my new ross markings please help.
- Thread starter JTF#
- Start date
thanks for the info. is there any records or anything about serial number like what unit they were issued to or anything? there really isn't any other markings on the gun then proofs.
there is a ross 10 carbine. I just meant cuz the barrel is short though.
there is a ross 10 carbine. I just meant cuz the barrel is short though.
thanks for the info. is there any records or anything about serial number like what unit they were issued to or anything? there really isn't any other markings on the gun then proofs.
there is a ross 10 carbine. I just meant cuz the barrel is short though.
I don't know where you got the picture, but it is not correct. The top rifle is a 1905 not a 1910 Ross. I am a bit suspicious of the one marked as a 1910 Mk3 Carbine. Just because the Internet shows something or says something, it is not necessarily correct.
If your rifle had been issued to a Unit there is a good chance that there should be other markings on it. A 1917 Ross would not have gone Overseas, as the Ross was being withdrawn from Service before this date. Many of these rifles were sporterized, both basement and Bubba.
You have neglected to post photos of the markings on the Barrel. This is also important information that can help determine the origins of the rifle and where it was.
.
I once owned a shortened Mk III Ross just like the one shown above. It looked to me like something done by an armourer to make it the same overall length as a Mk III Lee-Enfield. It would still take a bayonet although one would have to enlarge the bayonet ring to make it fit the larger barrel diameter. I assumed it had been done for a trial of some sort. I think this rifle might be in the Canadian War Museum collection now.
i will get some barrel pics tomorrow.
i'm not sure how real the pic is. maybe it was just experimental. but in my 'firearms of the 20th century" book it says there was a MK2 carbine that was short but had no attachment for a bayonet. the one in that pic has a bayonet lug. i don't know what to tell you. i can show you the passage in the book about the MK2 if you want?
i'm not sure how real the pic is. maybe it was just experimental. but in my 'firearms of the 20th century" book it says there was a MK2 carbine that was short but had no attachment for a bayonet. the one in that pic has a bayonet lug. i don't know what to tell you. i can show you the passage in the book about the MK2 if you want?
I agree, looks a bit phony.
Also Buffdog is a friend and he knows a thing or two about Ross rifles. If he says "Nay" I'm inclined to believe him.
Are there holes d&t on the barrel for a sight?
I agree that the Mk III "carbine" picture looks farfetched..., look at the mid lenght barrel band, it looks to only be a half one... There are Mark I and Mark II** carbines, but none had barrels shorter than 26" from factory. Canadian Military mentality of the days was giving the edge to long barrels, and even 28" looked short to them.
Your rifle is simply one of the many that were bubba'd by who ever. This is not a R-10 for sure.
I agree that the Mk III "carbine" picture looks farfetched..., look at the mid lenght barrel band, it looks to only be a half one... There are Mark I and Mark II** carbines, but none had barrels shorter than 26" from factory. Canadian Military mentality of the days was giving the edge to long barrels, and even 28" looked short to them.
Your rifle is simply one of the many that were bubba'd by who ever. This is not a R-10 for sure.
