The Ross project is coming along nicely, so I filmed a quick teaser for you:
Book review
Book Review: A Rifleman Went to War
Herbert McBride was a American who grew up learning to shoot from Civil War veterans and some of the big names of the American West, like Bat Masterson. He had a taste for adventure, and […]
Bolt Action Rifles
Cooey: The Unassuming Canadian Workhorse
Cooey is a brand name that will be immediately recognized by Canadians, but pretty much unknown everywhere else. Founded in 1903 by Herbert Cooey, the company would produce a series of simple and practical firearms […]
Biography
Biography: James Paris Lee
James Paris Lee was a firearms designer whose inventions had a far greater historical significance than even most firearms enthusiasts realize. Where Lee is recognized at all, it is generally for the rifles that bear […]
Wow! Danger bro… 😉
That’s a pretty non-ambivalent and graphic demonstration of what can happen — I’m definitely looking forward to the full test.
When you disassemble the Ross remove the screw on the bottom front of the receiver and see how few turns it takes to unscrew the barrel. I thought it was an interesting experience.
Does this mean that the barrel on the Ross is not as adequately secured in place as it could be, thereby possibly affecting the overall integrity of the receiver and barrel assembly? I am not too familiar with Ross rifles, so I hope you will understand my asking the question as I would like to learn a bit more :).
The perfect rifle for liberals.
Nah…the perfect rifle for anti-gun liberals is a nice semiauto .22 so you can teach them basic safety and marksmanship and get them hooked on shooting! A mis-assembled Ross is the perfect gun for tin-pot dictators.
Any chance you might be willing to avoid politics on this blog? Some of your fans aren’t exactly conservative.
Politics;
the art of dividing peaceful productive individuals and setting them at each others throats.
(It was probably one of Mencken’s, but I’ve mangled it too badly now to find the originator)
Aron has a very good point that I do agree with, but I also greatly appreciate Ian’s positive, good-natured and open-minded attitude. As for murderous dictators and those of that ilk who would deliberately oppress and destroy the lives of so many for the sake of their own corrupt, vainglorious and uncaring ambitions, perhaps a mis-assembled Ross is actually just a little too mild for the likes of them.
Hear, hear! Ian, I like you too much to let politics get in the way.
Please don’t give me a reason to avoid your very interesting site 🙁
I definitely don’t want to let the site get too political. I recognize that we are a community of many ideologies, and I don’t want to alienate anyone who shares my passion for firearms. 🙂
And that’s why we loves ya, Ian!
i have had a ross 1910 for more than 30 years. it is in beautiful condition, but i have been reluctant to shoot it because of its potential for “bolt malfunction” . there are many stories of trench solders blowing off their right cheek and eye from bolt errors. the gun is generally well made and extremely accurate… it was a poor rifle for trench warfare however as it doe not tolerate being dirty… looking forward to more info so i may feel safer shooting this interesting piece of canadian history.
As far as I know, your Ross should be quite safe so long as the bolt is assembled property.
Thing is, I don’t know how to tell if one is assembled property.
Earl. No this Definitely does NOT! mean that the barrel on the Ross is not as adequately secured. It only refers to the pitch rate of the barrel threads. They are ”tilted” more than most threads therefore the barrel comes off with fewer turns.
Bob, thanks for the clarification. I take it that you mean that the Ross has a coarser thread pitch than equivalent weapons, which is why it takes fewer turns to unscrew it.
I would personally feel much safer with fine barrel threads.
Coarse threads are ok for wood screws. If it’s metal, and under tension (like a machine screw or a barrel), I want the screws fine as a razor saw.
I certainly agree — much more effective surface area being fully butted up and supported.
And by screws, I obviously meant threads. The rum has gone straight to my head.
That’s okay, I understood what you meant from the start. And it’s quite forgivable, as long as it was decent rum :).
Gosling’s Dark and Stormy. Zacapa it ain’t!
One word: Huot!
Yes, building a Huot has been on my mind for a while. It’s a lot simpler to blow up a Ross than convert it to a semiauto, though. 🙂
How difficult can it be to convert to full-auto? Just mis-assemble the bolt, and install a spring so that every time the bolt flies backward, the spring drives it forward!
Instant super dangerous closed-bolt blowback machine gun!
FWIW, you actually have to TRY to assemble the bolt wrong. On many M1910 Rosses, it’s impossible as most were retro-fitted with a rivet in the bolt body making mis-assembly a non-issue.
I am looking forward to the video though. The red paint and skull imagery is a bit much…
As for hte guy talking about full-auto Rosses, it was done in WW1. Look up the Huot Automatic Rifle. It was a Ross converted to something like a Bren gun.
Actually, I didn’t do the tape for theatrical reasons. I had left the rifle lying around in the mis-assembled configuration, and realized that it would be really bad if someone fired it that way. Not that there was any reason to expect that someone would, but since the consequences would be pretty serious, I figured I should mark the gun with some warning. The skull and crossbones may have been a bit more than necessary, though. 🙂
Don’t worry – my goal is education, and showing uninformed or partially-informed Ross owners how they can be sure their rifles are safe to shoot. Teaser aside, I’m not planning to play Sgt Elliott or Ralph Nader.
I’m quite familiar with the Huot. I was just thinking about making a version that was EVEN MORE dangerous!