms of ease and speed of use. and then there was the complexity and keeping it clean so it worked.

Lots of detailed information to be found on other forums: reports and accounts written at the time by people in authority and by men who actually used the MkIII in the trenches, rather than just talking about it in a Legion hall. Lots of politics and commercial competition issues involved as well.

It was known to the authorities in France by mid-1915, if not much earlier, that the rifle functioned well with high spec ammo, but not with over-sized ammo. For reasons unknown, the higher spec Canadian ammo was held back in the UK and other was issued to the Canadian Corps. Some was good, some was junk. Plenty of reports of it jamming Lee Enfields as well. Once the chambers were reamed from .460 to .462 and later to .464 there were no ammunition issues. The SMLE was quietly reamed to .464 as well, from .462, but that doesn't get much press!

Don't get me wrong, I'm a great fan of the Lee Enfield, but it's not coincidence that the UK asked Canada for telescope-equipped Ross rifles in 1940. Both rifles have their virtues. I believed the legend of the terrible Ross for a long time myself before I dug into the subject enough to get, I believe, a sense of what was really going on.

[Paul S.]

,, ... wasn't put on a charge and no disciplinary action was cited on his record. Mind you this was in February or early March 1916 after the battalion's arrival in France. ... pictures taken after 2nd Ypres show them with Ross rifles. ...

DOH! Major typographical error here. This should read "... or early March 1915.

[Paul S.]

... For reasons unknown, the higher spec Canadian ammo was held back in the UK and other was issued to the Canadian Corps. ...

I believe A Rifleman Goes To War contains passages in which the author states that ammunition from specific sources (Canadian-manufactured IIRC) was held back for sniper and machine gun use since it proved more accurate and reliable (less Vickers MG stoppages).

[Surpmil]

Some years ago, a Canadian friend who was researching her family history asked me, knowing my military background, about a notation in his battalion's war diary. She wanted to why her grandfather who, 'Sgt. _______ accidentally shot himself in the foot' whilst in the trenches, wasn't put on a charge and no disciplinary action was cited on his record. Mind you this was in February or early March 1916 after the battalion's arrival in France. The battalion's diary mentions being issued Enfield Rifles whilst still in England. Yet, pictures taken after 2nd Ypres show them with Ross rifles. My guess then was the possibility that someone else, a junior officer perhaps, had an N.D. Now I'm wondering if he might have been inspecting a Ross that was 'defective' and it went off.

Anyone care to offer a guess or hypothesis?

I recall reading of another case where an experienced NCO accidentally shot himself while cleaning a weapon. He was more upset at the possibility of being considered a S.I.W. case than actually getting shot. Such incidents would be investigated and a decision made as to whether a self-inflicted wound charge was justified. If the OC was convinced that it was a genuine accident then that would be the end of the matter, though as you can imagine, whatever the OC decided, the suspicion of S.I.W. would be almost impossible for a man to escape unless he refused to leave the trenches for treatment, and even then...

There is nothing about the mechanism of the Ross that makes it any more prone to negligent discharges than any other rifle so that would not be a factor.