"Canadian infantry weapons ?" Topic

I'e heard mention of the Ross rifle, and its apparent dreadfulness. What made this weapon so bad, and was it universal or were there any Lee Enfields to go around ?

What machine guns were available ?

The Ross was a good rifle, however it did not stand up the rigors of trench warfare. It was prone to jamb if not kept clean. Mg's were the reliable Vickers.
Canadians used the Ross for a number of months until this problem was found out, they were then issued Lee-Enfields.

The Ross Rifle story starts back in the 1890s. The Canadian govt wanted to manufacture Lee Enfields under license in Canada, but were denied permission (apparently for commercial reasons). The Canadians then attempted to purchase rifles, and submitted an order for 13,000 of them. However, the Boer War was in full swing as the order was to be shipped, and the rifles were appropriated by the British MoD, leaving the Canucks with (again) no rifles. The Canadians' next plan, since they could buy SMLE, and they couldn't build their own, was to find their own rifle. Enter Sir Charles Ross.

Ross built a very good sporting rifle. This rifle was duly submitted for testing, and (despite the misgivings of many) was ultimately selected for use by the Canadian Army. This would have been about 1904. Ross Rifles were made and issued to the RWNMP (the mounties), who tried them out for a year, then sent them back as useless. The Army didn't have the same luxury, and were stuck with the darn thing. The Ross went through several generations, but the main failures were not addressed, the primary being that the rifle would jam if more than a few rounds were fired.

By the time the Canadians were sent to France in 1915, the shortcomings of the rifle as a service weapon were well known. Nonetheless, Ross rifles were still the only rifle issued to the troops. The shortcomings of the Ross were made abundantly clear during the 2nd Battle of Ypres, where the 1st Canadian Division found that they needed 5 men to keep 1 rifle firing. As a rule, the troops would "lose" their rifles any chance they got, and replace them with SMLE if possible (British troops learnt to keep an eye on thier rifles when Canadians were nearby…). Despite the front line experiences, the Canadians didn't get replace the Ross with the SMLE until well into 1916.

Although useless as a service rifle, the Ross was preferred by Canadian snipers, as it was more effective at long range than the SMLE. Canadian snipers continued to use the Ross through the war – as they had the opportunity to select their ammunition a bit more carefully, and usually only fired single shots, they were well served by the Ross.

However, as a service rifle, the Ross was about as useful as a club.

The Canadians also had a less effective machine gun. Instead of the famously reliable Vickers (which was not available in sufficient numbers) the Canadians used the air-cooled Colt Machine Gun. Another finicky weapon, the Colt did not stand up as well to heavy use. The Colt was replaced with Vickers and Lewis as supplies caught up.

Regards,

Will

More information on the Ross here:

link

and the Colt here:

link

Enlightening. Thank you!

Gives a newfelt appreciation of the feats of arms they performed

That's just the short version of the story. You'll get a much more detailed version, along with far fewer grammar and spelling errors, in just about any history of the Canadian army in WWI.

I was participating in a WW1 reenactment once where the guy next to me was using a Ross rifle. After a dozen rounds he was using his boot heel to kick open the breach. I couldn't believe it. I thought there was a level of story embelishment on the Ross but I saw it first hand. The problem with the Ross was it's level of tolerance was very high where as an SMLE was more robust.

I had heard pretty much the same, the rifle was fine for Olympic style competition shooting in the hands of a marksman, but was not at all suitable for handing out to squaddies or the environment of the trench. I heard stories that the British army rejected a similar marksman piece about 1910 despite political pressure to accept it.

Here's a great quote from a fellow named CE Montague, from "We Lead, Others Follow: the First Canadian Division 1914-1918", by Kenneth Radley:

"Yet hardly had its use, in wrath, bgun when there broke upon the untutored Canadian soldier a revelation withheld from the Hughses of the world. He perceived that the enemy, in his perversity, did not intend to stand up on a skyline a thousand yards off to be shot at with all the refinements of science; pointblank was going to be the only range, except for a few specialists; rapidity of fire would matter more than precision; and all the super-subtle appliances tending to triumphs at Bisley would here be no better than aids to the picking of mud from trench walls as the slung rifle joggled against them…The Canadians got, in the end, a rifle not too great and good for business."