Can anyone tell me when and why the receiver ring stamping was changed from M-1910 to M-10?
Was this done to signify the improvement to the bolt stop, or the assumption of the firm by the Canadian government?
Printable View
Can anyone tell me when and why the receiver ring stamping was changed from M-1910 to M-10?
Was this done to signify the improvement to the bolt stop, or the assumption of the firm by the Canadian government?
My personal guess without checking any secondary sources would be that Sir Charles wanted to associate the rifle more with his "M10" sporter in .280, or at least have the same receiver markings on both for production reasons. The M1910 or MkIII action was designed around the .280 round, just as the later Patt.'13 rifle was designed around the .276 cartridge (which seems to have been pretty much a copy of .280 Ross) Ross hoped to sell his Mk.III/M10/M-1910 in .280 to the British and Dominion governments as the new "Imperial standard" to replace the Lee Enfield. There was about zero chance of that, but he was a determined sort of fellow and a Peer of the Realm...
I agree that Ross was great at self promotion (i.e.: .303 Ross), but I'm pretty sure that the model designation change took place during the war. If the British weren't going to adopt the Pattern 13 Enfield rifle and .276 Enfield cartridge prior to the war for logistics reasons, the .280 Ross in the M-10 during the war was a total non starter.
Does anyone know if the designation change is mentioned in the Ross Rifle Book? I would have thought that it would have been a certainty.
From what I have seen the earlier Factory Sporters were marked M1910. Later ones are marked M-10.
All the Military rifles I payed attention to are marked M-10.
This leads me to think it was done to simplify production once Military production picked up.
I can't see a few less digits in a stamp simplifying production, but one other thought occurs: change was rapid in small arms in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries and Ross may have thought it best not to have his design "dated".
Now that you mention it, that's an excellent point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
More likely to have both the commercial and the military the same. This way he could use any receiver to make a Sporter.