My Wierd Gun Rant

Status
Not open for further replies.

RangerGord

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2016
Messages
9
Here's a short list of common gun opinions or myths, and my responses to them.

#1 The rem 11 is a Browning A5 "copy" or "knock off".
No, Remington did not pay royalties to Belgium or any such thing. John Browning first approached Remington with the design. The president of Remington died before they could close the deal, which slowed the introduction of the rem 11. Remington made a legit John Browning design using his patent, not a "knock off" by any means.

#2 The Ross rifle is dangerous.
While the mk3 bolt can be reassembled in such a way that the locking lugs do not engage properly, the mk2 and later versions of the mk3 do not have this issue. It's also really easy to check if your Ross is functioning properly. Compared to the Enfield no1 mk3 the Ross has a heavier barrel and better trigger. They are fairly nice guns and I hate to see people sweep them under the rug.

#3 Browning A5s didn't come with Polychokes from the factory.
Yes they did. I have a Browning catalog from the 1950s to prove it.

I hope you enjoyed my short list of gun opinions I encounter frequently and my responses to them.
 
#1 is a "semantic" debate. Remington didn't have to "pay royalties" to Belgium. Belgium is a country, not a firearms manufacturer. Browning might have been a recipient of royalties, but as you say, he was dead. The Remington model 11 lacks the magazine cut off of the A5, but is really, essentially, a copy. Sure it's legit, saying it's a copy does not make it illigitimate.

#2. I have no idea of what the Ross rifle was, so it must have been dangerous:p. Just kidding. I think I'll just skip this.


#3. I have a Browning Auto 5 made in the 1950s. It has no polychokes. But it may be a version that was not offered with them, so I won't be stupid like I was in #2 and I'll just say, "I dunno.";)
 
(I am sure by "Belgium" the opening poster meant Fabrique Nationale FN the Belgian gun company that made Browning patent guns.) Browning took the A5 shotgun first to Winchester who turned him down, then to Remington, then to FN who had already been making Browning pistols where it was first produced. Then Remington licensed the design from Browning (not from FN). So in a way the A5 was returning "home" to Remington as the Model 11. Good short article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_Auto-5

As a sporting rifle the Ross still has its fans in Canada. It was originally a Canadian military design (UK would not license the Lee-Enfield to Canadian manufacture). Proper assembly of the original model was sometimes too much for fatigued troops under combat conditions. I have seen a video of an improperly assembled original Canadian Ross fired; it was scary. However the Ross was more accurate than the Lee-Enfiled and was prefered by Canadian snipers (who I guess were better trained to pay attention to details).

I believe we have all heard opinions and myths about guns that do not stand up to actual experience.
 
The problem with the Ross is that it's tolerances were to high for trench warfare. A well made rifle, just not suited for harsh combat.
"A hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .45" assumes a .45 is incapable of making a hit.
 
Just to muddy the water.... don't forget that after the Nazis invaded Belgium, FN approached Remington about producing shotguns with the Browning name, to which they agreed. Many Brownings made in the mid-40's were made in the U.S. at the Remington factory. (Though that was years after the Model 11 came out...)
 
#2 The Ross rifle is dangerous.
While the mk3 bolt can be reassembled in such a way that the locking lugs do not engage properly, the mk2 and later versions of the mk3 do not have this issue. It's also really easy to check if your Ross is functioning properly. Compared to the Enfield no1 mk3 the Ross has a heavier barrel and better trigger. They are fairly nice guns and I hate to see people sweep them under the rug.
It was the #1 Ross that had quality problems. The #2 was the best of the Ross rifles. Only the early #3s had the bolt assembly problems. It was solved in the later #3s. The #3s failed in the trenches of WW1 because of faulty design, not tight tolerances . The bolt stop would peen the left rear locking lug until it would not allow the bolt to close. I have an early #3 that I have submitted to torture tests. It withstood mud and sand and water as well as any Mauser or Enfield. And after the tests, I cleaned it up and it is now one of the most accurate Iron sighted rifles I have ever owned. On any given day, with any factory .303 ammo, regardless of bullet weight, it will shoot minute of angle out to 300 yards. I have embarrassed my share of AR-15 owners at the local range. I love the Ross rifles and I have never felt that they got the recognition they deserve. They were, especially the 280 sporters (I have an M-10 in 280 ) way ahead of their time.
 
"A hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .45" assumes a .45 is incapable of making a hit.
Sorry, GBran, but that is a non-sequitur; it does not connect with the other thought.

The Ross rifle was superior to the Lee-Enfield in many ways, but clogged up with dirt and mud - common in the trenches of WWI Europe - and simply took too much time during a battle to maintain. At least, that was the conclusion and belief of the Canadian troops in WWI armed with the Ross. It may have served better in another place and climate, but there's no way to tell.

Your response - it seems - does not even come close to the same subject or discussion.
 
Here's a short list of common gun opinions or myths, and my responses to them.
Ranger, I too have a list of objections to common myths; not completely the same as yours.

Part of my objections seem to revolve around the inability to comprehend and communicate in English. The distinction between 'copy', 'replica', 'clone' and 'variant', for instance.

I won't start. Too little time.
 
the Ross rifle was dangerous when assembled wrong................................................ ya think what isnt. ross was is a vary fine gun.
 
the Ross rifle was dangerous when assembled wrong...
Without question, men were killed by the bolt recoiling into their forehead.

Which NEVER happened due to weakness in the design. Or in other words, when the rifle was assembled correctly.

AND, only one variation could be assembled incorrectly. The problem was corrected. Besides, there aren't too many left in circulation.
 
Without question, men were killed by the bolt recoiling into their forehead.
This only happened with the mark I and it had nothing to do with assembly. The Mk. IIIs that had the assembly problem, when fired with the bolt assembled incorrectly, would severely injure the hand, but the bolt would not exit the receiver. Google Ross Mk. III incorrect assembly. Forgotten Weapons has an excellent video on what happens when a Ross Mk. III is fired when the bolt is incorrectly assembled. Bad for the hand, but that bolt is NOT going through your skull....
 
"Tolerances." Now, there's one that a lot of people throw around and they completely misunderstand what it means in a factory production setting.

Things made on a production line have dimensions - they are x long, y high, and z deep in common understanding, albeit a CNC machinist may take exception to even that. When making a run of parts, the "tolerance" is measured to a plus or minus as both men and machines are not perfect at continuous reproduction. (Even with their gene pool.) So if the part is 6" long, the engineers have calculated that it is allowed to vary only as much as, say, plus .015" or minus .015", which is a total of .030" tolerance. The people checking the parts literally "tolerate" that much variation in size.

During assembly the engineers also have a tolerance spec for the collection of parts put together, and if you add all those pluses and minuses they limit them. That is a "stack" tolerance, which sometimes forces assembly workers to sort the parts by smaller or larger critical dimensions and to fit the complementary ones to meet that figure and prevent going too far under or over.

Now, for something that has to move, such as a bolt inside a receiver, there is an additional amount of room to accomplish that without excessive friction or sticking. It requires knowing the amount of expansion and contraction a device may undergo due to the ambient temperature and what heat or cooling it may produce. Something which has to perform at 15 degrees F up to 145 degrees F may undergo some amazing dimensional changes. Yet that is a common situation for guns in North America, winter to summer. Yet it is still required to operate, so the engineers put in enough space between parts to allow it. That is known as "clearance."

The issue with a gun made to close tolerances is moot, it's generally considered to be good quality control, but one with tight clearances touted as being the pinnacle of fit and finish? It could likely jam up at extreme temperatures if there isn't enough clearance, even more if contaminated with dirt, mud, or freezing precipitation. This is where a highly rated gun at home in 72 degree dry environment becomes a nightmare at 31 degrees in wet conditions. They can be problematic. And pulling one out of the trunk that sat out in the afternoon sun in August, not so much either. Much less the heat soaking that the cartridges experienced and how much it affects the burn rate of the powder.

Or, a newly made M16 with a outsourced barrel and undersized chamber, firing contaminated powder repurposed from other intents. The guns tolerances were inspected repeatedly, but the working clearance of ammo to chamber was something else, especially when fouled. Tolerances are not clearances, and when it gets discussed in forums it's typically confused. Even worse, it's considered the hallmark of good gunsmithing to reduce clearances to the minimum possible, when the reality is that there better be some and you have to accept it if you want the gun to operate.

Which is better, a 1911 which has a slide that actually shifts from side to side when handling it, but which can hit a man sized target at 50 feet in any environmental conditions, or one with no slack at all, which freezes up in the holster just getting there, or binds in the heat of the desert? I will take the old service .45 every day and leave the cantankerous high cost race gun at home where it belongs. Both were made to the same tolerances, =/- .015", it's the clearances which make all the difference.

How has this misunderstanding developed? 50 years ago we were a nation of producers, and many of us worked in factories. We dealt with numbers, calipers, and dimensions all day long. Now? Very few, and most have no real clue. The bulk of American workers are in service industry, not production, and the problem has grown exponentially worse as our understanding of it has become out of our ken. Like military servicemen, who were so plentiful at one time there was at least one in ten at a family reunion, now it's one in one hundred, and the ratio of folks who actually produce parts and create machines is about the same, now, too. The average American actually doesn't know what they are talking about anymore when it comes to making things or serving our country. Having done both it's one of those things where you just learn to keep quiet about it most of the time. It takes much too long to explain, and all too often the unknowledgeable hearing things they don't fundamentally understand in the first place question what is being said.

Tolerances are not clearances.
 
Sorry, GBran, but that is a non-sequitur; it does not connect with the other thought.

The Ross rifle was superior to the Lee-Enfield in many ways, but clogged up with dirt and mud - common in the trenches of WWI Europe - and simply took too much time during a battle to maintain. At least, that was the conclusion and belief of the Canadian troops in WWI armed with the Ross. It may have served better in another place and climate, but there's no way to tell.

Your response - it seems - does not even come close to the same subject or discussion.

I have heard of the Ross but don't know anything about them. I did hear the rumor about the bolt problem.

It must be a helluva rifle to beat the Lee-Enfield. The Lee-Enfield would be my choice if I were ever limited to a bolt action battle rifle. Super slick action and can fire almost as fast as a semi with a trained operator
 
I have heard of the Ross but don't know anything about them. I did hear the rumor about the bolt problem.
The story of the Ross Mk III in WW I is long and convoluted, but suffice it to say that the problem was bad design. Re-read post #10. The Ross was much faster to fire than any Enfield....until the bolt froze...because of the deformed left rear locking lug.( It had seven ). I have fired five reasonably aimed shots, good enough to hit a man at a hundred yards, from my Mk III, in four seconds. No Enfield can match that.
 
The story of the Ross Mk III in WW I is long and convoluted, but suffice it to say that the problem was bad design. Re-read post #10. The Ross was much faster to fire than any Enfield....until the bolt froze...because of the deformed left rear locking lug.( It had seven ). I have fired five reasonably aimed shots, good enough to hit a man at a hundred yards, from my Mk III, in four seconds. No Enfield can match that.


Question for you. You seem to have experience with old obscure rifles and very knowledgeable

Have you ever fired or handled the M1895 Lee Navy 6mm? I have always wanted one but they are rare and usually pricey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top