Why did they fail? If you get rid of the Mk. I and II's moronic dump-loading system and just weld on a charger bridge, and just tech your Leaf Grunts how to reassemble the bolts correctly. I'd much rather have one of these over a Lee.
Ross Rifles
Why did they fail? If you get rid of the Mk. I and II's moronic dump-loading system and just weld on a charger bridge, and just tech your Leaf Grunts how to reassemble the bolts correctly. I'd much rather have one of these over a Lee.
It was an awful infantry rifle but it did serve well as a sniper.
There are a list of reasons why it was bad but some include:
>it's longer than a Lee so you wouldn't want it in a trench.
>it performed awful with the .303 cartridge as it's tolerances were made for the .280 Ross
>it's magazines were delicate
>poor tolerances of dirt
It's a fine sporting rifle, really accurate but it's way to delicate for an infantry rifle.
Huh, I always figured that it was just the exploding bolt meme.
Literally a meme.
It was fixed for the military issue rifles but British monarchists did not want Canada to have a domestic arms industry so kept bringing up exploding bolts.
Tolerances were for Canadian made ammo. Anything marked for machine use also worked. Shit ammo from Britain or their other colonies did not have the tolerances and would even frick up in the ShtLE.
The exploding bolt meme is a possibility on the earlier versions but the instances were really rare. The real issue was just that it was a really delicate gun so using it in the muddy trenches of WW1 is an awful idea. The Lee Enfield was less accurate than the Ross but it could take a lot of punishment.
>I'd much rather have one of these over a Lee.
I like the rifle for sport shooting so I would agree with you on that part, but you have to keep in mind the environment it was being used which were the absolute muddy shitholes in WW1.
Here's a good youtube video about the gun
Yeah the ammo from the british were absolute dogshit. I do think the later versions did solve all the problems and it shows since a lot of people did praise it for it's performance as a sniper rifle. You do have to keep in mind that they needed to make thousands of these rifles and for them to be so delicate was a big problem.
>>it performed awful with the .303 cartridge as it's tolerances were made for the .280 Ross
This is British cope . It preformed fine with domestic .303 but awfully with the sloppy bullshit being produced by the rest of the commonwealth .
>I'd much rather have one of these over a Lee.
Then you've never used one.
>puts it back together wrong
>bolt explodes and flies into face
whoopsie
>Why did they fail?
By the time all the issues with the Mk.III had been addressed the rifle’s reputation in the public eye had been irreparably tarnished, and combined with the logistics issue of having a different infantry rifle for one of the Commonwealth’s armies it was more practical to use the SMLE.
>commonwealth arms
>no 1914
You got one with dial sights you're looking to sell?
After a quick glance through my copy I can't find any reference to either the M1903 or the M1917 by name, only references to "Army rifle" or "that old Army rifle", and once he mentions having to "turn in our guns and get British guns". During the engagement for which he was awarded the Medal of Honor he refers to his rifle as "that-there old Army rifle", which is the same term he used to refer to the rifle he had Stateside in training. FWIW, there's this letter at the Sgt. Alvin C. York State Historic Park museum which York wrote to an old Army friend in which York makes reference to this friend giving York a "Springfield" which York then used in his famous action.
York's unit was assigned 1917s. Does he b***h about the "British guns" at all? There is a lot of debate about what guns he used since the film, which he was a "technical advisor" on uses the 1903 and his son said he used a 1903, but official documents say his unit trained with 1903s in the USA but were given 1917s when they got to yurope. So are you saying the letter says he traded the 1917 he was issued in yurope for a 1903 that he used in the Argonne?
>Does he b***h about the "British guns" at all?
No; it's the only mention of them at all. He has more to say about the Chauchat than any of the infantry rifles.
>So are you saying the letter says he traded the 1917 he was issued in yurope for a 1903 that he used in the Argonne?
I posted the letter; you can read it yourself.
>Say James do you remember that little Springfield rifle that you gave me as we went up to the front lines. That is the rifle that I did my shooting with. I used it and my Colts pistol.
Yes, the 82nd was on paper issued M1917s.
The 82nd at the time was a National Army division, he almost certainly had a M1917. Most of the AEF had M1917s. Regular Army and National Guard units that already had M1903s probably kept them, but there is basically 0 chance that a National Army unit that didn’t even exist prior to 1917 had M1903s in any significant number.
those things are fricking heavy
>when somebody complains about the M1917’s length & weight
Isn't there a whole section in Alvin York's diary where he b***hes about the weight and sights if the 1917?
They're very heavy but carry it really well, to the point you don't really realize just how big he Ross is until you compare it with an Enfield or any other service rifle
Seriously, then hold up next to each other; at thickest, the Ross' barrel is larger in diameter than the receiver ring on the Enfield.
You have to be absolutely moronic to assemble the bolt incorrectly, as it's very, very obvious just from feel that something is wrong,
>just weld on a charger bridge
I love the Ross, but the charger bridge they settled on is terrible. It sits at an angle (unlike every single other clip-loading rifle) and essentially has you push the cartridges down and over to the left, meaning it's almost never a smooth operation
>Then you've never used one.
As someone who's shot a brutality match with one, I would wholeheartedly take one over a Lee....as long as it wasn't into a muddy trench
bump
Check'd
>just tech your Leaf Grunts how to reassemble the bolts correctly
they are going to frick it up. You have to make a gun that you literally cannot assemble in a dangerous way, because morons will frick it up
>If you get rid of the Mk. I and II's moronic dump-loading system
Is there a fw video that shows that off? I vaguely remember that and it made me want one of those rifles but I could never remember what the frick gun had that weird feature. Like an upgrade from the Krag magazine.