Interesting piece. It may be a WWII rework for Canadian Army use from the serial number added to the barrel and the replacement stock.
The case is totally spurious of course.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
The scope is an original Canadian contract scope. The rifle however lacks an original scope serial stamped between the first two "scope rail feet", as well as the scope rail lacking this number that it is supposed to have as well. Finally as Roger had pointed out to me the scope rail does not look milled but rather casted. The scope carrying can is one from an US contract W&S Musket Sight. Plus the inletting of the stock looks incorrect as well.
To summarize: the whole setup therefore is not original, but most possibly as close to an original as most are able to get. The starting price was lower than the value of the individual parts, therefore if someone wants a representative sample in the collection I think it is good to go.
PS, a small side note: there seem to be more items coming from the same estate. From looking at them basically ALL sniper rifles have issues. Most are replicas, and the one that has original WWII scope bases and even its original matching numbers scope mount and scope from WWII (the German WWII Single Claw K98k sniper rifle) has the stock, magazine guard, bolt (and I suppose a few other items as well) from a different and wrong Mauser Standard Modell rifle. If anyone is looking at any other item from the same seller/same estate I suggest to be very careful when examining plus best to consult experts to get more opinions prior to spending a lot of money on these items.
As for the rifle, one has to bear in mind that Clive Law found out that there were 177 new bases made up between 1937 and 39, as the stores system in Canada around that time reported 385 W&S sights in store, but only 211 MkIII rifles with bases.
A lot of the rifles turned in at the end of WWI were probably scrapped as being too far gone from war service. It would have made sense to save the bases, but we know how often good sense dictates policy.
CL mentions how the rifles were stored at Lindsay, Ontario and the scopes at Quebec between the wars!
I suspect what we have here is a either one of those bases fitted to a rifle just before or during WWII (for training purposes), or an original fitting that was restocked?
The barrelled receiver that you had restored Georg, did have two serial numbers as you say, one barred out, but what does that actually tell us?
AFAIK, no other Ross Mk.III W&S fitting has such a serial number placement - take Doug's highly original example with scope No.18 posted about on this site - such a serial number could only be struck in either before the mount was first fitted, or if it was removed.
There would be no reason to stamp such a number before the bases were fitted, particularly not in a space where if the scope had to be replaced, it could not be struck out or restamped without removing the base!
There is only one scenario that I can think of which explains those serial numbers "under" the bases, and that is a WWII refitting in which the armourer(s) were instructed or decided that to maintain collimation, they should swap the base with the scope.
It's not a totally illogical assumption after all, although it does predicate (perhaps wrongly) that the side walls of the receivers and barrel ring were of close enough tolerance one to another that such a swap would maintain acceptable collimation.
As we know, there were no scope numbers stamped into the metal in WWI, only into the stock, meaning that if the stock was replaced the rifle and scope serial numbers would have to be restruck in the new stock or be lost. AFAIK, we have no examples of numbers struck into stocks into the 1930s or 40s.
Thus this action, and I assume the one you bought off this site and restored, are either originals that were refitted in WWII, or one of the 177 odd Ross Mk.III's taken from new stocks in the 1930s or later and fitted with a new-made base.
Those rifles were used for training in Canada for as much as four years; they would have seen plenty of maintenance knowing what we do about the mechanical defects of the W&S scope and it's mounts and adjustments. Banging around Borden or wherever the sniper training was done for years would have been hard on those old girls. The armourers would have had plenty of work to do swapping scopes and parts around.
This rifle on auction has No.425 stamped in barrel. Were someone making a fake, especially before the current interest in Rosses and Ross snipers particularly, why would they not strike in the number of the scope they had??
There are minor machining differences between Badger's No.18 and the base used on this rifle, which are quite in line with changes in machining technology between the wars. I see no sign of this base being cast at all, though the current replicas from the UK are, before machining.
The placement of the numbers between this rifle and yours (the rebuilt barreled action) is not so different that it could not be covered by an instruction to armourers to "stamp the scope serial number on the left side of the action" or words to that effect, if such an instruction were given, and it would be logical conformity to WWII practices to do so.
Clearly, no one looked at the WWI photos or talked to the WWI snipers to learn what needed to be done to "fix" the W&S mounting: several screws though the female dovetail pushing against the groove in the male dovetail so as to positively lock the two together without any mechanical play.
The most serious doubt is raised by the "Not English Make" and presumably post-WWII UK proof marks. Why should those appear on a rifle that was probably used only for training in Canada?
There is another possibility: IF some of these rifles were indeed brought to the UK either in 1939 with the 1st Division, or later. The records don't specifically refer to this, at least not those Clive Law found, but it would have made perfect sense. The UK had just left the vast majority of their No.3 sniper rifles in France and actually asked Canada to supply scoped Ross rifles after Dunkirk. Law says the reply was that none were available as all were needed in Canada. However, the Canadian divisions going over to the UK would have known they would get no rifles from British sources, at least not for some time (it turned out to be mid to late 1943, if not early 1944), so why not take some Rosses along for at least training purposes until promised ones materialized?
Its' pretty clear from the inventory of sniper rifles in the UK in late 1943 which Law reproduced, that the supply of No4(T)s was a dribble from H&H until 1944/45. Warren has told us how No4(T)s from Long Branch were being flown over in new production bombers being ferried to the UK. All the photos we have of Canadian snipers in England show either No3 rifles or SMLE's, the former usually with nothing more than a target backsight.
There are more details in Law's book, "Without Warning", but no need to go into all that now.
So there were plenty of reasons to send some Rosses over and of course once the No4(T) finally began to be issued, including comically enough, the Long Branch production handed over to the UK MOD to divvy out as they saw fit, the other earlier rifles were turned in. Or were they? Having experienced constant delays and being short of sniper rifles for two - three years in the UK, I suspect if any Rosses were on hand, they may have been kept off any returns, and indeed may never have been reported even on arrival.
We know that some P14s fitted with W&S scopes were taken to Italy in 1943 by Canadian formations; either they could get nothing else from the UK MoD or they decided to keep them so as to have some extra?
Long-winded way of saying that it's not impossible that some Ross W&S rifles were in the hands of Canadian troops in the UK in WWII, and may have been turned in in 1944/5 when the supply of No4(T)'s finally caught up with demand and such odds and ends were exchanged, eventually ending up on the UK surplus market and getting reproofed in the process.
Last edited by Surpmil; 03-02-2021 at 12:19 AM.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
Rob, two things: you are right with many points, but I do NOT believe this one is an original sniper rifle for a few more reasons that I had not mentioned before: first, I somewhere have seen a reproduction scope rail with exactly the same finish as on the one on this rifle - maybe it was EFD rifles, I can't tell. Secondly, the inletting in the stock is poor and far from original. I believe if you remove the stock you'll be able to see the difference in age on the inletting as well. I do not suppose someone setting up a rifle for WWII would do this of a bad job. Third, there are a plenty more rifles coming from the same estate where at best some rifles have original parts but NONE of them is fully original. Even if this rifle was original, it still comes with an incorrect scope can! Why should therefore be exactly THIS ONE all correct? Yes, there might be a needle in a haystack, but given the circumstances and the reasons to doubt the chances for an original one are much lower than for a reproduction rifle. Finally, even if at best for whatever reason for WWII they decided to get casted rails made and make a different stock inletting and do NOT stamp as it was required earlier on these rifles .. well, these rifles then in my opinion are worth much less because there is NO chance to verfiy them at all and their value is identical to any faux rifle that was set up with an original scope.
PS: the rifle has British firing proofs. Hence he must had imported it from the UK. I suppose the 421 (that is far from any font on any Ross stamp I am aware) is a British stamp to give the rifle a serial, as it would be required.
PPS: the verficiation would be easy if I had it in my hands. Simply try to see if the METRIC threaded screw as in the original drawing would fit the holes on the rifle. I would bet it won't.
Rob, two things: you are right with many points, but I do NOT believe this one is an original sniper rifle for a few more reasons that I had not mentioned before: first, I somewhere have seen a reproduction scope rail with exactly the same finish as on the one on this rifle - maybe it was EFD rifles, I can't tell.
I haven’t seen any such. Nor have I seen any repros that come close in quality or finish, or certain details of finish and machining that I’m not going into here.
The rifle is for the reasons I mentioned, almost guaranteed to be a WWII fitting, probably as mentioned, of a base made in the last 1930s or early 1940s, as records indicate were made.
Secondly, the inletting in the stock is poor and far from original. I believe if you remove the stock you'll be able to see the difference in age on the inletting as well. I do not suppose someone setting up a rifle for WWII would do this of a bad job.
What part of the intletting are you referring to? I assume the cut shown at the front of the base? Pure conjecture to say that it is not of sufficient quality to be the work of an amourer. Some were and are skilled craftsmen, some were not.
Third, there are a plenty more rifles coming from the same estate where at best some rifles have original parts but NONE of them is fully original. Even if this rifle was original, it still comes with an incorrect scope can! Why should therefore be exactly THIS ONE all correct?
The incorrect scope case proves nothing about the rifle. The owner apparently never got an original; hardly surprising, they don’t grow on trees.
One has to remember that especially in those far-off days of comparatively little literature on small arms of particular types, and no Internet, knowledge was limited and localised. Furthermore, as in other fields of collection, some are very particular about “correctness” and some just want to have a “representative example” of whatever interests them, and having got it, hardly look at it.
Yes, there might be a needle in a haystack, but given the circumstances and the reasons to doubt the chances for an original one are much lower than for a reproduction rifle.
“Original” being in this case, either a WWI fitting that was restocked, or as previously mentioned, more likely a WWII fitting.
Finally, even if at best for whatever reason for WWII they decided to get casted rails made and make a different stock inletting and do NOT stamp as it was required earlier on these rifles .. well, these rifles then in my opinion are worth much less because there is NO chance to verfiy them at all and their value is identical to any faux rifle that was set up with an original scope.
It’s not a cast rail and there is no evidence that it is. I’ve seen the cast rails and they are rough indeed. Quite unlike this one.
Also compare it with the rifle in the Enfield Pattern Room: Centrefire bolt-action magazine military sniper rifle - Ross Mk.III (about 1915) - Royal Armouries collections plus check the two rifles in this video here: . One has two scope numbers on the receiver as well.
A WWI fitting, whereas this most likely is not.
PS: the rifle has Britishicon firing proofs. Hence he must had imported it from the UK. I suppose the 421 (that is far from any font on any Ross stamp I am aware) is a British stamp to give the rifle a serial, as it would be required.
I’ve already dealt with that.
PPS: the verficiation would be easy if I had it in my hands. Simply try to see if the METRIC threaded screw as in the original drawing would fit the holes on the rifle. I would bet it won't.
Which drawing do you refer to?
Regarding the video, Ian I’m afraid is “winging it” again, and makes a lot of small errors and unsupported conjectures, though to be fair, Clive Law’s book also contains many errors and misstatements, reportedly due the loss of the manuscript through a HD crash and the need to recreate it, perhaps in a hurry. However, Law found and cites most of the original records he refers to so no reason not to accept those.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
Rob, simply because you had not seen one of the reproduction rails offered make it tough to discuss on it. Re inletting, originally the stock was in a line cut down. With the particular rifle there were exact cuts made to allow individual clearance of the rail feet. Re threading, the original drawing for the Ross scope rail lists also the threading for the screws. This is unique in that it is metric. Even if it was re-mounted, the screws used would still be the same, hence this would be a very quick check if there are chances it could be original.
We agree this rifle was not an original WWI set up sniper rifle. You obviously believe this rifle is set up for WWII. I do not believe that and I pointed out my thoughts. In the meantime the seller listed many more faux sniper rifles all coming from the same collection. For every 10 "sniper rifles" listed there was one original.
Georg, there are certain details of this rifle's rail which correspond to for example Doug's original rifle (Scope No.18), but which other reproductions do not show. If you have photos of some other reproductions I suggest posting them.
If we follow the documentary evidence, which clearly indicates that an unknown number of rifles were fitted between 1938 and '43 with new made bases, and the possibility that an unknown number of WWI era bases and scopes were moved to new rifles, then I see no reason given the age and provenance of this piece, not to accept it as one of those.
Indeed, it could also be a WWI fitting which was restocked in WWII. A certain roughness or alteration in the inletting of a stock fitted in WWII would prove nothing about the mount itself. However, in this case the machining marks suggest a new-made base to me, and therefore a WWII era fitting.
Certainly not as desirable a collector piece as a WWI fitting, particularly one such as Doug's which was used in France in WWI, but still of some historical worth.
Thus far we have not seen more replica MkIII Ross snipers than can be counted on one hand and the only fake dating to the 1950s or 60s would be Lt. William H. Tantum XIV's M.1908 W&S fitted to a Mk.II Ross.
Therefore the preponderance of evidence here does not suggest a fake or replica IMHO.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
And if the drawing you refer to is the one made by Frank Dupuis, I have had a copy of it for some years now, and the threads are not shown as metric on the drawing.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
And if the drawing you refer to is the one made by Frank Dupuis, I have had a copy of it for some years now, and the threads are not shown as metric on the drawing.
I don't know the drawing you are referring to, but the threadings on my drawing are for screws with METRIC diameter and METRIC pitch. Remember the M1910 sniper rifle restoration I had posted on the forum in here? It had the threaded holes on the receiver, as well as the former scope serial. I tried various typical Commonwealth threadings, none fitted. I've had to machine screws in the exact metric threading that was shown on the drawing I have. They fitted. Hence the original threading of the screws is a METRIC threading.
Originally Posted by Surpmil
If we follow the documentary evidence, which clearly indicates that an unknown number of rifles were fitted between 1938 and '43 with new made bases, and the possibility that an unknown number of WWI era bases and scopes were moved to new rifles, then I see no reason given the age and provenance of this piece, not to accept it as one of those.
C'mon, this provenance is as worse as it can get! You hardly ever find so many faux sniper rifles in one place!
You are mentioning there were new rifles set up for WWII. How would you proof a rifle being of this production? The rail could have a single enlarged solid foot and be double the length the original rail and still one could claim this possibly being a WWII set up piece since we have nothing to compare it with and no rules it should follow.
Register To Reply
Originally Posted by Surpmil
