Talk:Ross rifle

Added listing of military variants

We have a list of sporting variants, and I thought we needed a list of military variants as well. I did my best to provide good information from authoritative sources (which I checked against each other) to describe what actually defined the variant with respect to the others. If anyone catches a mistake, let me know. I found sources out there with different information, but The Ross Rifle Story seems to be by far the most authoritative and thoroughly researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terr1959 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

7 or 8

7mm Mauser? Wasn't it 8mm (actually, 7.92x57R)? Also, I added ref to the Huot LMG conversion. Trekphiler 21:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Huot, I found pix & links at http://www.cefresearch.com (I'm not competent to hotlink it...) & pix at the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corp website. Trekphiler 22:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This site[1], as well as the ZAR Model 95 Mausers show, that the Boer Mauser fire to which the article refers was most likely from 7mm cartridges. The Boers employed a variety of firearms besides the 7mm Model 95 Mauser design, including British weapons and the Krag-Jorgensen rifle. The 8mm Mauser cartridge is better known to military buffs because of its use by the German military in both World Wars. TeamZissou 22:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Bayonet

put bayonet text at Ross rifle/temp where it can be edited including the removal of discussion. GraemeLeggett 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ross rifle jamming

Nicholson's history of the CEF discusses the Ross Rifle imbroglio in some detail. Particularly interesting is the revelation on p156-157, that the chamber was in fact slightly smaller than that of the SMLE, and that the Ross Rifle was only satisfactory when using ammunition manufactured by the Dominion Arsenal, which was .010" smaller calibre, and a harder brass to reduce expansion after firing. The larger and softer cartridge made elsewhere often jammed. Reference: http://cefresearch.com/matrix/Nicholson/Transcription/Chapter5.pdf

Also, it appears that Alderson in fact got into trouble with Hughes over the Ross Rifle (ibid p158) by sending a letter listing ten reasons the troops didn't like it. It might be a good idea to reword the bit about Alderson supporting the rifle's use.

cheerio,
thos
220.233.30.241 12:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• if you get the book "In The Trenches 1914-1918" ISBN 978-0-9811163-0-3 our main sniper thinks it might have worked a lot better if the army had issued lube with it. Brian in denver (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Fictional references

I removed the fictional reference, it was not notable.

In Margaret Atwood's 2001 book The Blind Assassin, reflecting on World War I, the narrator mentions Ross rifles and says that some of the Canadian soldiers who were sent to France were supplied with Ross rifles, which occasionally jammed in the mud and rendered their users helpless.

Arthurrh 00:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion over 'Developments' section

Sir Charles Ross was working on, or did develop a light machine gun, but it wasn't based on his straight-bolt rifle design. Indeed, it would be absurdly difficult (though possible) to turn the action of his bolt rifle into a machine gun action. I'm not sure a Dominion Rifle Company existed -- there was a Canadian company called the Dominion Cartridge Company, but they were not in the business of developing firearms. I think that the reference might be referring to Ross' unproduced design, and this I believe demonstrates yet another reason there should be a separate article on the Ross Rifle Company, which could contain information on other Ross firearms and Ross automatic knives (among other things). There is much more to the Ross rifle than just the military variants, though that is with what this article seems most concerned. So, in this article the military version of the rifle gets a muddled presentation while the non-military variants and other products receive less-than-comprehensive encyclopedic coverage. I have some great source material if anyone wants to help in writing a Ross Rifle Company article. As for the claim of the existence of a Ross-action machine gun, I move for deletion of the section provided no supporting information becomes available. TeamZissou 16:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but I searched the Huot online & found pictures (Canadian War Museum, IIRC), & they match the description given. How much evidence did you want? Trekphiler 20:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link? TeamZissou 21:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

After I posted this discussion, the Huot light machine gun article appeared. Trekphiler started it using the same citations, so I'm not sure the article is legitimate. I searched the Canadian War Museum's website[2], but found nothing on the Huot, much less anything on the "Dominion Rifle Factory adapt(ing) the (Ross) action to a light machinegun". I still see no existence of a "Dominion Rifle Factory," though I would expect an article by Trekphiler will be coming along shortly. If the claim is true, then it should definitely be reworded for clarity on both pages. TeamZissou 21:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a Candian weapon called the "Huot automatic rifle," but there is nothing to indicate a "light machine gun" of that name existed. I still cannot find any connection between the Ross action and the Huot automatic rifle. TeamZissou 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"...not sure a Dominion Rifle Company existed..." No.

Yes, the Huot existed! I did not have time to work it up, but I can add some references later... The name of the man was Joseph Alphonse Huot, he was living in Richmond (here) in Quebec. He developped the idea of the lmg with Sir Ross (who invented a auto-loader handgun (using a very similar cartridge than the .45 Auto, but well before it) and was suspected to work on a autoloading shotgun too. There are some good references of this LMG but I dion't have time to look at this right now. fast fast, there is a mention of that LMG in "Sir Charles Ross and His Rifle" p22 (see references). No, there was no such Dominion Rifle Co., but there was a Dominion Arsenal Of Canada (DAC) (wich is also C.I.L.,IVI, SNC-Tech and now General Dynamics). The factory (Ross Rifle) was took over by the Dominion Of Canada (War Department) in 1917 User:Kalashnikov|Kalashnikov]] 00:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it says an autoloading rifle and a light machine gun... So the LMG it refers to is the Huot Automatic Rifle?, and were there Ross bolts taken from surplus rifles, and were the bolts simply used as blanks to cut new bolts for the Huot (if that occurred), or was Ross involved in the design from the ground up? Was there a "Dominion Rifle Company" of any kind? TeamZissou 00:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ross was definitively involved.... As I say, I run out of time to look for it (but in the reference cited above, it is clear that Ross was directly involved)... I need some time to work it out... Later this week or next week... Ya know, it's all on paper.. so it need time to look at it...Kalashnikov 00:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, okay--you've done good work on here so I trust you. I just had an issue with "converting" a bolt rifle to a machine gun, since I hadn't found any information to support that. It sounds a bit far-fetched. I now accept Ross was involved with the development of a LMG, but turning the Ross rifle into a LMG (as the Huot light machine gun article, and as parts of the Ross rifle article suggest) sounds a little far fetched. TeamZissou 00:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Think you're right, regarding the Huot, but I think it's a good thing to at least cite it here, because it was based on the M10 design. They were very close to fabricate it on an industrial base. I'll add the references later, as per I already said. I just got involved with this article. I started to work on commercial rifles because it was less than imprecise. Then after I'll work on military models and later on side stuff.Kalashnikov 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

When the Dominion Of Canada took over the Ross Rifle Co., they named the new company, for a short period of time, Dominion Rifle Factory. So, yes, there was such I thing, I am sorry for my error above. I will re-read my sources for the Huot, and will be ready for feeding more infos about it soon... Kalashnikov 15:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I'd never heard of it before I saw W&W, so I googled it & came back with pix. After TeamZissou challenged, I called the National Parks Service (who operate the arsenal as a historic site, now) & they'd never heard of it... I hadn't got to the sources they suggested, & my local libraries don't have anything specific to the Ross, so I'm glad to know somebody else does. Trekphiler 21:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Stopping Power

Under "Service", there is a comment that reads "In particular, the Ross had more stopping power... than the SMLE". My understanding is that stopping power is a factor of the ammunition, not the weapon. Since both used the same .303cal round, how can the Ross have more stopping power than the Lee-Enfield?Good Skoda (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

:According to the SMLE page, the SMLE fired a .303 cal round out of a 25" barrel at 2441 ft/sec. This article says the Ross had a 711 mm barrel (we can convert that to 28" for the sake of comparison). Does anyone have a source for the muzzle velocity of the Ros? A longer barrel often, but not always, means higher muzzle velocity, and higher muzzle velocity behind identical bullets wolud mean more stopping power (as measured in ft/lbs of energy). If the muzzle velocity is higher, I'll withdraw my question. I don't have access to reliable sources on the Ross to look it up. Thanks Good Skoda (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Skoda's right, it is a fn of the ammmo, AFAIK. The Ross' longer bbl would enable it to use more potent ammo (change the powder burn rate =higher MV), but that's not so much a fn of the rifle itself. If we're talking about the same .303 service round, the performance would be unchanged, AFAIK. (I won't exclude my grasp of the subject being deficient & the long bbl enabling the service round to perform better...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the statement in question, as the difference in "stopping power" (whatever that actually is, it can't be measured) would be absolutely negligible. The longer barrel would only allow for a few dozen more feet per second of velocity, not at all something infantry men would have noticed or cared about. If someone can find a reliable source saying that bullets fired from the Ross indeed had noticeably greater effects than those fired from the SMLE when they hit targets, that's definitely something worth putting in the article, but I highly doubt such a source would be found (one might be found that says that, but I doub it will be reliable), and the statement as it stood was not encyclopaedic. 1brettsnyder (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ross Mark 1

Ross Mark 1 is not mentioned in the Model types, it was also issued to the Canadian Army units. I owned one at one time, here are photos of it I posted on my site.

 http://www.angelfire.com/vt/milsurp/r03.html

Edits to Ross Rifle article

Hello Trekphiler, I see you have reversed my edits to the first paragraph of the Ross Rifle article. I just read the Wikitip on your Talk page where it advises us to be civil and forbearing, and so in that spirit I will just mention that I am working on a complete revision of this article. You removed my additions on the grounds of their being "un-cited" or "unnecessary" etc. Forgive me, but I have the impression that you feel some kind of ownership over this article. The location of the Ross Rifle factory on the Plains of Abraham does not require a citation, being easily verified from published secondary sources. The year that production ceased I can substantiate from existing evidence that is apparently not at your disposal. I notice that you are not the originator of the article, and of course from Wiki's standpoint being the original author does not confer any "ownership" or authority to arbitrarily delete the contributions of others; at least not to my knowledge. My edits of that first paragraph were a little test to see what the reaction would be; now I know. I have a considerable and long-standing interest in the Ross Rifle Company and their products, as well as a personal collection of most of what has been printed on that subject, not to mention the rifles themselves. Your breadth of knowledge is admirable, but one cannot know everything. The purpose of Wikipedia seems to be a collective effort to put the best and most complete information before the viewing public. Removing valid and relevant information from articles because you didn't write it doesn't seem to be in keeping with that spirit. Furthermore, there are many, many grammatical errors in that article, such that it appears not to have been written by a native speaker of English. I'll be correcting those errors as well. There are also numerous unsupported or un-referenced assertions, including some that are simply wrong and those will be corrected as far as possible also. Thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BCER (talk • contribs) 04:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

♠I am getting really sick of accusations of ownership.

♠I took it out because, where it was, it was completely misplaced. The lead is an overview. Put it further in. And add a cite for it.

♠While you're at it, you might look at why you feel so offended at being reverted & why you feel such a desparate need to contend I think I "own" the page, when AFAIK you have no evidence for it beyond your pet add being reverted. Take a look at the page history. Most of the content on it I had nothing to do with. (You want to make a claim for "ownership"? Take a look at Hirohata Merc. You'll still see none.) These kinds of claims aren't gaining you a fan here, I can tell you.

♠If you intend a major overhaul, good luck with it. If you're going to be this touchy about every little rv, it's liable to be problematic. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:46 & TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Trekphiler, 1. If you're getting a lot of those "accusations" perhaps your behaviour is generating them? 2. Strange, the explanation you gave said nothing about the location as a reason for reversing my edit. Now you've changed your views? If you felt they belonged somewhere else you could have moved them rather than simply deleting them. You can see why people might think you're suffering from an "ownership" complex? 3. You seem to be the "touchy" one my friend. Your bitter and sarcastic tone makes that quite obvious to most people. Yes, I did notice that many others have contributed to this article, however they don't seem to delete the contributions of others the way you do, do they?

I will proceed with my contributions and Wiki users can decide for themselves which version they prefer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BCER (talk • contribs) 19:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

1. "Now you've changed your views?" No, I simply din't put it in the edit summary at the time. I felt no need (nor do I feel now I should have, if you intend to claim that has also changed).
2. "you could have moved them" I could have. Absent a source (which I don't have), I preferred not to. You're free to add, with cite, which you evidently can provide.
3. "bitter and sarcastic tone" Really? I see no sarcasm. I do see you claiming I feel I own the page, which is both wrong & unjustified. I am offended by that, since it contravenes AGF, & since you have no evidence for it. I also see you evidently offended at remarks where none was intended. Who's touchy?
4. "users can decide for themselves which version they prefer" Should I take that as a challenge? Or a veiled threat you intend to take your baseless claim of "ownership" elsewhere? Do it. You'll find it fails. I've seen cases of ownership, & my edits on this page aren't remotely close. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Then you were not as clear as you should have been. 2. The issue of a citation for the location of the factory has already been dealt with by me above. The year that production ceased will receive several citations or footnotes in due course as part of my revision. I saw no need to footnote the matter in a one paragraph test of your reaction. If you were any more familiar with the subject than the average person you would know that the date of 1917 is generally given in the literature. There is some evidence however, that assembly of rifles from existing parts continued into 1918. That will be footnoted also. 3. Bitter quite clearly and "...you feel such a desparate(sic) need to contend I think I "own" the page..." could be politely described as sarcastic, though histrionic might be a more accurate description. 4. A challenge to do what? Inform yourself on the subject of the Ross Rifle more thoroughly than I? Yes, consider yourself challenged d'Artagnan! Oh, you thought I was going to tell teacher? No need for that is there? ;-) If you are so greatly concerned with the quality of this article, why does it contain so many errors, both of English and of fact? Goodnight Trekphiler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BCER (talk • contribs) 06:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC) I have been doing a lot of research lately on the Ross rifle have acquired one that is very unique all indications are that is a factory unit so far I have came to the conclusion that it is probably a model R it is a very unique rifle there are no numbers on it all it has is the Ross logo 1905 and the proof marks from testing if someone has some information on the supporter rifles from Ross it would greatly be appreciated I have not found much information on these type of rifles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.113.5 (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ross rifle.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ross rifle.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Need help please

I ha a v 1933 no 5 mk1 u-king I know nothing about it like it's value if all the numbers match please help 2603:6011:4D20:1931:89E9:F276:DF74:A05F (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Ross rifle

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ross rifle's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Davis":

• From Algeria: Robert Davis (2003). Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500–1800. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-71966-4.
• From M1911 pistol: Davis and Raynor(1976), Safe Pistols Made Even Safer, American Rifleman, Jan. 1976

Reference named "Davies":

• From Madagascar: Davies (2003), pp. 99–101
• From Belarus: Norman Davies, God's Playground (Polish edition), second tome, pp. 512–513

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Ross Rifle in Spanish Civil War

The SCW ended in April 1939. The article says that the Soviet Union sent Ross Rifles to the war, and that they came from the Baltic States, who'd been given them, by the British after WWI and taken by the USSR when they occupied the Baltics in (June) 1940. This requires time travel. Can someone with a copy of The Ross Rifle Story check the reference? JohnGDallman (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)