MKII with MKIII sight? Plus unit marking questions!

[GlennP]

I've been searching for a Ross MKII with stock markings that are decipherable as I love the provenance one can collect. So, I've been looking for a complete military MKII in decent shape but with nice stock markings that have a cool story.

I found what I believe to be something "neat". From my research, I found a Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps rifle from a Training Center. This would have occurred sometime after 1919, since before 1919 it was simply the Canadian Ordnance Corps (COC, not RCOC)

I've requested a more clear photo, but it seems it passed through three other battalions before it landed at the RCOC-TC, but the only legible one really is the "102". Is this the 102nd Battalion (Northern British Columbia)? It doesn't jive with what appears to be "CC" after the 102, though.

Also, the rifle appears to have a MKIII sight. Is this good, bad, indifferent? Was this a post-WWI modification for training, or bubba?

The photos kind of suck and I am requesting the missing info from the seller, namely a photo that shows the condition of the front of the gun and the bore. It is pricey but the stock markings are really cool and it seems in nice shape.

Model 1905 Canadian Ross - Curios Relics at GunBroker.com : 795964541

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[boltaction]

Interesting piece. That would appear to be a 1905 Mk II 5*--the 3* are the more common ones found down in the US but they are identifiable by the US markings and also the downward slant of the topwood piece into the lower forestock. CC stampings are usually Cadet Corps. I wonder if the buttstock has been shortened a touch as the Ross Rifle Co roundel stamp is positioned much further aft towards the buttplate than usually seen, but it could just be a variant. As for the rearsight, that rifle was never designed to take the rearsight for the Mk III--I have seen a couple of them mounted on the barrel of the heavy barrel Mk II** rifles but really the aperture design would not work well that far from the eye. That rifle should have had a Sutherland rearsight, longer with a adjustment screw on the top right, which when the sight is folded down would fit into that groove on the topwood in front of where the sight is. So, the sight has been replaced. Would have to see that sight up close to see if it is the standard WWI military one or the pre-war finer adjustment target variant with a smaller aperture.

It would be nice to see a photo as you say of the muzzle end of the gun to make sure it has its hood etc. Price is definitely up there especially with the wrong rearsight although those can be had easily enough. Not a common variant though, and looks to be in decent shape; stock has been varnished I think.

Ed

[Bluenoser]

The sling swivel does appear to be slightly closer to the buttplate than on my 5*. However, if the butt had been shortened, the buttplate should be too long. The fit of the buttplate looks good.
That is one very nice looking and well marked Ross. The DP stamp on the bolt might tie in to use by the Cadet Corps. It did take quite some time to find a Sutherland sight for my 5*.

[GlennP]

Thank you for the quick and insightful responses!

I have received some updated, albeit poor, photos. One of which is a higher resolution of the markings

Boltaction; with your lead on the CC being cadet corps, I think I more accurately narrowed down some of the provenance. All three identified Cadet Corps are in a tight geographical area indicating it's possibly right?
I believe "1519" to be the Camrose (2 Battallion Edmonton Fusiliers) Public School Cadet Corps. Source: Cadet Corps
I believe "196" to be the Roman Catholic Separate School Cadet Corps. Source: Cadet Corps
I believe the "1020" to be the Alberta Naval Cadet Corps. Source: Cadet Corps

Does this seem legit?

As far as the sight goes, if one was to find the correct sight, is it a simple replacement or is this an arduous chore? It looks riveted in which must not be easy. Or, is the base correct and just the "leaf" portion wrong, leaving the replacement to just a simple pin drifting?

Here's the addition photos I received of the front end of the rifle. It appears complete.




THANK YOU for the help guys!

[Bluenoser]

The sight base appears correct and the "rivets" are likely the alignment pins. Only the leaf assembly would be replaced and that is just a matter of drifting out the pivot pin.

[boltaction]

As bluenoser said, simply a matter of drifting out the drift pin and slipping on the new correct sight. I may have a spare correct sight in my box of parts--will check for you. Front end is right as rain. And yes, those Cadet Corps markings sound right--would have been passed around a bit probably in those years!

Ed