Doughboys Weapon of Choice

[shippingsteel]

New Acquisition, M1910 Ross mentioned above just arrived.

Bit off topic but the US used 1905 Ross rifles as secondary/training arms so...

Thanks for posting Chris, very nice and looks in great condition.

The Ross rifles have a very unique looking butt profile including the very smooth ripple of a pistol grip.

I have an American wartime photo in which it appears the troopers are holding the Ross rifles. These guys are "homeland security" militia for guarding key installations etc.

The photo is quite poor and blurry but I believe the butt profile is the clear giveaway - also the reflection off the barrel bands. Have a look for yourself and tell me what you think.

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

Without seeing the actual markings in detail it is not possible to say, but it is quite possible those are Royal Navy markings. When the Canadian Expeditionary Force gave up its Ross rifles for SMLEs, some went to the RN. They had had their Arisaka rifles replaced by Ross rifles in 1916, and certainly some of the Canadian Mark IIIs went to arm naval auxiliary vessels.

The attached picture shows the crew of a DAMS (Defensively Armed Marchant Ship) or armed trawler practising fixing bayonets. Most of them are armed with Ross rifles, some of which are Canadian Mark IIIs rather than British contract Mark IIIB rifles. What is even more interesting from my point of view is that two of them are armed with 7mm Chilean M1912 Steyr made Mausers that the RN had siezed from the two Chilean battleships building in Britain in 1914.

Regards

TonyE

[sabine72]

Hi Chris

Nice gun , do you now wich sling that goes on the Springfield .

The markings on the Springfield are US SPRINGFIELD ARMORY 1903

number 994369 CAL 30-06 RIA 11-18

Pat

[shippingsteel]

I am trying to chase down a similar Canadian M1910. It seems even here in the UK it is almost impossible to find a British contract Mark IIIB.

REgards

TonyE

TonyE, did the British contract Mark IIIB Ross have the same muzzle diameter as the Canadian issue Mark III rifle ie. would they take the same bayonet.??

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

Yes they did as after all, they were both .303 inch calibre. The difference was in the foresight.

regards

tonyE

[4thGordons]

Yes they did as after all, they were both .303 inch calibre. The difference was in the foresight.

regards

tonyE

Tony - Did the British contract rifles have foresight protectors similar to the P'14? (I thought there was also a difference in the rear sight...but I am still waiting for my idiots guide!)

In the meantime: here is the N N stamp. The only other odd stamp it it appears to have had a 4 digit serial number added to the the underside of the trigger guard. Other than the maker and model and two proofs there are not many other markings. The buttstock has a roundel on it which I cannot read it also has III (as expected) and 960 (over) 98? - the 98 is very faint and may be 93 or 96 or.... It also has J L stamped on the side of the butt.

Chris

Pat, the Standard US M1907 Leather sling would be appropriate for the Springfield, originals with date stamping are a bit pricey - WWI variants would have had brass fittings, later WWII versions, steel. Reproductions can be purchased very cheaply here. The Barrel on yours was made not too far from where I currently reside -at Rock Island Arsenal (Rock Island, Illinois - there is an excellent collection of small arms at the museum there)

[sabine72]

Chris

Thank you for the information and reproduction is not my thing it has to be all genuine

Pat

[shippingsteel]

In the meantime: here is the N N stamp. The only other odd stamp it it appears to have had a 4 digit serial number added to the the underside of the trigger guard. Other than the maker and model and two proofs there are not many other markings. The buttstock has a roundel on it which I cannot read it also has III (as expected) and 960 (over) 98? - the 98 is very faint and may be 93 or 96 or.... It also has J L stamped on the side of the butt.

Chris

That letter N does look very similar to the script used to represent naval service on other items I have seen. Also the 960 JL could form the serial number of the rifle. Apparently they used the two letters as a prefix followed by a 3 digit number to indicate the serial number.

You might be interested to check this topic in Arms Ross Mk. II 5*, A Canadian comes home - for some info on Canadian markings etc.

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

Chris - Yes, the foresights of the III and IIIB were different, as were the rear sights. In both instances the sights resembled the Pattern '14.

Here is the Mark III

and the IIIB

Rear sights, first Mark III

..Continued....

[TonyE]

Mark IIIB

S>S

The Canadian Mark IIIs did not have any serial numbers on the metalwork, only stamped in the buttstock together with the date of issue. The number on Chris's must have been added later. The British Mark IIIB serial numbers were stamped in the metal of the receiver on the left hand side and ran 1-9999, A1-A9999. B1-B9999 etc. Highest known serial number before the contract was cancelled is in the G6000 series.

Regards

TonyE

[TonyE]

In the picture I posted of the naval ratings, they seem to have a mixture of Mark III and IIIB rifles, although being a reproduction from an old magazine it is difficult to tell. However, this one appears to be a Mark III

and this one possibly a Mark IIIB

Regards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

Thanks Tony,

It took me about 15 minutes to work out all the adjustments on the rear sight on the MkIII!

The serial number on mine looks to be a later add on - hand stamped on the flat metal of the trigger guard. The font looks identical to that used on a couple of my renumbered rifles.

As S>S says, I just compared the N to my .22 Short Rifle MkII which is also N stamped and they look very similar. I do not suppose it will ever really be resolved but its a nice excuse as my collection is supposedly "British" based.I have never seen a MkIIIB in the US but I have not looked very hard... I suspect they will be very, very expensive.

Speaking of which - a well know dealer (the one who is the main US distributor of the weapons found in the large Nepalese cache) is currently offering a small number of Lee Metford MkI* for sale, they are untouched condition but look like they will clean up well if anyone has $2250 knocking around!

Chris

[4thGordons]

Tony

Are any of the scabbards used on the Ross visible in the picture (or others you may posess?)

The reason I ask is illustrated below.

Looking for a Ross Bayonet to pair with my rifle I found this:

Bayonet Ross MkII (C6) 1907 pattern bayonet with 1915 issue marks and Candian property markings (broad arrow in a C), modified point blade (less heavily than later) but with an interesting scabbard.

It looks to be a Ross MkII scabbard but with a British p1907 locket fitted (looks to be a proffesional, period conversion), certainly not recent. I hypothesize this may have been for issue with british webbing / frog but none such is illustrated in Skennerton and Richardson.

The scabbard is dated on the tip 1916, it is also stamped MkII and has a Canadian stamp (as above) - it has a metal tip at the end.

Seph / S>S any thoughts on this one?

[shippingsteel]

Looking for a Ross Bayonet to pair with my rifle I found this:

Bayonet Ross MkII (C6) 1907 pattern bayonet with 1915 issue marks and Candian property markings (broad arrow in a C), modified point blade (less heavily than later) but with an interesting scabbard.

It looks to be a Ross MkII scabbard but with a British p1907 locket fitted (looks to be a proffesional, period conversion), certainly not recent. I hypothesize this may have been for issue with british webbing / frog but none such is illustrated in Skennerton and Richardson.

The scabbard is dated on the tip 1916, it is also stamped MkII and has a Canadian stamp (as above) - it has a metal tip at the end.

Seph / S>S any thoughts on this one?

Chris at first glance I think you may have done very very well, however I'll need you to check if there are any more markings on it anywhere.

Both the bayonet blade tip and the leather scabbard type are definitely NOT standard issue Ross items. From the looks of it, the pair are very similar to the gear that was made for the UK Naval contract and which was later linked to the Chileans.

From appearances yours looks very much like this CLICK HERE but should be marked appropriately with extra stamps etc.

If they are genuine gear from the naval contract it would fit very nicely with your supposed "naval" Ross rifle so extremely well done.

On the flipside, the Canadian property markings are a little confusing - the UK contract were not marked with the C^ but had the British ^.

It wouldn't be the first unplaceable Ross bayonet that I've seen though. I suspect that they might have had a lot of "leftovers" from odd contracts here and there that ended going different ways in the mix of things. Always adds to the intrigue ....

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

S>S

The blade tip is I think a standard variation - It is illustrated in Skennerton and Richardson p303 and described as the Ross MkII - C6. There are pictures which match the profile identically.

Approved 14/4 and 6/6/1912 ..."from Oct 1915 the pommel pin was eliminated and blade tip profile was changed..." This was the more radically modified tip (C7) which was also approved in 1915 but the authors note there is a crossover period with some confusions. The scabbard however remains interesting.

I am aware of the Chilean Naval rifles/bayonets but there is no indication of DA or a serial on the crossguard as there is on the Chilean /HMS Canada issued ones

Chris

[shippingsteel]

OK what I meant is that it is a different variation blade tip - not one you would find on a "standard/common" Ross bayonet or one that has been "modified/cutdown" for improved penetration or one that was later manufactured in the "modified" style from the factory. The scabbard story is mostly likewise. Are there no sign of the British broad arrow inspection markings on it.? What about stamps on the wooden grips, crown, number etc. also tang of hilt?

Also, I don't think ALL the UK naval contract bayonets went on to make it into Chilean ownership so there could possibly be some that don't have those extra markings added.??

Interesting I was actually looking quite hard at those Ross bayonets in TonyE's naval photo (posted above) even before you posted this bayonet of yours - thinking some of those tips look kind of strange and unusually sharp (but not modified style). Maybe you could have stumbled across the "perfect match".?

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

Chris - I believe the fitting of the Pattern '07 locket to the Ross scabbard was a British WWI modification. There is an example on Page 327 of the Ross Rifle Story which also states that these were issued to the Canadian Officer Training Corps after WWI. Unfortunately I have had a look through my pictures and do not have any clear shots of the scabbards.

S>S - You have refered in a couple of recent posts to the Ross "naval contract", but there is no such thing. There was only ever one British contract with Ross, and that was for 100,000 rifles placed by the War Office on 15th September 1914. This was contract 77/15/5098 and called for delivery to commence in March 1915 at the rate of 1,400 per week increasing to 2,100 per week from April 1915 and the whole to be complete by 6th April 1916. The contract included 100,000 bayonets and scabbards to be delivered commencing at 900 per week January 1915 and rising to match the 2,100 rifles per week by April 1915.

As you know, the Ross contract was beset with difficulties and the first 19 rifles were not accepted until August 1915, some six months late. Some 65,000 Ross Mark IIIB rifles were produced before the contract was cancelled on 18th February 1917.

In November 1914 Churchill (as First Sea Lord) had ordered that the Royal Navy hand over all their L-Es to the army and receive 50,000 Arisakas in their place. When it was decided to send the bulk of the British Arisakas to Russia in late 1916 the navy returned theirs in early 1917 and received Ross rifles instead, the Ross being considered unsuitable for front line army use. The navy also received some Ross Mark III rifles that had come from the CEF when they exchanged these for SMLEs. Also, independently, the Admiralty had purchased some old Ross Mark IIs on the surplus market in the US in 1914 when they were desperate for any rifles they could find. These went to civilian crews on armed trawlers etc.

When HMS Canada was returned to the Chilean Navy after the war she was handed over with the Royal Navy complement of small arms (just as we had seized her with her Mauser rifles in 1914) which is of course why the Chileans ended up with Ross rifles and bayonets. Only the small proportion of Ross rifles on HMS Canada went to Chile, the bulk of them were on other Royal Navy ships and so remained in the UK.

Apart from their contract to supply the Canadian military and the one British contract I am not aware of any other contract received by Ross, so there should be no "leftovers" from "odd contracts".

Regards

TonyE

[shippingsteel]

So TonyE from what you say there was a British contract for the Ross MarkIIIB rifle of which 65,000 were produced and that predominantly all of those that saw any service at all in WW1 were provided for British naval usage. Surely you can foregive us poor simpleton bayonet collectors for trying to join the dots together and describing it in general terms as a "UK naval contract". Perhaps it IS technically incorrect but as a description of where the bayonet originated from and where it saw its service it is pretty much a valid statement.

In trying to give Chris my thoughts of his example Ross bayonet and scabbard I provided ID as similar to those used by the British Navy. This was supported by virtually identical photos of the items which had been sourced from the HMS Canada which went to Chile - once again CLICK HERE

My point being that they were a representation of what the Ross bayonets being used by the RN at the time must have looked like complete with modified scabbard. And as you also said "only the small proportion of Ross rifles on HMS Canada went to Chile, the bulk of them were on other Royal Navy ships and so remained in the UK." Enough said I think ...

As far as talking about "leftovers", in bayonet terms we know that different markings are applied during the manufacture process. The reference material states that the British contract bayonets were not marked with the C^. Apparently this one IS marked, its pommel component could have been pre-marked in an earlier production run and then grabbed out of stores when the blades were added for the British contract manufacture, this type of thing did happen. As we know, the Ross factory was producing for the Canadian and the British contract at the same time, so go figure.

I myself have a Canadian modified blade example that is missing its C^ markings and its mark-vacant pommel looks exactly as the British contract bayonets should so it appears mixups do happen. (These kind of things don't normally show up in the reference material)

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you, and it is not just a question of semantics.

To use of the term "naval contract" implies that the contract was placed by or on behalf of the navy and this simply was not the case. The contract was placed by the War Office, the rifle was introduced in List of Changes for Land Service and the War Office retained the rifles after the war. We had received about 65,000 from the British contract and over 90,000 Mark III rifles from the CEF, and of these 161,000 rifles some 45,000 were used by the navy in 1917 and 1918. The remainder were all used by the army for training and the naval ones were returned to army stores at the end of the war.

To insist on calling this a "naval contract" is in my view just adding another incorrect term to the many already out there.

After all, my signature does not say pedant for nothing!

Regards

TonyE

[shippingsteel]

To insist on calling this a "naval contract" is in my view just adding another incorrect term to the many already out there.

Regards

TonyE

For your information TonyE just in case you're keeping notes on "incorrect usage of terms" I should inform you that I have not added any incorrect terms that are not already out there and in general usage. I direct you to THIS WEBSITE where I'm sure you will find plenty of terms that will leave you aghast and writhing in agony - enjoy.!!

FYI the owner of the website is a very well respected collector, commentator and bayonet enthusiast and most people (well nearly everyone, there is obviously one exception) are happy to go along with terms that are used as general descriptions in discussing examples of interest.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

After all, my signature does not say pedant for nothing!

Regards

TonyE

Yes TonyE, my thoughts exactly .!!

BTW there are some interesting definitions for pedant to be found in the dictionary - hairsplitter and nitpicker are a couple that I quite like.!!

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

As a general matter of principle, repeating an error does not make it any less of an error and knowingly repeating would to my mind compounds this.

I was under the impression that one of the things enthusiasts and researchers did was try to correct such errors when they are detected, such is certainly the usual scholarly approach.

As to the specifics of this instance: The British Navy used Ross rifles but my reading (limited though it is) has thus far revealed no mention of a Naval contract. Contract is not, in my view, a "general term" but rather a very specific referent, particularly when a specific number (500) is attributed, as in this case.

Reliance on claims of being an authority ("very well respected collector" etc) is to my mind a weak position. I could similarly assert with justification that TonyE is a "well respected researcher of British Small Arms contracts" and author of several works dealing with these. This would leave us in the situation of "dueling experts." The difference is TonyE is offering evidence (the numbers are accounted for by various trades and loans) whereas the web author does not, as far as I can see, offer any and simply mentions a "contract for 500 for the Royal Navy". The fact that a specific number is mentioned is interesting (how is it derived? the complement on HMS Canada? seems a lot), but it seems to be a very small number for a wartime "contract" . Should someone be able to produce evidence of such a contract (an order placed by the British Admiralty to Ross Rifle Co for the supply of Rifles/Bayonets) I am sure TonyE will be happy to stand corrected, and the collective knowledge on Ross bayonets will have advanced. Until such evidence is produced it would seem less potentially misleading to refer to rifles and bayonets that "saw service with the British Navy" or "British Navy marked bayonets"

I of course have little invested in this particular dispute and will rejoice in the fact that "my" bayonet (which was obtained in the UK) is, either way, a nice match for my rifle!

Chris

[shippingsteel]

Chris you're probably blowing this up into something it is not, however ...

Firstly I want to say that I am definitely NOT a pedant and certainly have no wish to be.

Next I want to say that I am sure that TonyE is technically correct with his information, and that as you say he is a respected researcher etc.

And I also agree that the quoted website is most probably incorrect with some of its technical information, as I implied. However I don't believe it claimed or ever set out to be a technical database or researchers reference source.

I also never claimed to be providing correct technical advice when discussing your bayonets origins. I was simply having a discussion about it. I do find it somewhat tiring though when everything that is ever mentioned is constantly screened for absolute authenticity by the experts.

I am happy to settle on the correct term for the bayonets origin and history being Ross manufactured for "British contract - Naval usage" if indeed that is correct. Please understand it is not that big a deal for me. I would also be eager to find out the exact background behind the scabbards history and where the modifications were authorised and carried out. I am still waiting for that advice and am always happy to become better informed.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

I of course have little invested in this particular dispute and will rejoice in the fact that "my" bayonet (which was obtained in the UK) is, either way, a nice match for my rifle!

Chris

You see Chris "therein lies the rub", or in other words this is essentially the basis of our problem or disagreement here.

Both you and I are quietly satisfied that you have a quite nice bayonet to go along with your very nice rifle - Ross M1910 MarkIII.

The rifle shows evidence of possible British Navy use and the bayonet is similar to those used by the British Navy on their Ross rifles, so we have a match - right.??

Well not really, you see if we were to be really pedantic about it, or technical if you like, what you have is NOT a match. From my understanding the bayonets manufactured for the British contract (with the different tip profile) which we believe yours is, were manufactured for and sold with the Ross MarkIIIB British contract rifles, you know the ones with the different sights etc.

From what we gather, your rifle is the Canadian version MarkIII and so should be matched with the normal Ross MkII bayonet (pattern 1911) either featuring the original "butterknife" blade, or the "ground/cutdown" blade or the later factory modified blade version, all with the 16.7 mm muzzle ring diameter. FYI the "butterknife" blade bayonets are easily visible in TonyE's naval photo posted previously.

You see its simply a matter of just HOW pedantic you want to get, or just HOW correct is CORRECT. That is the point that I'm trying to make.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Well that's OK - I have a nice butter knife one too

Chris