Upgrading the 1910 sporting rifle with optics

Since somebody, who won't step up and admit it or say why, closed my last post on this subject, here it is again. Can only wonder if Facebook now owns this forum !:red face::mad:

Scoping a M-10 Ross

Got my M-10 back from Oregongunsmithing.

It now has a brand new .308 bore from the rusted nasty .287 that it was.



Mine is the 28" bbled model w/o the flip up sight on the rear receiver ring.

Thought long and hard about the best way to scope it. The front ring is round, the rear flat.
Digging in my box of Weaver bases I came up with a #45 and #48. The 45 countour was almost perfect so I put a piece of fine emery, abarasive up on the front ring and countoured the base to the ring. The 45 was filed flat on the bottom to fit the rear ring.

To get it right a long tube scope was mounted in 2 rings, the rings clamped to the bases, the bases set in place. The scope reticle was set at the center of it's range. With the rifle in a cleaning rest, 2 drops of gorilla glue was put on each base and a bore sighter installed. The rig was moved until it was close to centered left to right.

Let the glue dry and recheck the bore sighter.

If all is good, now you can drill and tap the rings and complete installation.

I used a Weaver J2.5 with a 6X Litscherts converter as it mounts low and has a long tube.

You can see the "308/280 Ross "being extracted.

I am interested in your range results with the re-bored barrel.

I was following your previous posts with interest.

The Ross sporting rifle tends to be something of an icon, particularly the .280 Ross. Individuals interested in the Ross are more likely to want to conserve or rebuild the rifle to original specifications. Nothing detracts more from the value of a vintage rifle than drilling holes in the receiver. The exception would probably be a custom side mount installed by a known English gun smith. It could be snob appeal, but more likely because the scope could be quickly removed to use iron sights, and sniper variations used side mounts.

I've also seen rifles with Weaver bases, and bases soldered to the receiver. That being said, some very inventive, and non-invasive methods of scope mounting have been utilized on the Ross rifle. I have a Ross scoped with custom claw mounts. The original sights had to be raised a quarter of an inch to be seen. The front mount is clamped to the knox form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr humble

Since somebody, who won't step up and admit it or say why, closed my last post on this subject, here it is again. Can only wonder if Facebook now owns this forum

---

Read the last post (11) of the thread and you'll see what you did and why it was closed. It's written in clear... https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....l=1#post502320

Too late now Northof60! :ugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr humble

It now has a brand new .308 bore from the rusted nasty .287 that it was.

---

I've often wondered if after boring .287 up to .308 - results in enough metal removed to completely remove the grooves? It sounds like the fact that it has been done answers that question.

Another question - can anyone think of a workable commercial (i.e. non-wildcat cartridge) that the .280 Ross can be rechambered and rebored to? What are the opinions on how large a bore could be made given the thin countour and taper of the M-10 barrel? At one time, I thought perhaps the .375 Ruger. I thought because it appears the .375 Ruger is the best casing among the various choices to make .280 Ross brass. However, I suspect the .375 bore size is too large. Ruger makes a .300 and a .338 using their .375 as a parent case. However, these are "compact" magnums and the case would be too short (unless you wanted to set the barrel back and that were result in a host of new problems). Would the .300 H&H or other similar belted magnum cartridges work? On the one hand, I've used various belted magnum cases (e.g. 7 mm Remington and Weatherby magnums, .300 Win. and H&H magnums) to make .280 Ross brass. They chamber without turning the belt off. These means that an area forward of the belt is not supported by the chamber. They work fine and it is common practice to do this, so what would be the difference if if the rifle were turned into a .300 caliber belted magnum? I suppose it would mean when the chamber is cut, a portion of the chambering reamer would not be touching the chamber walls and a portion of the chamber would be left oversize. I'm not a gunsmith and don't even play one on television. And, I only think of this topic in relation to rifles that have condition or alteration issues already and make for poor collector items.

IMHO Ross sporting rifles are not a hot collectible as evidenced by prices realized in auctions by the major auction houses.

Any rifle with a sewer pipe bore is useless as a shooter and sights that cannot be seen add to the problem.

Hence I rebored it and added a scope (more later on that)

If at some unforseen future date when a rifle like this occupies the same value as a Zischang engraved Pope barreled Ballard 6 & 1/2, the new owner could have the barrel relined to 280 Ross and any holes made invisible by welding (See D. Turnbull) (Although the price of said Ballards has dropped 50% in the last 10 years as few know and fewer care.)

Meanwhile, I want to shoot it and Changed my mind.
Removed rear ring male dovetail and filed ring flat
Went thru boxes and more boxes of bases and rings.
In Leupold turn ins, found M96 Mauser for front and unknown but low rear.
Added some old Redfield 1" rings and a Leupold VX III 6.5-20x40 that JUST clears the rear sight.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../7X53r0z-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../D21ozJ3-1.jpg

308 Ross vs 300 Win Mag

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../ZhGB9ma-1.jpg

The photo above prompts me to remember that when using .300 Winchester magnum cases to form .280 Ross, they end up a bit short.

I have no objection to the modifications you made to your rifle. You made it usable. The M-10 is the most commonly encountered of the Ross sporting rifles. So unless you have an M-10 in high condition, it's not going to be worth much to collectors. And of course even in high condition, they don't bring the kind of money many other collectable rifles from that era often bring. Yours is an interesting project and I enjoyed reading about it.

Workable cases can be made from 300 WinMag but case head is unsupported in front of belt and cases too short.

A better case can be made for 375 Ruger brass, but a lot of work compared to $2.89 each for ready to load from Buffalo Arms.

Tried 54 gr 4350 and some 180 gr Hornady blems @100.
Pinweight bbl really heats up !
8 shots, best 4 were 1st 4.
2" x 2"

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../bq8BxeF-1.jpg

Looks much better Mr. Humble, though I feel a modern scope on a vintage rifle is like putting slicks on mag rims on a Bentley. Sorry! ;)

Had another go with 4350 and 4064 and 4 different bullets. The 4064/ Barnes 168 TSX did the best (upper right)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../N7fvkP7-1.jpg

Then I cleaned it and borescoped it. After paying $350.00 to have it rebored/rerifled this was a bad surprise !

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../J3LoTwt-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../EBY07S9-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../CsED8fD-1.jpg

Waiting to hear from those who did the work.

Bentleys come with mag wheel now.
Putting some old dim, crappy scope on a rifle just to be PC is silly.
Besides that Leupold is 40 odd years old.

I have some scopes here made before WWI that are as bright as a Weaver made 30 years ago, but to each his own.

And here's the final word:

Just a heads up should any of you contemplate having a barrel rebored/rerifled.
I spent $350 with OregonGunsmithing to have my 280 Ross rifle rebored to .308 (the 280 case necked up)
The photos below show what I got back.
When I raised my concerns I was told:

Old steel rifle barrels are pourus.
Our site has a disclaimer denying any liability.

Having had 10 plus rifles rebored by others w/o such issues, I'd urge caution.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../J3LoTwt-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../EBY07S9-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../CsED8fD-1.jpg

I’m really quite surprised anyone would attempt to rebore between these two calibers. That’s not a lot of steel to remove to get cleaned up.

Do you have experience with the other firms on a similar rebore?
Just curious from a machining perspective.

In retrospect, .287 to .308 was probably was not a good idea. BUT like a fool I thought an ethical firm would have done the "drill out" and scoped the hole. When severe pitting was still evident an ethical firm would have called the customer and said this is a NOGO and suggested going to 33 or 35.

Instead these people just cut new rifling over the old pitting, did a 1/2 azz lapping job, charged me another 50 bucks to send it back and then, when confronted, gave me BS about old steel porosity.

I am a member of MANY forums across the net. The word is out.:red face:

Was the bore slugged and mic'd before reaming out. If so, what was the ID of the bore on the lands and on the grooves?

I have no idea what they DID but I know what they DID NOT do.

1. After drilling they never scoped the hole.
2. They rifled it over the old pitting.
3. They lapped it with (looking at the scratches) 60 grit emery paper.
4. They never inspected the finished job.
5. They blamed their shoddy work on porus steel.
6. They refuse to either fix it or refund my money.

If you look at their shop on Facebook, it is not comforting.:red face:

done with it off to auction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr humble

done with it off to auction

---

https://www.gunauction.com/buy/17165591

Caveat Emptor