best bolt action military rifle of the 20th century

[salt&battery]

Having a magazine cut-off on the Krag made sense, on the M1903, it did not. THe Germans came to this conclusion when they adopted stripper-clip loading in the Mauser, which do not have this feature.

With the Krag, each round of ammunition was stored in a individual loop on the cartridge belt, and had to be individually removed from the cartridge belt and placed in the magazine, so the average time required to load and fire 5 rounds was the same whether you fire single shot (one round, chamber, fire, repeat four more times), or fired five rounds from the magazine (one round in the magazine, repeat four times, then shoot five times). But, if you used the cut-off in the "OFF" position, you could maintain a constant rate of fire equal to how long it took to pull one round from the belt, load and fire, but you got to keep the five rounds in the magazine as reserve in case you needed a quick burst of five rounds.

Once you adopted the stripper clip, the magazine cut-off becomes pointless. Now, all ammunition is going to be issued and stored in the cartridge belt in stripper clips. So, if you were going to shoot one round at a time, keeping the five rounds in the magazine "in reserve", you would have to remove a stripper clip from the belt, remove one round from the stripper clip, load it into the rifle, do something with the partially loaded stripper clip (put it in your pocket, or replace it in the cartridge belt, place it on the trench parapet, etc), then shoot. Now, you also have a partially loaded stripper clip, that can be potentially lost.

With a the speed that a stripper clip can be loaded into a magazine, and the fact that all ammunition is pre-packaged in stripper clips, it just make no sense to have a cut-off. The stripper clip actually makes loading single rounds more difficult, and increases the chances of lost or wasted ammunition if ammunition is removed from the stripper clip.

The M1903A3 kept the cut-off because it easier to keep it on than to remove it.

Similarly, the magazine cut-off in the MLE and LEC made sense, on the SMLEs and CLMLEs it should have been removed, it was pointless.

I did not set the rules for loading the rifles this is what the generals who were in their late 60's trained on horses and muzzle loaders came up with. they also tried to wear out machine guns on their soldiers chests

 

[fpgt72]

Fun discussion.

I would have to say MAS 36. The mas has the pokey bit stuck to the gun....no need to fool with it.....it was also one of the last designed so they could look at all the others and pick just what worked and what did not.

I have not read the entire post so I will read and reserve the right to change my idea

 

[boom boom]

Wall of text warning:

Having a magazine cut-off on the Krag made sense, on the M1903, it did not. THe Germans came to this conclusion when they adopted stripper-clip loading in the Mauser, which do not have this feature.

With the Krag, each round of ammunition was stored in a individual loop on the cartridge belt, and had to be individually removed from the cartridge belt and placed in the magazine, so the average time required to load and fire 5 rounds was the same whether you fire single shot (one round, chamber, fire, repeat four more times), or fired five rounds from the magazine (one round in the magazine, repeat four times, then shoot five times). But, if you used the cut-off in the "OFF" position, you could maintain a constant rate of fire equal to how long it took to pull one round from the belt, load and fire, but you got to keep the five rounds in the magazine as reserve in case you needed a quick burst of five rounds.

Once you adopted the stripper clip, the magazine cut-off becomes pointless. Now, all ammunition is going to be issued and stored in the cartridge belt in stripper clips. So, if you were going to shoot one round at a time, keeping the five rounds in the magazine "in reserve", you would have to remove a stripper clip from the belt, remove one round from the stripper clip, load it into the rifle, do something with the partially loaded stripper clip (put it in your pocket, or replace it in the cartridge belt, place it on the trench parapet, etc), then shoot. Now, you also have a partially loaded stripper clip, that can be potentially lost.

With a the speed that a stripper clip can be loaded into a magazine, and the fact that all ammunition is pre-packaged in stripper clips, it just make no sense to have a cut-off. The stripper clip actually makes loading single rounds more difficult, and increases the chances of lost or wasted ammunition if ammunition is removed from the stripper clip.

The M1903A3 kept the cut-off because it easier to keep it on than to remove it.

Similarly, the magazine cut-off in the MLE and LEC made sense, on the SMLEs and CLMLEs it should have been removed, it was pointless.

One of the fascinating things for me about collecting milsurps is that the firearms tend to reflect the different characters and projected situations that each nation felt that these weapons would be employed.

The Germans were concerned primarily with land wars in Europe which by the time of the 90's series was fully developed with road networks, rail links, etc. Thus, logistics for them consisted of moving ammunition by rail to areas near the battlegrounds and then using the road networks to distribute beyond the railheads. Stockpiles of ammunition were also kept near the frontiers to distribution.

Americans and British were oriented toward expeditionary type forces that often were far from home and transportation networks making logistics difficult. The British had an empire to defend and Americans had the West and later after 1898 some colonial possessions. Neither could assume that ammunition stockpiles were mere a day away from access. On the other hand, both were fighting mainly indigenous peoples that did not have advanced weapons so lower ammunition counts would suffice even in the event that the expeditionary forces were outnumbered (see the Boxer Rebellion and the Zulu uprisings). However, in the case of near peer type wars, such as U.S. v. Spain and Great Britain versus the Boers, the speed and rapidity of reloading via stripper clips became an advantage hard to ignore. Thus, the militaries retained the cutoff for the show of force type incidents and added stripper clip functionality to keep up with European trends.

When we use hindsight, it is often clear what course should have been followed, however, just like we have our predispositions regarding what will happen tomorrow, so did the decisionmakers of the time. Humans are pattern seekers by nature and as we try to predict the future, we often do so by predicting the past will reflect the future.

What we also lose in retrospective excursions is that senior decisionmakers in militaries are going to use their experience to predict the needs of troops. They will also consider firearms as part of a system to make war which includes other components such as artillery, machine guns, logistics, training, expected areas of operation, manufacturing concerns, operational doctrines, and so on. Decisions that seem stupid in hindsight such as the French retention of the hard to reload tube fed Lebel into WWI make more sense when you consider that France would have had to replace its ammunition with a rimless cartridge, redone training for millions of troops that were acquainted with the Lebel, changed manufacturing lines in the plants, and so forth. Even as the British recognized the shortcoming of the Lee-Enfield and designed its replacement in the P14, they were not prepared to replace it until the eve of WWI some twenty years after the variants of the Lee-Enfield were adopted. For the British, it was simple pre-war as their army was relatively small and mainly tasked as garrison and training troops. For the French, it would have involved major training and logistic issues to switch weapons under the threat of imminent war. The Germans had to do much less when they switched from the GEW 88 to the GEW 98 as they were familiar with the clip usage firearms before the 98 came about. They also converted GEW 88's to use a common spitzer type bullet which simply involved a barrel switch. An additional complication is that money is fungible but each dollar spent for a rifle is one that is not available for ships, cannon, training, etc.

War plans in each country tend to reflect what potential wars and conflicts will involve that country. Neither the Americans (nor probably the British viewing by what Churchill said in his WWI series) envisaged massive troop by those countries mobilizing and fighting in Europe with massive losses of material. The German warplans focused on fighting the French offensively via the Schiefflin plan and fighting a defensive war on the Eastern front until France capitulated in a matter of weeks. Russian warplans focused on fighting Austria Hungary and invasion of East Prussia. Austria Hungary was just trying to hold its Empire together against Russian opposition and saw operations in the Balkans as key. Italy was ill prepared for war either against the Entente or its (soon to be) former allies and so on.

All in all, decisions on what options to have on infantry firearms represent a minor consideration to warplans for a major power and the emphasis is what is good enough and fits with overall warplanning rather than what is best.

 

[ilbob]

just as a decade after WWI there was considerable distrust of the idea of going from bolt action to semiauto, in some part because generals were afraid soldiers would "waste" ammunition, and it would dramatically change the logistics of ammunition resupply if more ammo was used.

personally, I am not sure it would have made any real difference to the outcome if the US would have fought WWII with the Springfield instead of the garand.

 

[tark]

Errrrr..... oops! Meant three INCH groups an a hundred for my old Krag.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Wall of text warning:


One of the fascinating things for me about collecting milsurps is that the firearms tend to reflect the different characters and projected situations that each nation felt that these weapons would be employed.

The Germans were concerned primarily with land wars in Europe which by the time of the 90's series was fully developed with road networks, rail links, etc. Thus, logistics for them consisted of moving ammunition by rail to areas near the battlegrounds and then using the road networks to distribute beyond the railheads. Stockpiles of ammunition were also kept near the frontiers to distribution.

Americans and British were oriented toward expeditionary type forces that often were far from home and transportation networks making logistics difficult. The British had an empire to defend and Americans had the West and later after 1898 some colonial possessions. Neither could assume that ammunition stockpiles were mere a day away from access. On the other hand, both were fighting mainly indigenous peoples that did not have advanced weapons so lower ammunition counts would suffice even in the event that the expeditionary forces were outnumbered (see the Boxer Rebellion and the Zulu uprisings). However, in the case of near peer type wars, such as U.S. v. Spain and Great Britain versus the Boers, the speed and rapidity of reloading via stripper clips became an advantage hard to ignore. Thus, the militaries retained the cutoff for the show of force type incidents and added stripper clip functionality to keep up with European trends.

When we use hindsight, it is often clear what course should have been followed, however, just like we have our predispositions regarding what will happen tomorrow, so did the decisionmakers of the time. Humans are pattern seekers by nature and as we try to predict the future, we often do so by predicting the past will reflect the future.

What we also lose in retrospective excursions is that senior decisionmakers in militaries are going to use their experience to predict the needs of troops. They will also consider firearms as part of a system to make war which includes other components such as artillery, machine guns, logistics, training, expected areas of operation, manufacturing concerns, operational doctrines, and so on. Decisions that seem stupid in hindsight such as the French retention of the hard to reload tube fed Lebel into WWI make more sense when you consider that France would have had to replace its ammunition with a rimless cartridge, redone training for millions of troops that were acquainted with the Lebel, changed manufacturing lines in the plants, and so forth. Even as the British recognized the shortcoming of the Lee-Enfield and designed its replacement in the P14, they were not prepared to replace it until the eve of WWI some twenty years after the variants of the Lee-Enfield were adopted. For the British, it was simple pre-war as their army was relatively small and mainly tasked as garrison and training troops. For the French, it would have involved major training and logistic issues to switch weapons under the threat of imminent war. The Germans had to do much less when they switched from the GEW 88 to the GEW 98 as they were familiar with the clip usage firearms before the 98 came about. They also converted GEW 88's to use a common spitzer type bullet which simply involved a barrel switch. An additional complication is that money is fungible but each dollar spent for a rifle is one that is not available for ships, cannon, training, etc.

War plans in each country tend to reflect what potential wars and conflicts will involve that country. Neither the Americans (nor probably the British viewing by what Churchill said in his WWI series) envisaged massive troop by those countries mobilizing and fighting in Europe with massive losses of material. The German warplans focused on fighting the French offensively via the Schiefflin plan and fighting a defensive war on the Eastern front until France capitulated in a matter of weeks. Russian warplans focused on fighting Austria Hungary and invasion of East Prussia. Austria Hungary was just trying to hold its Empire together against Russian opposition and saw operations in the Balkans as key. Italy was ill prepared for war either against the Entente or its (soon to be) former allies and so on.

All in all, decisions on what options to have on infantry firearms represent a minor consideration to warplans for a major power and the emphasis is what is good enough and fits with overall warplanning rather than what is best.

The M1903 was introduced with completely new ammunition. This ammunition would be pre-packaged in stripper clips for the new rifle. Therefore, any ammunition available would be in stripper clips. So, it's either stripper clipped ammo or no ammo. Unless you planned to have two different supply items, standard ammo in clips and standard ammo packed loose, which makes absolutely no sense from a logistics point of view. And, since the new ammunition belt was designed with no provision for storing loose ammo, it was kind of obvious they never intended for the M1903 to be loaded in any other manner, except for an emergency.

What you post make sense to a point for the British, who might have had large stocks of non-stripper clipped .303 squirreled away around the world. It really doesn't for the US.

Just pointing out sometimes, the guys making the decisions weren't thinking the situation all the way through.

 

[toivo]

Finn M39. Just because.

Yup.

 

[tark]

Well,think we can all pretty much agree that all of the popular choices here were ALL excellent rifles, any one of which we would not feel handicapped carrying into battle. I can only think of ONE rifle which was a miserable failure and never made it to the end of WW-I; the Canadian Ross Mk III. It failed miserably in the trenches, which had nothing to do with Mud, and everything to do with poor design, and lack of field testing before they were issued. The bolt stop peened the left rear locking lug when operated vigorously, which deformed it to the point that it froze up the action. And then there was the problem of the bolt being improperly assembled and chambering a round without locking the breech..... When the unlocked bolt blew back, it was stopped by the bolt stop, so it didn't go through your skull, but your thumb was usually mangled beyond repair. Little consolation. Both problems were later fixed, but too late to save the reputation of the gun. It would never have been a popular gun anyway, it was too long and heavy, over ten pounds loaded.

My own Mk III has been subjected to some pretty awful torture testing involving mud, sand and dirt. It came through this as well as any Mauser, Enfield , Nagant or my substitute standard Arisaka. It took ridiculous amounts of crud to make any of them stop working. A quick dousing of water from a canteen got them all operating again.

If this had been a poll, I think the Smle #1 Mk III or the #4 Mk I would have won, narrowly, over the 98 Mauser.

 

[Sistema1927]

My maternal grandfather carried a MkIII* SMLE during his 12 years in "India" with the Essex Regiment. 1919-1931 stationed at the Khyber Pass (border of modern Pakistan and Afghanistan) defending the furthest outposts of the Empire.

As a result, I vote for it.

 

[H&Hhunter]

Errrrr..... oops! Meant three INCH groups an a hundred for my old Krag.

Just kidding with you.

 

[cdb1]

My maternal grandfather carried a MkIII* SMLE during his 12 years in "India" with the Essex Regiment. 1919-1931 stationed at the Khyber Pass (border of modern Pakistan and Afghanistan) defending the furthest outposts of the Empire.

As a result, I vote for it.

I would too if in the same situation.

 

[eastbank]

the out come of ww-11 wouldn,t have been different useing the 03 instead of the the m-1. i think your right, BUT THE OUTCOME for A SINGLE SOLDIER FACING SEVERAL ENEMEY SOLDIERS COULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. and my uncle was one of them in the south pacific. eastbank.

 

[fpgt72]

Well,think we can all pretty much agree that all of the popular choices here were ALL excellent rifles, any one of which we would not feel handicapped carrying into battle. I can only think of ONE rifle which was a miserable failure and never made it to the end of WW-I; the Canadian Ross Mk III. It failed miserably in the trenches, which had nothing to do with Mud, and everything to do with poor design, and lack of field testing before they were issued. The bolt stop peened the left rear locking lug when operated vigorously, which deformed it to the point that it froze up the action. And then there was the problem of the bolt being improperly assembled and chambering a round without locking the breech..... When the unlocked bolt blew back, it was stopped by the bolt stop, so it didn't go through your skull, but your thumb was usually mangled beyond repair. Little consolation. Both problems were later fixed, but too late to save the reputation of the gun. It would never have been a popular gun anyway, it was too long and heavy, over ten pounds loaded.

My own Mk III has been subjected to some pretty awful torture testing involving mud, sand and dirt. It came through this as well as any Mauser, Enfield , Nagant or my substitute standard Arisaka. It took ridiculous amounts of crud to make any of them stop working. A quick dousing of water from a canteen got them all operating again.

If this had been a poll, I think the Smle #1 Mk III or the #4 Mk I would have won, narrowly, over the 98 Mauser.

Sounds like someone has been watching youtube.

It was a good rifle, just not a good combat rifle....who knows fast forward 30 years or so and the story would be different.

It is like calling the lee navy a bad rifle.....nope just ahead of its time.

Oh and I am on the look out for a Ross and a lee navy....I will shoot the ross....doubt I will ever bother with the lee navy....but I would love to.

 

[boom boom]

Read Herbert McBride's A Rifleman Went to War for an experienced sniper's eye on the Enfield and the Ross as employed by the Canadien military in the trenches. He saw the elephant as the saying goes.

Cheap ebook on Amazon or you can get the dead tree version.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I am on the fence. With its 10 round capacity the SMLE was probably the best military bolt of the 20th century if we are talking proven combat worth.

The 10 round magazine is over rated. Look at it like this -- you and I are going to fire 100 rounds each, you with a SMLE, and me with a Mauser or Springfield.

I fire 5 shots and have to reload. You keep firing -- advantage to you.

We fire 5 more shots, and we BOTH have to reload -- with 5-round clips. Now we're even.

At the end of 100 rounds, I have reloaded 19 times, and you have reloaded 18 times. In other words, the 10 round magazine isn't all that much of an advantage.

 

[tark]

What is You-tube? I don't pay much attention to any of the social media, I think it's stupid. Especially face book. I If I want to communicate with someone I will call them or text them. That's as far as I go with modern communication mediums.

My knowledge of Ross Rifles was gained by reading articles by accredited experts and from the Ross Rifle forum. And by talking to the great Grandson of Sir Charles Ross himself, at the 1996 NRA Show.

And by actual experience. The miss-assembled bolt problem was rarely caused by miss-assembly at all. All you had to do to replicate the condition was to pull the bolt head forward with the bolt assembled, wiggle it a little, rotate it counter clockwise and let it snap back to the UN-LOCKED position. But when you attempted to insert it back into the gun it usually refused to go in, and if you DID manage to insert it , it worked back and forth very stiffly. I doubt that very many rifles were actually blown up this way. The peening of the left rear locking lug was (is) pretty easy to diagnose, you can see it for yourself. Picture #2 shows the Ross Mk III bolt in the proper position (lower) and the dangerous position (top)

I have four Ross'. A Mk II , a Mk III , an M-10 Sporter in .280 and a parted out Mk III receiver. The Mk III, which was pretty much wasted on the outside, in contrast to its pristine bore, was the one I torture tested. After that, I refinished the stock and cleaned up the metal, which I left in the white. It is a really nice looking rifle, and It is by far the most accurate bolt action rifle I have ever owned. Sub MOA groups out to three hundred yards are to be expected. It has a 31" barrel and the sighting radius is a full 36" with the finely adjustable rear aperture rear sight. Pic #1 shows the gun today.

If you find a Ross, the only one that really had a bad rep was the Mk I. Several unexplained blow-ups attributed to poor materials and faulty heat treat. But my rule of thumb has always been this:

If it looks like it has fired a zillion rounds.......it probably has.. Go ahead and shoot it, its probably just fine....

 

[FL-NC]

US M24 Sniper Weapons System.

 

[lysanderxiii]

The 10 round magazine is over rated. Look at it like this -- you and I are going to fire 100 rounds each, you with a SMLE, and me with a Mauser or Springfield.

I fire 5 shots and have to reload. You keep firing -- advantage to you.

We fire 5 more shots, and we BOTH have to reload -- with 5-round clips. Now we're even.

At the end of 100 rounds, I have reloaded 19 times, and you have reloaded 18 times. In other words, the 10 round magazine isn't all that much of an advantage.

There is one advantage, and it comes into play if you are using a No. 4 in an attempt to qualify on old Army, two table qualification.

In Table I, you get twenty rounds. Assuming you are going to use a stripper clip loaded bolt action rifle, that's four stripper clips.

There are four double exposure targets: #11 and #12, both up for 8 seconds, #13 and #14, both up for 10 seconds, #15 and #16, both up for 9 seconds and #19 and #20, both up for 6 seconds, if you are using a Mauser with a five round magazine, you will have to engage target #15 reload and engage target #16 all inside of 9 seconds. With an Enfield, you reload one clip after every fifth round*, then after target #10 you have a fully loaded ten round magazine to engage the remaining ten targets.

In Table II, you get another twenty rounds.

Targets #4 and #5 are double targets at 50 and 200 meters, and are up for 8 seconds, then you have targets #6 and #7 another double at 150 and 200 that are up for 12 seconds, and #8 and #9 are up together for 8 seconds, then three single targets to the 300 meter target as #12. If you reload in between targets #5 and #6, which gives you 24 to 25 seconds to engage four targets and load one stripper clip, easily do-able, and once again after the #12, which gives 14 to 15 seconds to engage one target and reload, you have enough ammo in the magazine to engage the remaining double targets without worry, as #14 and #15 are also doubles.

In short, you can clear the course with an Enfield, with a Mauser I do not think you can shoot reload and shoot in 9 seconds between #15 and #16 of Table I, and would be hard pressed to do it in the 12 seconds between #14 and #15 of Table II.

In the current three table qualification course, the only problem area is #5 and #6 of Table I.
______________________________
* the time from target #5 coming up to target #6 going down is 19 to 20 seconds, with training, you should be able to shoot reload one stripper clip and still engage #6.

 

[eastbank]

if you have six-seven men comming at you from a pretty close distance, having ten shots at your disposle with out reloading could be a game changer for you having any children. eastbank.

 

[BigBore44]

if you have six-seven men comming at you from a pretty close distance, having ten shots at your disposle with out reloading could be a game changer for you having any children. eastbank.

Not if they are coming at you in a single file line!

 

[Gun Master]

Well, this ought to start a real dogfight.Which rifle is the best military bolt action rifle of the last century? Here are the ground rules:

Must have actually proved itself in real combat. Sorry, Schmidt Reuben fans, your rifles don't qualify.

Looks and pretty workmanship mean nothing, and how nice of a sporter it can be turned into also means nothing.

How rugged was it, how simple to use was it, how cheaply and easily could it be manufactured, how powerful was it and how accurate was it?? These things mean everything.

Only as-issued rifles count.

I'll start the fight with my choice: The Japanese type 99 Arisaka. I am talking the earlier guns, not the substitute standard guns late in the war. Here are my reasons:

It was simple and easy to make. It was accurate enough to do the job. It was rugged beyond belief and had few parts. The entire bolt /firing mechanism/ safety only had five parts, all of which could be replaced in seconds in the field. It was easy to load quickly. If you have ever tried to load a Lee-Enfield quickly you will soon learn the what the opposite of the word "easy" is.

And the type 99 had one enormous advantage over every other bolt action military rifle of the period.; its chrome lined bore. That alone gives it a huge headstart.

What say you?

Did the 99 have a chrysanthemum on the back of the bolt ?

 

[fpgt72]

What is You-tube? I don't pay much attention to any of the social media, I think it's stupid. Especially face book. I If I want to communicate with someone I will call them or text them. That's as far as I go with modern communication mediums.

My knowledge of Ross Rifles was gained by reading articles by accredited experts and from the Ross Rifle forum. And by talking to the great Grandson of Sir Charles Ross himself, at the 1996 NRA Show.

And by actual experience. The miss-assembled bolt problem was rarely caused by miss-assembly at all. All you had to do to replicate the condition was to pull the bolt head forward with the bolt assembled, wiggle it a little, rotate it counter clockwise and let it snap back to the UN-LOCKED position. But when you attempted to insert it back into the gun it usually refused to go in, and if you DID manage to insert it , it worked back and forth very stiffly. I doubt that very many rifles were actually blown up this way. The peening of the left rear locking lug was (is) pretty easy to diagnose, you can see it for yourself. Picture #2 shows the Ross Mk III bolt in the proper position (lower) and the dangerous position (top)

I have four Ross'. A Mk II , a Mk III , an M-10 Sporter in .280 and a parted out Mk III receiver. The Mk III, which was pretty much wasted on the outside, in contrast to its pristine bore, was the one I torture tested. After that, I refinished the stock and cleaned up the metal, which I left in the white. It is a really nice looking rifle, and It is by far the most accurate bolt action rifle I have ever owned. Sub MOA groups out to three hundred yards are to be expected. It has a 31" barrel and the sighting radius is a full 36" with the finely adjustable rear aperture rear sight. Pic #1 shows the gun today.

If you find a Ross, the only one that really had a bad rep was the Mk I. Several unexplained blow-ups attributed to poor materials and faulty heat treat. But my rule of thumb has always been this:

If it looks like it has fired a zillion rounds.......it probably has.. Go ahead and shoot it, its probably just fine....

So sorry dear sir....

But I do find it funny that you own four guns that will flat "unlock" and pound you.

I do suggest you read a few more articles.

Only one flavor of the ross had the bolt issue. Its issues in the great war where due to it being built for the Boar war....I am sure the "great grandson" told you that...but bottom line you need to research a bit more.

 

[Glockula]

No offense Vern but your math is way off. I will reload any WWII bolt action at a 2:1 ratio to the SMLE. So if I reload a Springfield 19 times I will have only reloaded the SMLE 9. Now that is a difference.

 

[eastbank]

(all in single file). now thats funny, i don,t care who you are. eastbank.

 

[tark]

But I do find it funny that you own four guns that will flat "unlock" and pound you.

So sorry sir, but I am trying to determine what was said here. Ross rifles do not "Unlock and pound you" I don't know of any rifle that does.

Only one flavor of the ross had the bolt issue. Its issues in the great war where due to it being built for the Boar war....I am sure the "great grandson" told you that...but bottom line you need to research a bit more.

And you need to take some more spelling lessons, and history as well. The BOER war was long over by the time the Mk III was fielded, so I assume you are referring to the long range accuracy the Mk III was famous for. It might have served well in that war. Lot of long range shooting. BTW, you should capitalize the word Ross. Proper name, you know....

I would love to do more research! Why don't you send me a book, or a website, or a magazine article, or a post on the Ross Rifle Forum....Anything....that I haven't already seen. If you can, PM me and I'll send you a crisp, new, $100 bill. But I doubt you will be able to, there is a pretty limited amount of material out there. Not to brag, but I think I've seen just about all of it.

Bottom line is that YOU need to research a bit more.