Assistance Confirming Suspected 1905M Factory Sporter Requested

[Surpmil]

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.

[Bluenoser]

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.

[Ax.303]

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.

[Ax.303]

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.

[Bluenoser]

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?

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.

[Bluenoser]

.........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.

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.

[Ax.303]

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.

[Ax.303]

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).

[Bluenoser]

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.

[oldpaul]

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