Any one else sick of the misinformation?

[Gil Boyd]

Yes its coming of that time as 40 Dakotas fly from Oxford Connecticut across to Duxford and then on to France for thr 75th Anniversary of DDAY.
Those two weapons certainly shortend the war, but we must never forget the tremendous work that went into to the simpler weapons that helped along the way.
The Sten, the Bren, the Thompson etc etc

[M1 C FAN]

The M1917 is a rather overlooked classic, they aren't too common this side of the pond, superb rifles.... I love the M1917. I have a soft spot for them my first rifle was a sporterized Remington with clipped ears. Great Brit design that also borrowed from the Mausers like our Springfields.

[mrclark303]

That's a superb P17, what a beautiful rifle.

[M1 C FAN]

That's a superb P17, what a beautiful rifle.

Thank You. MRCLARK303. SAVED HER. I found the Winchester in a pawn shop with a cruddy old cut down stock in a pile of shotguns in the corner. For $550 total for the gun, Stock from a friend and the new Front hand gaurds and barrel bands I put her back together. I have a tack driving 30-06 that is exactly 102yrs old. When I looked down the bore I found gold. She is my favorite Bolt Rifle. Would love to find a nice P14 IN .303. I always make my Grandkids shoot with the Bayonets and the appropriate Helmet. They love her long knife and the Brodie Helmet. Looking forward to my expansion into British Rifles and hoping to pick up as much info from the experts as I can.

[englishman_ca]

Britain borrowed from the Mauser design, yes.

In fact, Mauser took them to court on patent infringement and won.

[harry mac]

Britain borrowed from the Mauser design, yes.

In fact, Mauser took them to court on patent infringement and won.

I always thought it was Springfield they sued for patent infringement because of the Model 1903.

[Paul S.]

It was.

[Surpmil]

My reading of history tells a different story. It tells of how political influence was a component in the Ross Rifle being adopted in the first place. It speaks of political influence being used to keep it in service in France. I know from reading war histories of CEF battalions (available for study) that some were issued 'Enfield Rifles' before 2nd Ypres.

Where isn't political influence a factor? Wherever it isn't economic influence is there instead.

I've read a little history myself, have even ferreted out the odd bit here and there.

Politics was as much against the Ross as for it. Many hoped to keep the Dominions and Colonies as captive markets and suppliers of natural and human raw material.

You probably know that the SMLE was an unpopular compromise arm when introduced and suffered from too light a barrel throughout its life. It's virtues are self-evident, as are its weaknesses, but its suitability for trench warfare was a happy accident, nothing more.

The SMLE jammed plenty as well with the rubbish ammo supplied at times. The difference of course was that when the SMLE jammed it was automatically the fault of the ammo, when the Ross jammed it was automatically the fault of the rifle.

And of course Iriam was right that had more development been put into it, it would indeed have been a much better service rifle; dogmatic protagonists like Sir Sam Hughes insisted on the long barrel and close chamber tolerances, and with such friends who needs enemies?

The Ross' great defect was said to be the lack of primary extraction, but of course that was not strictly true as the angle on the interrupted threads provided a very good primary extraction. The problem if any, lay in the lack of mechanical advantage - leverage - in rotating the bolt. Who knows, the Ross might easily have become a turn-bolt action in subsequent development, which is what Newton did in the 1920s with his sporting rifles, except that his steel and heat-treating don't seem to have been as good as Ross'!

The Ross Mk.III is about the same length as the Gew98 and did the Germans suffer from the length of that rifle?

One of the two strongest bolt actions ever made, and one of the most accurate service rifles ever made.

Like anything else, those that want to look into it seriously will, and some of those will have the judgment to sift out the likely facts. Until we make that effort we tend to unthinkingly accept what we hear around us.

That's why we have juries of twelve, not two or three.

[Paul S.]

Where shall we begin?
Here? The Ross Rifle Scandal - Canada History and Mysteries
Here? Forces with History -- Official Blog of Robert W Mackay: Sam Hughes and the Ross Rifle
Here? Ross Rifle | The Canadian Encyclopedia
Here? Rethinking the Ross: The decision to use the Ross rifle during World War I
Or here? Canadian Leaders - Sir Sam Hughes | Canada and the First World War

[Surpmil]

Where shall we begin?
Here? The Ross Rifle Scandal - Canada History and Mysteries
Here? Forces with History -- Official Blog of Robert W Mackay: Sam Hughes and the Ross Rifle
Here? Ross Rifle | The Canadian Encyclopedia
Here? Rethinking the Ross: The decision to use the Ross rifle during World War I
Or here? Canadian Leaders - Sir Sam Hughes | Canada and the First World War

Sure, start there by all means, as those are typical secondary sources where the same old stuff is regurgitated again and again. And it suffices for people who have little knowledge of firearms or even mechanics in general.

Give you an example I've mentioned before: one author stated that when the .30-06 range scales were taken off the top covers of the Warner & Swasey M1913 scopes that were to be fitted to the Ross Mk.III, the screw holes were left unplugged and therefore the seal of the prism case was lost. You can read this in four or five books, who all repeat each other. If you actually take the cover off an M1913, you find the holes are blind - and not just the holes! LOL. In fact you don't even have to take the cover off: just stick a pin down the screw holes.

I took a look at this one at random: Rethinking the Ross: The decision to use the Ross rifle during World War I

I had accepted this as the established narrative of the Ross until just this week. During a conversation with one of our directors, he mentioned that he wanted to know what I thought about the Ross. After letting me finish my standard spiel about nepotism, misuse and the cost of experimenting in a wartime situation, he told me a great nugget of information that makes the Ross problem all the more complicated. Apparently, Canada was offered Lee-Enfield rifles at the beginning of the war by the British government, but at retail price, which the country couldn’t afford to pay; furthermore, Canada was not allowed to manufacture the Lee Enfield at home, which they could do with the Ross. So, while Hughes may have had undue influence in choosing the Ross specifically, it would appear that the decision to look for a rifle at home in Canada took into account the cost of outfitting soldiers with the Lee Enfield at retail price and was not just driven by Hughes’ nationalistic ideas.

"Somebody told me..." Hm, standards must be slipping in academia. Funny there's no source given, other than the person who reportedly made the statement.

What I did find interesting was the purported attempt to undercut Ross by offering the SMLE's at "retail". There is a statement on record, and I can't recall exactly where now, (sorry, but this is an off the cuff post, not a researched(?!) blog post) that the B.S.A. representative in Canada before WWI had claimed he would get the Ross factory closed one way or the other.

The rest of that article is such a mish-mash of misstatements and mistakes I'm embarrassed for the writer frankly. I'd better print it off before it disappears.

I've looked at the rest, but there's nothing to add. Keep looking!