Pair of Ross rifles from NZ

Hi all,

I have been lurking around here for a while, and have just finished this pair. If this is inappropriate as a milsurps post let me know.

The (now) scoped sporter came to me as just a MK111 action with a sewer pipe barrel, no stock or even receiver bolts. There was no parts to be found here in NZ so have made the best of a bad situation.

The factory sporter was acceptable barrel wise but the stock was basically ruined and the bluing was all but gone. Pretty happy with how it turned out.

Just thought I would share as these things are very rare here in NZ.

Cheers

Nice work on the resurrection and restoration. What scope mount are you you using? I've seen some truly horrible scope mounts used on Ross rifles, but yours looks hardly invasive. Does it provide a secure mount?

Welcome and kudos to you for making a working rifle out of parts that probably could have no other use. Why did you set the magazine up a little higher on the Mk.III? What sort of barrel did you use?

The stock profile wouldn't be my choice, but then it wasn't built for me! ;)

At this point you probably don't need to be concerned about drilling & tapping for scope mounts, but if you don't want to drill into the barrel ring, a detachable side mount might be an option; something like the Jaeger? EAW also makes similar models I believe.

Being only held on with four screws the sight and charger bridge is probably going to work loose unless used to mount a very small and light scope or reflector sight etc.

The 1910-R sporter: always a tough call on refinishing, but it comes to a toss up between the importance and rarity of the piece versus what if anything can be done with it as is. I do like the fact that you didn't sand the H out of the stock.

Thanks for the feedback guys,

NORTHOF60:

The Scope mount is a rail drilled and tapped into the receiver bridge, with Weaver extended rings, jury is still out on how secure it will be. I plan to fire 50 or so rounds through it this weekend so will report back after that.

Surpmil:

The mag is set higher to fit the profile of the stock, bit of a long story there because I had to order an un-inlet stock from Boyds in the US for it, and when it arrived it was thicker than I planned for. By that time we had had massive gun law reforms here that meant importing a different one was going to be a mission so much like most of the project I just made do. The profile of the stock is one I enjoy as it fits me well and is good for shooting off a rest.

The barrel is a Kreiger ex-target .308 cut to a light varmint profile, the rifle is chambered in .30-303 to allow for better bullet selection (reasonably common here as we have Lee-Enfields coming out our ears).

As I said above the jury is still out on the scope mount. The reason I went this way and not into the actual receiver is about threefold: First, one of the spare parts I actually have is another receiver bridge, so if I ruin this one not a big issue. Second, I did not want to cover up the receiver markings on the front of the receiver (as I say these are rare here so wanted it to be easily identifiable). Finally, the reason I did not drill and tap the receiver is that I don't have another one! So i will give this a go and see how it goes. Ill let you know once I've shot it. Otherwise i will be looking as you say at side mounts.

With the R-10 sporter, as you say it was a bit of a toss up. It looked really bad externally when I got it (pic attached). So I just went with a strip and refinish, basically no sanding, because I wanted to preserve the lines. The old dents add character anyway, although those ones around the pistol grip look like someone tried to hammer a nail with it!

Any other questions let me know,

Cheers

Thanks for the feedback,

NORTHOF60:

The scope mount is a rail drilled and tapped into the receiver bridge, with weaver extended rings. The jury is still out on strength, I intend to shoot 50 or so rounds through it this weekend, will report back on how it goes.

SurpMil:

The mag being a little higher is a bit of a story, and is related to how it fits in the stock. I had to order an un-inlet stock from Boyds and when it arrived it was a little deeper than I had planned. By the time this had all happened we had some brand new more strict firearms rules, which meant importing another was going to be a massive hassle, so I just made do. I do like this profile for the type of hunting/shooting I do here.

The barrel is an ex-target Kreiger (about 200 round through) chambered in .30-303 (pretty common here as we have Lee-Enfields out the ears) for better bullet choice, the barrel is like new to look at and is a light varmint profile.

The reason I didn't drill and tap the receiver for screws is twofold: First, I only have one receiver, but I do have a spare sight bridge, so if it doesn't work I haven't lost anything. Secondly, I wanted to leave the stamping on the top of the receiver (as these are rare here, I didn't want to damage it or cover it up). As above I will be shooting a fair few round through it this weekend, so I will let you know. If it goes wrong or comes loose, I will be looking to find a side mount.

For the R-10 Sporter, having read enough of the posts here, I decided to just strip and a very light sand. I didn't want to mess with the profile of the stock or anything but it was very nasty (picture attached) and the bluing was all but gone (looks like someone used the stock to hammer a nail!). So it got a re-blue and refinish.

Any more questions let me know.

Cheers

There's nothing like being inventive, or unorthodox. I hope that it works out. Enjoy you rifles.:super:

That all makes sense Kip13.

What about a long eye relief scope mounted on the barrel? With a QD mount you could keep the iron sights and maybe even charger-load?

Will be interesting to hear how it goes at the range and how you like the trigger(s)!

Thanks NORTHOF60,

That's a novel idea Surpmil, I will send an update once I've shot it, but that sounds like a good alternate idea!

Hi all, been a long time to get a chance to shoot this. Have attached a target I shot, 5 rounds went into about an inch which I was pretty happy with at 100m.

The reason it took so long is that my scope mount solution broke on my first try and had to be reinforced. So took two trips up to the family farm to get a usable target. Seems to work well now though.

Have also bought a .280 Ross finally that I have been looking for in NZ for years, now just to find projectiles.... no permit required to get them into NZ but can't get them out of the US or OZ.

I also have a MK2 ross which is missing just the magazine box and I can't find one here in NZ, any ideas where to go for one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kip13

a MK2 ross which is missing just the magazine box

---

Have you tried advertising here in the WTB forum?

Have given that a go now thanks!

The .280 Ross is an exotic lady, gorgeous, seductive, and high maintenance, with the ability to relieve you of your pay cheque with the alacrity of a lap dancer.
I hope that you don't mind paying for your fun:beerchug:

It's always good to know more, especially of lap dancing... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NORTHOF60

The .280 Ross is an exotic lady, gorgeous, seductive, and high maintenance, with the ability to relieve you of your pay cheque with the alacrity of a lap dancer.
I hope that you don't mind paying for your fun:beerchug:

---

Some were relieved of a good part of an eye socket and a cheekbone too, and had no further worries about money either. :p

I've never seen or heard of a documented case of a Ross rifle chambered for the .280 Ross failing. The only fatality documented to a Ross chambered for the .280 Ross I'm aware of concerns a hunter in Africa by the name of Grey, who, against instruction, dismounted from his horse, and died in hospital after being mauled by a lion. The .280 Ross was the first true "magnum", and the "cup and core" technology of bullet manufacture wasn't up to the task.

Kynoch manufactured ammunition in my neck of the woods sells for between $50-$100 for a box of 10 cartridges, and for the most part, is in the hands of collectors. Being Berdan primed, it isn't easy to reload. Even spent cartridges and empty boxes have become collector items. For most, this makes the .280 Ross a hand-loading proposition.

If you are lucky, you may be able to source newly manufactured brass cases by Quality Cartridge, or Robertson Cartridge Company. Most likely, you will find yourself case forming.
The .280 Ross uses .287 in. bullets, like the .275 H&H magnum, rather than the European standard for 7mm of .284 in. The only manufacturer I can source is Woodleigh.

For case forming, the .280 Ross is a stand-alone: a parent case without offspring. The closest match I can find is the new .375 Ruger, which has minor rim and base diameter differences.
RCBS no longer manufactures loading or case-forming dies for the .280 Ross, leaving the only source I'm aware of being CH4D, a custom die specialist.

With the odd rifling diameter, combined with the unusual case dimensions, the .280 Ross has become an exotic semi-wildcat cartridge.

The Ross M-1910 and M-10 chambered for the .280 Ross were always M grade rifles, and could compete with the finest rifles manufactured in Europe.

That's gorgeous, seductive and high maintenance enough for my tastes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NORTHOF60

Even spent cartridges and empty boxes have become collector items.

---

I have ONE cartridge that came in a mass of over 600 rds of mixed .303. It's about the only one that I've ever come across so it's now cleaned up and safe. It's a boxer primed case I think...soft point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I have ONE cartridge that came in a mass of over 600 rds of mixed .303.

---

I honestly don't know how to respond to that, even though I feel a need to acknowledge your achievement. Rather like the scene from the TV series Detectorists, where Lance Stator finds gold.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbvfpns2LAg

Well, it WAS surprising to find amongst the .303s.

Have to agree, so far I'm in pretty deep for wanting to fire this thing, $1500 NZ for the rifle, $300 for dies, $100 for a box of Hornady .375 Ruger brass (really easy to from with a bit of practice pics attached), and I'm sure many dollars for the projectiles when our NZ agent for Woodleigh gets around to ordering them for me.

NORTHOF60: Have to agree, I have fired 100s of rounds out of my 3 M-10s in .303 with no issues. Have 100% tried to assemble the bolt wrong and succeeded but its so plainly obvious its assembled wrong I have no idea how you could make the mistake. Admittedly I was in my garage, not a trench being fired at in knee deep mud.... That said if there has ever been a civilian use bolt failure I would be highly surprised.

It would be interesting to see documented Ross failures, civilian and military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daan Kemp

It would be interesting to see documented Ross failures, civilian and military.

---

It's not a matter of the rifle failing, they are damn near impossible to blow up. The MkIII/1910 action is probably only equalled or exceeded by some of the Arisakas for sheer strength.

The problem was the potential to manually rotate the bolt head in such a way that the bolt would slide into battery, but without the bolt head rotating into the locked position. The early M10 .280s had the end of the extractor slot shaped like a ramp making it easy to turn the bolt head out of the correct position when cleaning or fiddling around with the bolt out of the rifle. This was later changed to a square-ended slot so that the extractor would have to be pulled up out of the groove before the bolt head could be so rotated.

Herbert Cox who was an expert machinist and gunsmith and a Ross rifle aficionado claimed to have found a way to make the 1905 action fail to lock also.

The "1907" or "Scotch Deer Stalker" .280 has a receiver that looks like the 1905 with the interrupted thread bolthead and lugs of the 1910 action. It is generally considered that they also could not be wrongly assembled, but I have the remains of one here that blew out its bolt, so that action also is not entirely foolproof.

It may be that in some very unusual circumstances a degree of "self-unlocking" is possible, (the Blish Principle etc), even without incorrect assembly, but the jury is still out on that one and probably always will be.

Ch4D dies are $160.

Might it be the horror stories of the Ross in military use are vague on facts? Quick search didn't provide any.

Under the heading of "It is impossible to make things foolproof, because fools are so ingenious", the following is a very good article from this site on the Ross bolt:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=15514

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daan Kemp

Might it be the horror stories of the Ross in military use are vague on facts? Quick search didn't provide any.

---

There are a few reputable accounts of blow backs in WWI and before. Probably also due to missassembly of bolts after cleaning.

I have fired Rosses without concern and will do so in future. If in any doubt, watch the bolt head to ensure it rotates into the locked position as the bolt is pushed forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

There are a few reputable accounts of blow backs in WWI and before. Probably also due to missassembly of bolts after cleaning.

I have fired Rosses without concern and will do so in future. If in any doubt, watch the bolt head to ensure it rotates into the locked position as the bolt is pushed forward.

---

There is an extreme paucity of evidence on the issue of Ross bolt blow-back - I know, because I checked as well. Most evidence available from WW1 Canadian Army accounts are anecdotal!
It is difficult to determine how much lack of credible evidence is a result of efforts to drive another nail into the Ross coffin, or military efforts to downplay casualties.

Terry Wieland who contributes to "Handloader" and "Rifle" magazines does a credible job of covering the issue in his book "Great Hunting Rifles: Victorian to the Present" - I must purchase a copy, I've been working from an online excerpt. There is a very interesting combined court case that went before the Supreme Court of Canada circa 1921: Ross vs Dunstall and Emery, as well as Appendix III from "The Canadian Forces in the Great War 1914-1919 Pt. 1 Vol. 2"

It really behoves us to create a data base on the issue, but it would be no mean feat.

Mechanically speaking I think the questions have been answered as above. Sir Charles Ross, quite apart from his ego, would not have wished to admit any liability by publicly acknowledging a fault in the design, but the extractor slot was changed before WWI and the pinning of the bolt sleeves made it foolproof I believe.

Some soldiers naturally try to strip their weapons down farther than they are told to, and in the conditions of WWI it's not surprising they did, and having done so, some unfortunately didn't get them back together correctly and then didn't notice the locking problem. That could have been addressed by training, but the issue and the solution was apparently not much understood or not widely known at the time.

For example, oiling the ammo would have solved the extraction issues and the Mk.III was plenty strong enough to stand the resulting lack of case adhesion - but the command structure didn't understand that. (Not that oiling ammo isn't without problems, but at least not extraction problems!)

Extraction definitely a problem. I understand that the Browning Automatic Rifle employs oiling pads in the magazine to aid extraction.

One source I read stated that Canadian manufactured ammunition was appropriated by the British Army to help alleviate stoppages in machine guns. When they start designating ammunition as .303 Cdn. and .303 Brit., you definitely have a problem. Some of the British ammunition even jammed the Lee-Enfields. However, the Lee-Enfield had far better camming advantage for extraction. Probably explains why Ross returned to "cock-on-closing" for the MK III rather than adopt the "cock-on-opening" employed in the Ross Mk II**. You can definitely tell the difference.

Another issue was determining whether a Ross bolt blow-back was the result of an incorrectly assemble bolt, or, the result of clearing a miss-fire without waiting for the safety count. Again, no clear documented evidence, only supposition.

So it seems the horror Ross stories are just that. Good to know, handy to question categorical statements in future.

You give any rifle poor ammo and it will fail. Look at the M16 in Vietnam where they issued poor quality ammo and the rifles failed, yet fast forward 50 years and they are the standard.

Were there fault with the Ross? Yes. Did it get as much time to resolve those issues as other designs? No. Look at the Lee Enfields where it took 18 years to go from the Lee Metford to No. 1 Mk. 3 and all the changes which had to be made to make the rifles work (including redoing the rear sights as during the Boer War they discovered they were not accurately set up). Ross had mostly resolved all the issues in service by 1916, it was too late by that time as confidence in the rifle had been lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NORTHOF60

I understand that the Browning Automatic Rifle employs oiling pads in the magazine to aid extraction.

---

Don't know where you got that, I owned three from all three eras of manufacture and none of the many magazines had any oiling pads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Don't know where you got that, I owned three from all three eras of manufacture and none of the many magazines had any oiling pads.

---

I honestly don't recall the source. I thought that it was odd at the time, because I was instructed to keep a firearm chamber clean to oil to minimize bolt thrust, but as the M1918 BAR and it's variants are capable of fully automatic fire, and extraction is a major concern, I just mentally filed it away. If the information is incorrect, thanks for the clarification. I also read that some ammunition was waxed to aid extraction - is that incorrect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NORTHOF60

I also read that some ammunition was waxed to aid extraction - is that incorrect?

---

This is off topic to the issues relating to the Ross rifle. A quick search answered my own question concerning waxed cartridges:

http://https://www.thefirearmblog.co...ation-process/

http://https://patents.google.com/patent/US2972947A/en

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSnwsSlu7Sk

Finally located the reference to lubricating pads in magazines: the Thompson Automatic Rifle, not the 1918 BAR:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US1322271

RIA: Thompson Model 1923 Autorifle Forgotten Weapons

response No. 7:

http://https://www.thehighroad.org/i...uality.750367/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daan Kemp

So it seems the horror Ross stories are just that. Good to know, handy to question categorical statements in future.

---

Depends which stories you mean. Blow-backs did happen, but AFAWK, only due to misassembly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Depends which stories you mean. Blow-backs did happen, but AFAWK, only due to misassembly.

---

I've read that it is easier to find a Ross Mk III with the bolt "safety rivet", than one without. You don't go to that much effort to prevent misassembly unless there is a definite problem - even if the modification is only to bolster user confidence. It will always be the "elephant in the room" with the Ross Mk III.