Assistance Confirming Suspected 1905M Factory Sporter Requested

This 1905 Ross just arrived in the mail and I could use a little help confirming it's identity. The seller seemed to believe it is a sporterized Mk II. I was and am of the opinion it is a 1905M factory-built sporting rifle. . Any and all comments and guidance will be greatly appreciated.

The rifle in question has a 22" bbl with "303 Ross" stamped on the reinforce and there are no visible military markings anywhere on the rifle. The front sight appears original to the rifle, but it differs from front sights on Mk II's I have owned and handled. As can be seen in the picture, the muzzle is flat and well finished with no real crown. The bbl mounted rear sight may or may not be original to the rifle. It appears to me the V notch has been dressed off for some reason. Opinions please.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3/6913dl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../10sfwwp-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3/8voy35-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../317badd-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../29cmno8-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3/x1hatl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../2n8v5fs-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../2hi9erl-1.jpg
There is what appears to be a poorly struck serial number (X04_X) on the forward slope of the reinforce. There is no sign of a lightly struck digit in the space between the third and fourth digits.There are also the following numbers:
A struck out 58 or 38 on the underside of the bolt body with a 33 adjacent to it.
A 33 and a 41 on the bolthead.
A 39 on the underside of the bolt handle root.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../2gtovtw-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3/dg6tyc-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../2vjddvc-1.jpg
Last, but not least, it has a Lyman No. 50 aperture sight in very good condition mounted to the receiver.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3/fkd3ix-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../2yv9qw1-1.jpg
I would rate the rifle in overall very good condition. The bore is shiny and, although the seller rated the rifling as an 8 out of ten, I would rate it about a 6.

An old thread you may want to review ... ;)

Pictures of Ross Factory Sporting Rifles

Regards,
Doug

Thanks Doug,
I am familiar with that thread and this Ross does appear to be the same model as the bottom one in the pic. The only difference I can see is the rear sight and barrel length, and I doubt the rear sight on mine is original to the rifle. Unfortunately, breakeye does not identify which model of 1905 sporter is pictured. It is later identified as a 1905 R. My point of reference in identifying the rifle as a 1905 M (third type) is The Ross Rifle Story, page 142, plate 69A. That appears to be the example that most closely matches my rifle (and breakeye's). The 1905 R in plate 70A does not have a Harris magazine and the rear sight appears to be mounted on a band. I find The Ross Rifle Story to be a little short on detail when it comes to sporting rifles and I have heard it said Sir Charles was in the habit of regularly changing specs. I am sure we have members with extensive knowledge of Ross sporting rifles and I am hoping they will chime in.

Your rifle appears to be a nice 1905-R. The rear barrel sight was probably changed from the Winchester Buckhorn to the folding sight that is on it now to accommodate the Lyman No.50.
I have owned quite a few of these and seen and handled a pile more. Unlike the picture in the Ross Rifle Story, they all had the external Harris magazine levers, and dovetailed Winchester rear barrel sights. Period Ross catalogs show this exact same configuration.

The 1905-R was available with 22, 24, and 26 inch barrels.

Thanks for your reply. I responded to your comments on the Ross Rifle Forum before reading your comments here. You have pretty much addressed my response in this post. I very much appreciate your help.
Could someone post a link to period Ross Catalogs?

I don`t have a link, but Cornell Publications sells repro catalogs directly, and on eBay.

Which Catalogue or catalogues would be the best to acquire?

I seem to have misplaced my copies, but something between 1907 - 1909 (not the 1907 Handbook) should have it.

There is a picture of one in the Historical Arms Series No. 11 " Sir Charles Ross and his rifle" which is also available a few places.

You've done very well there, the sight is rare and valuable. The foresight cover looks very original and is somewhat unique IIRC. No question it is a 1905-R sporter, but the sight was almost as expensive at the rifle, so not usually seen on the R's, more on the E's and M10 .280s

Thanks, I was more than a little pleased to find a 1905 with a Lyman # 50 sight. Until recently, my primary interest (spanning 40 + years) has been in pre-No. 1 British military. I always had a passing interest in the Ross, but it appears to have become my passion of late. Quite addictive, I'm afraid. There is still much to learn and, although I knew the sight was a rarity, I didn't realize how unlikely it was to find one on a 1905R. The hood on the front sight has every appearance of being original to the rifle.
Things seem to just keep getting better on this one. I initially thought the rifling, which is nice and shiny, was about a 6 out of 10. After slugging it and comparing to the specs for a Mk III, it turns out to be a solid 10. I didn't realize the lands on a Ross are only a little over .004" deep when new.
Now, if I could just figure out why that odd looking serial (?) number on the bbl doesn't match the one on the stock and butt plate........

If you mean the number stamped on the underside of the receiver; AFAWK that is not the serial number. The authorities on the subject of Rosses I have read say that the absence of a serial number on the barrel may indicate that the barrel was replaced, but considering the company was only around for about 20 years, how many barrels would they have needed to replace in that time? I'm guessing not too many as they they were chrome vanadium steel IIRC. That said, there were considerable stocks of parts left over when the company closed down and more than one gunsmith in Quebec was assembling rifles from parts into the 1930s and even later from one account. Serial numbers may have been optional, or the practice may have not been universal depending on who the buyer was and if they bought in bulk? We may never know now. I have at least one 1905 R with the SN only on the butt and buttplate, and they match; the usual markings on the barrel like yours, but no SN and no sign there ever was one.

I was referring to the four digit number poorly stamped across the upper forward slope of the barrel reinforce. The serial numbers on the stock and butt plate match each other, but not that number. There is no serial number, other than that four digit number, on the barrel or the receiver and I do not believe the barrel has been replaced. I have recently come across another 1905 sporter with a somewhat sloppily stamped four digit number in the same location. The location, font and lack of precision in applying the number appears to duplicate this one - right down to the increased space between the third and fourth digits. The other Ross could be a very well done conversion of a Mk II, or it could have left the factory as a sporting rifle. The stock was definitely not a converted military stock but the rifle has a magazine cutoff, which seems out of place on a sporting rifle. There were also a couple of other features that made me think it might be a well done conversion.

If the rifle you saw was the one on the CGN EE, I am pretty darn sure it was a sporterized MK II.

It is pretty common knowledge that Ross 1905-R, 1905-E, Commercial MK II**, R-10, E-10, M-10 and the MK III HG, all left the factory with serial numbers on the barrel, just in front of the receiver, just above the stock line, on the left side. Some collectors will not even consider one if there is none there. There is a chance that one or two might have been missed. But is highly unlikely they would do runs with no serial number for special buyers, except maybe for the British trade.

The barrels with the coarse left hand thread were designed especially to be replaced easily. I believe the barrels were .5 carbon steel.

Period Ross catalogues advertise barrel replacement services, so some shooters were obviously wearing them out.

That be the one.
I was particularly struck by the similarity of the numbers on the barrel to that of my Ross. Both 4XXX range, same location, font and size, same inconsistent spacing and same increased space between third and fourth digits. Too many similarities to be a coincidence. The one on CGN also had a very good bore. The suggestion of a factory re-barrel is sounding more plausible, but I am having difficulty understanding why they would have also applied the assembly number to the new barrel.
It would be interesting to know how many similarly numbered 1905s at out there and what is known about them.

I expect the barrels they replaced were mostly on target rifles which racked up high round counts fast and needed to be in top condition for the big matches. On sporting rifles the major problem was likely to be improper cleaning and storage and corrosive primers. The average hunting rifle doesn't fire many rounds a year.

All we know for sure is, it does not have the serial number in the location where it should be, and it has a number across the chamber that does not match the serial number on the stock.

Seems to me, a fellow that has a Lyman No. 50 installed on his rifle would likely shoot more then your average Joe.

I would expect he would also be more likely to have the barrel changed out if it starts getting worn out.

Ross did indeed replace barrels. I have two Mk II** commercial target rifles with replacement barrels. Both have a "2" stamped under the serial number to denote new barrel. Both had their barrels replaced after the changeover in configuration from the older style Mk II** which had the two piece topwood and barrel mounted sight to the one piece with no barrel sight, so the new one piece topwoods do not match as well as one would expect, and underneath one can see the cutouts in the lower stock where the original two piece woods were mounted. Both have earlier serial numbers than one would expect for that design as well. Rosses were good rifles, well respected and liked by their owners, and I suspect more barrels were changed than we would think.

Ed

Well, I am a relative neophyte when it comes to researching Ross rifles. It appears there is a lot about the practices of the Company that remains a mystery. The examples boltaction has presented demonstrate that, in at least some cases, the Company had an established practice for carrying the serial number forward in a re-barrel - and it included confirmation of the re-barrel. It would be interesting to know if there is an assembly number on the replacement barrels and, if so, does it match the assembly number on the other components.
I really do not believe this rifle has been re-barreled. It would not seem logical to me the Company would apply the assembly number to the replacement barrel, but not apply the serial number. That is what would have happened if the barrel on this rifle has been replaced. I think there is something else at play, and I have no idea what it is.
It appears not at all uncommon to find 1905’s and Mk II’s with a number stamped across the forward slope of the barrel reinforce. I came across a similarly marked cut down and much abused Mk II at a gun show this last weekend. The number on that one was a smaller font four digit (6XXX) very neatly and professionally applied. The 64 dollar question is; what do those numbers represent and why were they applied to some rifles.

Looking again I see the factory assembly numbers (my term) on the underside of the bolt sleeve have been struck through and restamped. Have never seen that before, but it looks factory. No way to tell for sure now of course, unless microscopic inspection of the stamps shows they are struck with the same number stamps used on other Rosses.

Talking about the missing serial number on the barrel, we should remember how easy it is to change the barrel on these 1905 actions, other than the MkII** and later examples of course: take out the locking screw underside of the receiver, a couple of smacks with a soft hammer and they often screw out by hand. So easy it would encourage owners to do so if they felt there was any reason to, and the barrels were probably not that expensive from the factory.

I would suggest that is the reason we see so many sporters missing the barrel serial number. And there was probably no shortage of those barrels on the market for some decades after the factory closed. Whoever ended up with the left over parts may well have been selling them off gradually to buyers all across the country. Dealers who had sold Rosses before the factory closed may well have had stocks of barrels on hand for some time?

The four digit number you referred to that is across the top of the chamber area is probably a steel or barrel batch number; you see those on most if not all 1905 sporters.

The foresight hood is presumably a cut down MkIII ("1910") hood, so that might suggest the rifle was built sometime after the MkIII began to be made. Unless it was added by the owner or a gunsmith later, but it doesn't look as though it was IMHO.

Reminds me of a carbine built for Maj. Blair that is shown in The Ross Rifle Story: someone who knew exactly what he wanted and wasn't concerned with what he may have considered cosmetic or non functional features.

Thanks for the insight and suggestions.
Regarding assembly numbers:
The struck out assembly number on the bolt sleeve is "32" and the number next to it is "33", which matches the assembly number everywhere else on the rifle. They all, "32" included, appear to have been struck with the same set of stamps. I tend to believe someone at the factory just had an "oh sh**" moment.
Missing serial number on bbl:
Barrels on 1905s and Mk IIs (2* excepted) are indeed very easy to swap out and, I am sure, many were. We need to keep in mind the barrel on this rifle bears the same assembly number as the rest of the rifle. It has every appearance of having been struck with the same stamp used elsewhere. I firmly believe the barrel is original to the rifle.
Four digit number on barrel:
That is an interesting hypothesis regarding barrel or steel batch numbers, and one that would not have occurred to me. It does seem somewhat odd such a number would have been placed in such a prominent location.
Foresight hood:
I compared the hood to those on Mk IIs and Mk IIIs in my possession. It is physically impossible to cut down one of the military hoods to those dimensions. This hood is mounted with two screws. The military hoods mount with four screws, and there is not enough meat around the screw holes to end up with what we have here. It is quite similar to the military hoods in diameter, height and depth. I did notice something I had earlier overlooked. The foresight band bears the same "33" assembly number found elsewhere.
Maj. Blair:
Thanks for the lead. I will look up the article.
As always, thanks for the input. A good deal of the enjoyment in collecting these things comes from teasing out their story.

That is interesting information and adds more to the picture I must say. The rifle may well be entirely original. I suppose the hood might be one that was taken from the production line before the two holes were drilled and modified as you see it now?
I'm sure you know, but this rifle was rifled and sighted for MkVI ball, so unless you can find some old loaded cartridges, the 215gr. Woodleigh bullets are your best option. Seeing as you have a nice bore there, maybe wise to get the right sort of powder and loading to preserve the rifling as far as possible - as well as just finding out what the rifle is really capable of accuracy-wise.
If it was mine I would digging out as much of its history as could be found by retracing owners etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

I suppose the hood might be one that was taken from the production line before the two holes were drilled and modified as you see it now?

---

That would seem reasonable and explain why it so closely matches the military hoods with the exception of the number of mounting screws.
I do plan to see what the previous owner has to say about the history of the rifle.
It will be nice to get it out to the range. I shoot mostly cast and tend to keep loads on the light side. I also keep a detailed shooting log for each rifle. Something around .314 and 180 - 200 grains pushed along by a fairly fast powder will likely be a good starting point.

The sight hood looks like it could very well have been done at the factory.

The assembly numbers on the barrel could have been stamped when the barrel was changed.
Although the coarse left-hand thread barrel comes off and on quite easily, it still needs to be properly fitted and head spaced. If done at the factory, the Smith would have had access to stamps that had the same font and size as the other numbers.

Looking back at the numbers across the chamber, they look more like something done by a previous owner than by Ross. I know of this being done quite often when the last registry came in, by people thinking they needed to have a serial number.

Couple of other things you might want to know.

The groove depth on all 1905 other than the 1905 Mk II** is .0055. Groove depth on later models was .0042.

The Lyman No.50 was only made for a short time, and will only fit on 1905 actions. So although usually found on higher end rifles like the 1905-E, 1907-E and Scotch Deer Stalker, it will not fit on a M-10 .280.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ax.303

The assembly numbers on the barrel could have been stamped when the barrel was changed. .............
If done at the factory, the Smith would have had access to stamps that had the same font and size as the other numbers.

---

Yes, that is quite possible, but isn't it a little odd they would take the time to transfer the assembly number, but not the serial number?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ax.303

Looking back at the numbers across the chamber, they look more like something done by a previous owner than by Ross. I know of this being done quite often when the last registry came in, by people thinking they needed to have a serial number.

---

That is quite possibly how they came to be. However, I find it odd we see them on 1905s/Mk IIs, but not (to my knowledge) on Mk IIIs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ax.303

.........The groove depth on all 1905 other than the 1905 Mk II** is .0055. Groove depth on later models was .0042.

---

Thank you for that information. It solved a bit of a mystery. I had incorrectly assumed the rifling on the 1905/Mk II would be the same as the Mk III. The groove depth on this 1905 miked at .0046". I had chalked the extra depth up to measurement error, even though I had a high level if confidence in my technique.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ax.303

The Lyman No.50 was only made for a short time, and will only fit on 1905 actions. So although usually found on higher end rifles like the 1905-E, 1907-E and Scotch Deer Stalker, it will not fit on a M-10 .280.

---

Understood. The M-10 receiver has a totally different profile and an integral bridge section on the left side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Yes, that is quite possible, but isn't it a little odd they would take the time to transfer the assembly number, but not the serial number?QUOTE=Bluenoser;429165]

---

I don`t see why not. I have seen a other 1905-Rs that where most likely barrel replacements with no serial numbers, so wasn`t as much of a priority as with the Civilian Mk II** (I have seen a couple Civilian Mk II** with no serial numbers as well).
It would be easy to just stamp two numbers I would think. Your bolt could have been replaced with one that fit better and renumbered at the same time.

As I said before, it is pretty much accepted by Ross Guys that all commercial sporters 1905 and later left the factory with serial numbers in the usual location.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

That is quite possibly how they came to be. However, I find it odd we see them on 1905s/Mk IIs, but not (to my knowledge) on Mk IIIs.

---

Ross changed a lot of things they did, when they changed to the M-10 action.

I have seen numbers across, and inline with the chambers on many Rosses, but they are applied in a neat and tidy fashion.

IMHO the numbers that go across the chamber have nothing to do with the serial number.

As I mentioned on the Ross Forum, I have a 1905-R that has the serial number on the barrel in the normal location that match the numbers on the stock. It also has a different four digit number that goes across the chamber (stamped deep and uniform). I don`t know what it means, but it is not a serial number.

I also have a Military Mk II*** that has four numbers stamped across the chamber in a professional manner (but below the stock line).

This is a most interesting conversation and I, for one, have learned a good deal. Thank you for all the great comments.

Perhaps, as the study continues, we may determine with some degree of certainty what those other numbers across the chamber represent. In the meantime, they provide one more subject for discussion. It might be of value to track them on a spreadsheet similar to that used for serial numbers. A pattern just might emerge.

As had been earlier stated, the crossed out assembly number on the bolt is "32" and the other number is "33". I doubt the bolt was changed for a better fit. I think it more likely someone simply had an "Oh S**T" moment. Of course, I could be totally wrong.

Here are my two contributions to the discussion. Both of these rifles have serial numbers in the same respective places between themselves and very close to where Bluenoser's MkII is stamped. First three pictures are a MkII in the same configuration as the 1905 Model M (first type) that is described on page 141 of the Ross Rifle Story. I say Model M "configuration" because any time I have suggested that it is possibly a genuine Model M, I have been rebuked and told that it must be a sporterized 1905 MkII. I suspect that unless one has an original receipt from Ross with the correct serial number, many would argue the validity of any potential 1905 M. Second three pictures are a MkII 5*. I bought this rifle forty or more years ago at the Lewis County gun show in Centralia Washington. It is in excellent plus condition and fired cases come out in nearly the same condition, size wise, as when they were chambered. Best. Tom

Nice rifles Tom.

The top one certainly looks a 1905-M. Is this rifle numbered under the butt-plate? How long is the barrel?

Are there any makings on the right side of the butt on the Mk II 5*?

Also on the suspected 1905-M, is the muzzle flat or crowned?

The short rifle has, No.1408.S.P., in what appears to be an older stamp font under the butt plate. The muzzle is flat with a slight inside chamfer and the barrel is 26" measured from a closed bolt face to the muzzle with a cleaning rod. On the long rifle the wood is proud of the metal parts and shows no evidence of having been sanded and is sans all markings. The 5* has had the original Sutherland Mk1 ladder sight replaced with a Canada Tool & Specialty (Pilblad) rear sight. In the picture of the rear sight you can see where the original Sutherland's elevation knob wore or fit into the fore end top wood. In defense of naysayers of the short rifle being a Model M; it would be relatively easy to convert a 1905 MkII military into a Model M clone. The most difficult part may be finding the correct MkII rear sight, and TRRS says in their description "These rifles are basically factory sporterized military models". I wish there were some definitive way to determine what version this rifle is but I suspect it will end up being a best guess from those familiar with Ross rifles. I look forward to hearing your opinion. Tom

oldpaul,
I note your short rifle has a hood on the front sight, as does mine. Could you post some pix of the front sight, the band and the hood?

In my opinion Tom, for whatever that is worth, you have a genuine first style 1905-M.

I base this on this rifle having a 26" barrel with a flat muzzle and it has what looks to be serial number under the butt-plate.

A military rifle would have a 28" barrel and likely no # or maybe a one or two digit number under the butt-plate.

I have never seen a first style 1905-M before, but I have seen a few second style, and own one myself. I have seen detailed pictures of the third style, but have never handled one.

All the 2nd style 1905-Ms, I`ve seen had 26" barrels (military would have been 30.5 on these) and were numbered the same as what you would find under the butt-plate on a 1905-R, 1905-E or Civilian MK II**.

The front sight hood is the same four screw attached type seen on most MkII rifles. Re the serial number placement on Bluenoser's rifle and the two I have shown; on page 41 of TRRS. "MkII** and Cadet rifles for public sale along with sporting and Target Rosses had their serial numbers stamped on the left side or across the top of the barrel reinforce". So, the serial numbers on our rifles seem consistent with the information presented in The Ross Rifle Story. Tom

Thanks for the pic. Different sight and hood than on mine. Thanks also for the TRRS reference. I will look it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldpaul

Re the serial number placement on Bluenoser's rifle and the two I have shown; on page 41 of TRRS. "MkII** and Cadet rifles for public sale along with sporting and Target Rosses had their serial numbers stamped on the left side or across the top of the barrel reinforce". So, the serial numbers on our rifles seem consistent with the information presented in The Ross Rifle Story. Tom

---

The Ross Rifle Story is the best reference we have on Ross rifles. However there are many mistakes and lack of information in this book. Page 41 on it`s own, has three bits of misinformation that I know of. The serial location description being one of them.

As I have already mentioned, and maybe some other Ross owners will chime in here.

It is a well known fact, that Commercial Mk II**, 1905-R, 1905-E, R-10, E-10 M-10 and Home Guard MK III rifles (I might have missed some) all had there serial numbers on the barrel in front of receiver, just above the stock line, and running parallel to the stock in very small (1/8") numbers, when they left the factory.

The other two mistakes I noticed on P.41 by the way are:
(1) at the top of the page in the centre it says that, serial numbers A. 500 to A. 1,000 on Mk I rifles were never assigned. (I know of the whereabouts of Mk I No. A.504).
(2) under Ross Rifle marking it says that C/|\, means Cancellation Authorizing Sale to the Public. Most of us know that this mark is for Canadian Ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldpaul

or across the top of the barrel reinforce

---

Seems a pretty definitive statement from the authors, as if they had seen rifles stamped this way and/or read literature confirming it. Or, they just pulled that information out of someplace dark to add filler to their tome or to confuse future Ross owners. I am not trying to be flippant with your response and I am well aware of the shortcomings of this book. It seems to have been edited by some one with A.D.D. and the index bears little relationship to where information actually is in the book. As you correctly stated, it is the best reference we have on Ross rifles and two mistakes do not negate the rest of the information on the page. Bluenoser owns one rifle serial numbered in this way and has seen information on two potential others. I own two and have seen one other on a gun auction. That is six for certain. How many confirmations will make an acceptable quorum to satisfy the book's assertion? Best. Tom

There probably are legitimate rifles (target maybe?) with serial numbers "across the top of the barrel reinforce". Not to be a stickler, but neither of your rifles are numbered on the top of the reinforce.

Bluenoser`s rifle was most likely numbered on the left side originally. I am pretty sure of this because, I have owned quite a few 1905-Rs and have seen plenty more. I have rifles with both higher and lower serial numbers than his rifle.

They all have the serial number on the left side, except a couple that have no serial on the barrel (replaced).

See post #28, I have a 1905-R that has the proper serial number on the barrel in the normal location, this number matches the numbers on the stock. It also has a different number partially hidden by the stock, that goes across the chamber, much like your 1905-M, only on the other side. Obviously this is not a serial number on this rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ax.303

I have rifles with both higher and lower serial numbers than his rifle.

---

Would I be correct in understanding you are referring to the serial number on the butt of my 1905R rather than the number on the bbl?

Yes, I was referring to the butt number 422X, but they encompass both.

Closest below is 337X. Closest above is 502X.

I also have 1905-E # 428X, (different animal but marked in the same manner) which is very close to yours.

Old necro thread bump here gents. But I’ve some insight to add.

There is a 1905-E here, with the 3TPI barrel thread with proper ranged serial stamped on the barrel reinforce in an untidy manor. This rifle has an uncharacteristically short barrel ( I’m away at camp right now but can confirm when I’m home) of around 20”. The barrel will not index properly in any other receiver but its own. It winds up listing about 30* to the left in any other MkII receiver. This rifle has the light wire trigger, matching serial on the inside of the butt plate and butt. It has the E style folding express sight, and a blood red E stock (which must be VERY hard wood as the rifle has no bluing left and the stick has very few handling marks and has never been sanded so far as I can tell).

Theres also an E or R-10 here with no serial numbers anywhere. It has an E stock, buttplate, and grip cap, but has a short 20” barrel and a Winchester buckhorn sight. The set up of the two rifles is so similar they’re kissing cousins.

There was an article published about the manufacture of Ross rifles and bayonets in 1913 in which it stated that Ross barrels were numbered rather than rifles numbered. This was done after the barrels were trued. When I’m home I will try to see if I can find that info in the reprint I have of it and share it. Makes sense to serialize the barrel, that’s why we could be seeing so many unserialed rebarrelled rifles: they’re the ones replaced after the factory closure. Factory replaced barrels should have the 2 or 3 stamped near the serial number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flying pig

There is a 1905-E here, with the 3TPI barrel thread with proper ranged serial stamped on the barrel reinforce in an untidy manor. This rifle has an uncharacteristically short barrel ( I’m away at camp right now but can confirm when I’m home) of around 20”. The barrel will not index properly in any other receiver but its own. It winds up listing about 30* to the left in any other MkII receiver. This rifle has the light wire trigger, matching serial on the inside of the butt plate and butt. It has the E style folding express sight, and a blood red E stock (which must be VERY hard wood as the rifle has no bluing left and the stick has very few handling marks and has never been sanded so far as I can tell).

Theres also an E or R-10 here with no serial numbers anywhere. It has an E stock, buttplate, and grip cap, but has a short 20” barrel and a Winchester buckhorn sight. The set up of the two rifles is so similar they’re kissing cousins.

---

Brandon, a few things are not adding up on these. Maybe some pictures would help.

1905-E has a more conventional threaded barrel with different contour, as opposed to the 3 TPI barrel found on 1905-R and the MK II.

The 1905-E will have E, and .303 Ross stamped above the chamber. Even the few factory Rosses I have seen with no serial numbers, all had the proper barrel markings.

You should be able to identify a R-10 or E-10 by the markings, E or R and .303 Ross above the chamber. They will also have last two digits of the serial number stamped on the metal under the buttplate and on the wood in the barrel channel.

Factory barrels are 22, 24, and 26 inches.

Noticing this thread for the first time because of the recent posts…

First things first -I don't know anything about this rifle, condition or modifications. Totally ignorant on what a Ross is, being much further south than many of you.

The photo just grabbed me at first sight. Great shape, wonderful wood and character, and no doubt many chapters in its lifetime.. Cool.

No help but just a little applause from the cheap seats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ax.303

Brandon, a few things are not adding up on these. Maybe some pictures would help.

1905-E has a more conventional threaded barrel with different contour, as opposed to the 3 TPI barrel found on 1905-R and the MK II.

The 1905-E will have E, and .303 Ross stamped above the chamber. Even the few factory Rosses I have seen with no serial numbers, all had the proper barrel markings.

You should be able to identify a R-10 or E-10 by the markings, E or R and .303 Ross above the chamber. They will also have last two digits of the serial number stamped on the metal under the buttplate and on the wood in the barrel channel.

Factory barrels are 22, 24, and 26 inches

---

Ax, I'm begining to learn that with Rosses, just like Lee-Enfields, we shouldn't always expect the expected. I learn lots of new things with pretty much every new to me rifle I pick up. My latest two are no exception. a MkII** civilian with a low serial number that has the light wire trigger set up like the regular MkII 3TPI rifles, and what appears to be a Cadet Factory Sporter that is both ambidextrous and takedown.

If that low serial numbered MkII** has the early style wire trigger, then a 1905-E definitely could as well. There's something with the serial on the E rifle though, its a humped number or something. It should be earlier I think. Form the serial number lists I've been studying it seems like the 1905-E is a sporter version of the MkII**. Major features seam to go hand in hand by serial range. That rifle could also be an R with upgraded wood, short special order barrel and a two leaf express sight. The E-10 could also be an E that was rebarelled with an R barrel, or something else too, but theres no inletting in the stock for an express sight like an E should have. Maybe its just an upgraded R with a checkered stock, grip cap and buttplate, ordered with an extra short barrel. I'll post pics of the 3 rifles tomorrow, the E-10 with short barrel and buckhorn, the 1905-E with the 3PTI and wire trigger, and the MkII** with the wire trigger.

Pictures will tell a lot.

Be sure to include the markings above the chambers and the muzzles showing crowns and front sights.

Sounds good Alex. Something I did just notice is that neither of these has the DCP proofs as found on all of my other original factory sporters. They may be rebarelled, I'm honestly not 100 percent sure what's up with them. The 1905 has a barrel length of 21", the 1910 is 22". Neither has a factory applied serial number. But, that 1910 has definitely never had an express sight in that barrel channel, and that is 100% an E stock or custom ordered R stock with all the E features.

Here's some photos. As noted, both rifles have had some bubba molestation. A lot of them here have been picked up due to unique features more than anything. If they stand out for some reason I'll usually take them in.

Having photo hosting issues pls standby...

Edit: I see the 1910 has the DCP proof on the reciever faintly. Nothing on the 1905 though.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../FYjZABz-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../JgPAMaU-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../j87NfEd-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../eknC0wE-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../8khPs7l-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../2e3Flpp-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../E5YOZTh-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../9XS6FE0-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../tiG3mDs-1.jpg

Couple of very interesting ones there Brandon.

I`m not sure what the 1905 is, but it is definitely not an E. It looks a bit like a variation or maybe a prototype of the rare 1905-M 3rd type.

This is the one that is only a drawing in the Ross Rifle Story. Dupuis thought it was just an experimental model as he had never seen one.

There are a few around though as I acquired two, and have seen a few others. They do differ from yours, and all have a unique front sight only found on this type.

Your front sight looks to be the same as a 1905-E, which could be correct or could have been changed when the barrel was shortened.

They also have a rear hand guard and Harris platform. The rear sight and stock profile are the same as your rifle.

I think that you pretty much have the M-10 figured out. It is either a R-10 with a special order late E style stock or an E ordered with R style rear sight.

Is there anything stamped between .303 Ross and the receiver on the barrel?

Oh….well then. Ha ha. That was not even remotely what I was expecting to hear about that 1905.

It definitely is different. I’ve had probably 10-15 1905 actions and barrels split apart in the past. I thought I would try to replace that D&T’d receiver with a good one I have here, but it won’t work. It doesn’t index properly, it’s out about 30* to port side. I have never run into that before. It would make sense if it was some kind of prototype that where it ended up indexing was ok, but you wouldn’t expect that to leave the factory if it was a production rifle. There’s some restoring and fixing to be done with that one, but it’ll probably wind up with the receiver holes filled. The bore is fair and it should shoot well enough I’d think. Someone also welded the leaf down on the sight so that needs to be carefully addressed. I may rust blue it too. Or, I may just leave it exactly as is too.

There is an R stamped on the 1910 between the 303 Ross and the receiver. It must be an R. Funny it has no serial applied but all the other Ross sporter stamps are present.

The 1905 has none of the typical stamps. It has a circle P stamp on the LHS of the barrel where it should be but it’s double struck.

If the 1905 were mine, I`d leave it as is, other than repairing the rear sight etc.. Looking closer at it, there are some of 1905-R features, and the front sight would also be correct for a 1905-R.

I did not make out the Circle P until you mentioned it. This is normal stamp on a 1905-R, but that one looks like it might be humped.

Are there any numbers under the buttplate? It is also worth checking under the buttplate on the R-10 (numbers are usually quite small, last two serial numbers, stamped in the steel)

I also wonder about the lack of serial numbers on Ross factory sporters with all the other factory markings.

I do know there are others out there. I have seen two M-10 .280s, Two Civilian MkII**s and at least five 1905-Rs.

One of the M-10s was featured in an article in Man at Arms magazine if anyone cares to look.

I cannot remember if they were numbered under the plate, for some reason I don’t believe they were. When I’m back in the mountains I’ll check again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ax.303

If the 1905 were mine, I`d leave it as is, other than repairing the rear sight etc.. Looking closer at it, there are some of 1905-R features, and the front sight would also be correct for a 1905-R.

I did not make out the Circle P until you mentioned it. This is normal stamp on a 1905-R, but that one looks like it might be humped.

Are there any numbers under the buttplate? It is also worth checking under the buttplate on the R-10 (numbers are usually quite small, last two serial numbers, stamped in the steel)

I also wonder about the lack of serial numbers on Ross factory sporters with all the other factory markings.

I do know there are others out there. I have seen two M-10 .280s, Two Civilian MkII**s and at least five 1905-Rs.

One of the M-10s was featured in an article in Man at Arms magazine if anyone cares to look.

---

Opinions vary as to why some Rosses lack serials, but I suspect there was even more theft from that factory than is usual. ;):D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Opinions vary as to why some Rosses lack serials, but I suspect there was even more theft from that factory than is usual. ;):D

---

Bunch of employees becoming jobless wouldn’t encourage lunchbox specials, would it? That would explain unusual, ‘unapproved’ configurations as well. They’ve been building them for years, so why not build what they wanted on the way out the door? Just a hunch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flying pig

Bunch of employees becoming jobless wouldn’t encourage lunchbox specials, would it? That would explain unusual, ‘unapproved’ configurations as well. They’ve been building them for years, so why not build what they wanted on the way out the door? Just a hunch.

---

There probably was a few go out the back door towards the end.

Thing is, I was able to check under the buttplates of all I mentioned, except the two M-10 .280s

They all had proper serial numbers stamped in both the steel and the wood. This indicates to me that they went out the front door. Most likely with serial numbers on their barrels originally.

I`d be inclined to think that most of the odd configurations, were more likely rifles put together as prototypes or to float ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ax.303

There probably was a few go out the back door towards the end.

Thing is, I was able to check under the buttplates of all I mentioned, except the two M-10 .280s

They all had proper serial numbers stamped in both the steel and the wood. This indicates to me that they went out the front door. Most likely with serial numbers on their barrels originally.

I`d be inclined to think that most of the odd configurations, were more likely rifles put together as prototypes or to float ideas.

---

I’ll have a look under those plates here in the next couple days. I’m pretty sure both rifles were bare under them though. I’ve been wrong before, a few times in this thread already in fact. Ha ha.

Brandon, if you have time, check in the barrel channel of the R-10. Last two #s of the serial # are usually stamped in the wood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flying pig

Bunch of employees becoming jobless wouldn’t encourage lunchbox specials, would it? That would explain unusual, ‘unapproved’ configurations as well. They’ve been building them for years, so why not build what they wanted on the way out the door? Just a hunch.

---

I'm sure all those things happened at times, and Ross made to order to some extent, at least for some customers such as Major Blair.

I looked through sources online in the past but found no mentions of big layoffs at Ross until the very end. This was a period when Quebec was arguably still the financial center of the country with lots of industry. Incidentally, hundreds of thousands of Quebec francophones migrated to the USA around this time, mostly to New England states and mostly to work in manufacturing, where they cheerfully and completely assimilated in strange contrast to the Canadian case. ;) The point being that we have no reason to think Ross was a harsh employer or that those who didn't like his employ couldn't easily find work somewhere else.

I don't know if Ross sold through any of the large retailers like Eatons, but he may have had reasons for not wanting to reveal his production and sales volumes through serial numbers at times. Or it could have been a way of subtly recording which rifles he had or had not sold directly from the factory. It might even be that he had a different policy on returns or repairs for rifles sold by a major retailer: they might have been expected to handle that sort of thing, perhaps from their own pockets, whereas direct purchasers were treated differently?? Or more likely, a way to concealing from government eyes how much factory time he was devoting to sporting rifle production rather than his government contracts?

That's all hypothesis and other hypotheses are that rifles that were rebarrelled sometimes did not have their serial numbers added to the new barrels. I'd suspect such rebarreling was done after the factory closure by those smiths who bought up the parts that were left over. Reportedly that continued for a good twenty years or so.

I spoke a credible seeming fellow long ago who lived in Quebec City in the 1960s and early 70s and said at some gun shows there which he attended as a seller he was told by other sellers to watch out for an elderly gent who came to the shows who had a large stock of Ross parts, and to always be very polite to him as "if he liked you" he would sometimes offer to restore a seller's rifle(s) from his stock of new parts for little if any cost.

Very thoughtful insight into the last days at RRCo Surpmil, much appreciated!

I’m at home for a minute now, so dug out the pair of R’s and had another look. I must not have originally pulled the plate off of the 1905. The serial number is there in plain sight on the butt and plate. The last two digits are on the rear sight blade as found on my other sporting rifles. There’s no sign of the last two of the serial inside the inletting anywhere. Also, the front sight on this rifle does not appear to be set back, as the sight base band would have had to been bored to accept the taper farther back on the barrel or the barrel would have had to been stepped down. I’d say the barrel length checks out as unmodified. This one had to have been special ordered like this maybe.

The 1910: it has B over 8329 lightly struck on the left side of the receiver under the dominion proof. It’s very faint and I never noticed it before. The bluing on the barrel doesn’t match the receiver ring. The ring is nearly in the white, barrel is 80% or so.

Inside the buttplate there is no serial number on either plate or butt. It is marked A Littlejohn, Quebec 1921. So there’s something to research. A few months ago I researched an R-10 back to a man from Vancouver who passed away in the 1980s this way.

Inside the inletting there is a big fat E under the chamber. No signs of inletting for an express sight. It had to have been an R that was shot out and re barrelled, but left the factory with a special order E stock.

Brandon, sounds like you are making good headway on what you have with the R-10.

The barrel on the the 1905 however, does not strike me as being a factory original R barrel. It is most likely a military barrel repurposed to this rifle.

It does not have The R and the .303 Ross markings found on all factory R rifles.

Honing out the front sight is a fairly strait forward task, as is the well done muzzle work. It was done to nearly every sporterized MK III Ross that came out of England after WW II.

If you ever remove the rear sight, it would not surprise me if there was evidence of another sight there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ax.303

Brandon, sounds like you are making good headway on what you have with the R-10.

The barrel on the the 1905 however, does not strike me as being a factory original R barrel. It is most likely a military barrel repurposed to this rifle.

It does not have The R and the .303 Ross markings found on all factory R rifles.

Honing out the front sight is a fairly strait forward task, as is the well done muzzle work. It was done to nearly every sporterized MK III Ross that came out of England after WW II.

If you ever remove the rear sight, it would not surprise me if there was evidence of another sight there.

---

I may have to have a look there. The bluing also matches the wear and Color of the barrel perfectly, below the wood line it’s as new. It shoots quite well, cases show no evidence of an enlarged chamber, it looks identical to the other 05-Rs I’ve shot. Whatever its lineage is, I like it. Ha ha.

Quick update, the rear sight matches the number on the butt plate and stock on this one. So even if the barrel isn’t factory or was modified the stock, rear sight and buttplate belong together.

Thanks for the update Brandon. With all the info I would say this is a an one of or tool room factory 1905-R with two position rear sight.
The barrel was likely shortened at the factory, for whatever reason.

Very interesting rifle.