I've read a few things that might give you pause about shooting the early ones. I believe in the day they were made for Mk VI ammo, lower pressure and velocity. Also, there was mention of the bores being tighter. Not entirely sure of the details at this moment but slugging the bore might be in order.
Sported Ross rifles
- Thread starter Kev303
- Start date
I've read a few things that might give you pause about shooting the early ones. I believe in the day they were made for Mk VI ammo, lower pressure and velocity. Also, there was mention of the bores being tighter. Not entirely sure of the details at this moment but slugging the bore might be in order.
Slugging the bore is always an idea with an early Ross; some of the barrels actually were bored .299 - .300, but the biggest bugaboo was the loose chamber FRONTS. Casings would come out greatly expanded toward their front ends. Buffdog knows ALL about this!
This is no problem if you handload: just neck-size and reload. It was a solution to ammunition variations and dirt, dust, mud and other nasty things. It worked, but the effect on your brass is a little much, especially if you aren't ready for it!
If you are shooting a tight-bored early Ross with a "generous" chamber front, a good idea is to use brass which has been annealed soft at the front. Let them expand, then reload, sizing the necks only. Your accuracy WILL pick up.
Chamber pressure of the Mark VI Ball round is listed at 15.5 ILT (Imperial Long Tons) in TEXT BOOK OF SMALL ARMS - 1909 (London, 1909, His Majesty's Stationery Office). This is (15.5 x 2240 =) 34,720 pounds per square inch. Chamber pressure of the Mark VII Ball round was held to 18.5 ILT or (18.5 x 2240 =) 41,440 pounds per square inch. The 1905 Ross action was known to have withstood firings at more than 100,000 pounds per square inch without damage. They weren't terribly worried about the things letting go, but they DID design the 1910 action a LOT stronger.
The "inferior" 1905 Ross action has 40% more bearing surface on the lugs than has a 98 Mauser. It has more than double the locking MASS. I have measured this.
I'm not awfully worried about my 1906 "letting go" with me behind it.
Hope this helps.
.
This is no problem if you handload: just neck-size and reload. It was a solution to ammunition variations and dirt, dust, mud and other nasty things. It worked, but the effect on your brass is a little much, especially if you aren't ready for it!
If you are shooting a tight-bored early Ross with a "generous" chamber front, a good idea is to use brass which has been annealed soft at the front. Let them expand, then reload, sizing the necks only. Your accuracy WILL pick up.
Chamber pressure of the Mark VI Ball round is listed at 15.5 ILT (Imperial Long Tons) in TEXT BOOK OF SMALL ARMS - 1909 (London, 1909, His Majesty's Stationery Office). This is (15.5 x 2240 =) 34,720 pounds per square inch. Chamber pressure of the Mark VII Ball round was held to 18.5 ILT or (18.5 x 2240 =) 41,440 pounds per square inch. The 1905 Ross action was known to have withstood firings at more than 100,000 pounds per square inch without damage. They weren't terribly worried about the things letting go, but they DID design the 1910 action a LOT stronger.
The "inferior" 1905 Ross action has 40% more bearing surface on the lugs than has a 98 Mauser. It has more than double the locking MASS. I have measured this.
I'm not awfully worried about my 1906 "letting go" with me behind it.
Hope this helps.
.
In the Big Book, called "The Ross Rifle Story" there are several pages on the blow-back incidents; worth reading very carefully, several times. AFAWK they almost all occurred with M10 .280 rifles; the same action as the WWI MkIII .303 rifles. From my reading there are some questions around those incidents that are not entirely resolved. Some were shown to be from mis-assembled bolts. Some can not now be shown to be due to such reasons. The authors of the book did some experimenting on their own, going so far as to mis-assemble bolts in M10 .280s and they did indeed get the bolts to blow out.
The question is, with the bolt mis-assembled, will the bolt operate smoothly in such a way that a person might mistakenly think it was assembled correctly? The authors came to the conclusion that this varied from rifle to rifle: some would hardly function at all, others were as smooth as if they were correctly assembled, or almost as smooth.
And of course the real $64K question is, will the bolt very occasionally blow out of a correctly assembled M10 .280? IMO the jury is still out on that one.
There was one reported blow-back of a 1905 actioned rifle before 1914. I'm not aware of any since then, but there are photos in the book of 1905 bolt sleeves with the bolt stop lug torn off as though the bolt went right past the stop at a high rate of speed. Why, we just don't know at this distance of time. They could have been sleeves that were over-hardened and simply fractured with regular use, or...who knows?
Personally I'm comfortable shooting a MkII (1905) or MkIII in .303, or a "1907" in .280, but I'm not comfortable shooting an M10 .280, beautiful, slick, naturally pointing rifles that they are.
I might add that I own a couple of Model 1905-R sporters and a 1910-R that have been shot so much there is hardly any rifling left; that's a lot of rounds down the barrel and no blow-backs yet!
Last edited:
I have experimented with misassembling bolts. It is easier to do if the bolt is well broken in. Yes, the bolt can be inserted in the rifle, and will reciprocate.
The last blown bolt story I've heard involved a M-10 rebarrelled in 7mm Rem. Mag.
The shooter was observed struggling with the rifle, to get it ready to shoot.
The bolt did depart the rifle, and the shooter's face was mangled. The bolt was not recovered.
Misassembly was considered to be the cause.
On one occasion, I dropped into a shop, and had a look at a sported Mk. III on the rack. The bolt was installed, misassembled. It would cycle and click. Really scary - the shop simply didn't know. Had it been sold and fired.....
I suspect that a Mk. III rifle's boltstop may prevent a bolt from being launched out of the rifle. Small comfort to someone who has snuggled right up to the rifle.
As far as Mk. II rifles a century ago - who knows? M1903 Springfields were known to have catastrophic receiver failures.
The last blown bolt story I've heard involved a M-10 rebarrelled in 7mm Rem. Mag.
The shooter was observed struggling with the rifle, to get it ready to shoot.
The bolt did depart the rifle, and the shooter's face was mangled. The bolt was not recovered.
Misassembly was considered to be the cause.
On one occasion, I dropped into a shop, and had a look at a sported Mk. III on the rack. The bolt was installed, misassembled. It would cycle and click. Really scary - the shop simply didn't know. Had it been sold and fired.....
I suspect that a Mk. III rifle's boltstop may prevent a bolt from being launched out of the rifle. Small comfort to someone who has snuggled right up to the rifle.
As far as Mk. II rifles a century ago - who knows? M1903 Springfields were known to have catastrophic receiver failures.
Springfields had catastrophic receiver failures because of sloppy heat-treatment processes and factory-floor workers who were utterly certain that they could gauge heat by Mark 1 Eyeball better than the best optical pyrometers made.
The fault was entirely HUMAN in nature and could have been prevented.
The 78,000-pound Proof loading for the '06 was one result which came out of that. Hatcher and Whelen felt that 78,000 would weed out the bad ones. Then, later, they ordered a million Springfields scrapped when they came in for FTR.
A Ross Rifle, properly assembled, can not get out of whack by itself. There have been no catastrophic failures of Ross RIFLES but it is absolutely certain that there have been (and continue to be) catastrophic failures on the part of Ross Rifle SHOOTERS.
This, again, is a HUMAN failure, albeit abetted by the fact that it is just so wonderfully EASY to assemble a Ross bolt WRONG.
NO dickering-about with Proof loads can cure a BRAIN failure.
The key to safety with a Ross Rifle is EDUCATION. That means getting a copy of the f%^*ing MANUAL and actually READING IT.
The (definitive) 1913 version is available for FREE DOWNLOAD across the way at milsurps dot com.
.
.
The fault was entirely HUMAN in nature and could have been prevented.
The 78,000-pound Proof loading for the '06 was one result which came out of that. Hatcher and Whelen felt that 78,000 would weed out the bad ones. Then, later, they ordered a million Springfields scrapped when they came in for FTR.
A Ross Rifle, properly assembled, can not get out of whack by itself. There have been no catastrophic failures of Ross RIFLES but it is absolutely certain that there have been (and continue to be) catastrophic failures on the part of Ross Rifle SHOOTERS.
This, again, is a HUMAN failure, albeit abetted by the fact that it is just so wonderfully EASY to assemble a Ross bolt WRONG.
NO dickering-about with Proof loads can cure a BRAIN failure.
The key to safety with a Ross Rifle is EDUCATION. That means getting a copy of the f%^*ing MANUAL and actually READING IT.
The (definitive) 1913 version is available for FREE DOWNLOAD across the way at milsurps dot com.
.
.
Pinned bolts...whoever came up with that idea was a smart guy for sure. You just plain can't put it together wrong with the pin in the bolt sleeve. Problem solved. It's pretty much idjit proof with the pin.
Unfortunately there were a ton of them that escaped this mod...
Unfortunately there were a ton of them that escaped this mod...
I also have experimented with Ross bolts to get them into the rifle and cycling.
With an UNpinned 1910, it is easy to do this: very easy. That's the bad part. The GOOD part is that the correction also is easy and takes only a couple of minutes. It also is POSITIVE: something would have to be BADLY broken inside the bolt-sleeve in order for things to get out of whack by themselves. I have never seen a bolt-sleeve this bad and I have seen a few bad ones.
With a PINNED 1910, it is flat-out impossible to mis-assemble the critter. It is very difficult to get the thing together at all but, once it is together, it is solid.
The 1905 is a different matter. Of my several 1905s, I have been able to assemble the bolt incorrectly on ONE. When put into the rifle, it would not reciprocate and I had the Devil's own time getting it back OUT. And that was with a BADLY-worn bolt and action which had had almost ZERO maintenance and a lot of hard use for many, many years. Generally, with this model, a great deal of playing around MIGHT get the bolt assembled wrong but then it won't go into the action at all.
Yes, I HAVE found unpinned 1910s in shops, assembled incorrectly. If I can afford them, I buy them just to get them out of the shop. SOME shop-owners just do not want ANYBODY dicking with their stock...... and they don't know enough themselves. It's easiest just to buy the damned thing. At least you know where it is afterwards and you know that it's not hurting anyone. Hmmm..... come to think of it, I have got a couple of VERY decent shooters like this.
Hah! I was in a gun shop in Brandon one day, years and years ago. Old fellow in there, a customer, was talking guns and I joined in. We talked about some of the older ones and I asked if he had any experience with Rosses. He then told me that you have to be very quick with Rosses because of the self-ejecting action: the rifle ejects the fired round AND the bolt when you pull the trigger. I assured him that they were not supposed to work like that, had an awful time convincing him that they were not supposed to do that. I only found out several years later that I had been talking with Fred Jensen..... and there was NOBODY who knew more about guns than Fred! He is much more famed as the gunsmith that hardly anybody could get a rifle out of, famed still (he is long gone at the young age of a mere 96) for his super-accurate rifles, his rages and his utterly incredible long-range shooting.......... but his sense of humour was seen by very few people.
In my one-and-only meeting (a life ambition) with Ellwood Epps, years after his retirement, I made the TERRIBLE mistake of asking about problems with the Ross Rifle. Ellwood exploded into a screaming rage, yelling at the top of his lungs, "It's a lie! It's a Gxx-dxmned lie! There was NOTHING wrong with the Gxx-dxmned Ross Rifle! I've built HUNDREDS of them!" Once Ellwood learned that we were on the same side, he told me that he would make me a .280 if I sent him an action. I never had the money, so this incredible offer lapsed when Ellwood passed on. I still don't have a .280. Just have to save up a lot more money.......
I also interviewed two men who were with A Company, 8th Battalion, during the St. Julien gas attack in April of 1915. They were part of the Reserve Company and went up through the gas when the French line collapsed. In the ensuing rifle engagement, it was a single Company trying to hold back an entire German Division. They very nearly succeeded. Their fight that day was one of the critical points of the Great War and made the War last another 3 years. Both men told me that they had had NO trouble with their Ross Rifles. They both admitted changing rifles during the battle, but only because the rifle they ere using got too hot to touch to try to reload. Their own rifles were allowed to cool while they heated-up pickup rifles from casualties. The used all their own ammunition, every round they could scavenge from the dead and wounded, and very round that could be brought up. I asked what ranges they were shooting at and the NCO just shook his head, looked down and said quietly, "Too close to miss...." The important point is that they had NO trouble with the Ross Rifles in this fight, which likely tried the rifle harder than anything else it ever endured. Thank you, L/Cpl Robert A. Courtice, thank you, Pte. Alex McBain. RIP, heroes.
Hope this helps.
.
With an UNpinned 1910, it is easy to do this: very easy. That's the bad part. The GOOD part is that the correction also is easy and takes only a couple of minutes. It also is POSITIVE: something would have to be BADLY broken inside the bolt-sleeve in order for things to get out of whack by themselves. I have never seen a bolt-sleeve this bad and I have seen a few bad ones.
With a PINNED 1910, it is flat-out impossible to mis-assemble the critter. It is very difficult to get the thing together at all but, once it is together, it is solid.
The 1905 is a different matter. Of my several 1905s, I have been able to assemble the bolt incorrectly on ONE. When put into the rifle, it would not reciprocate and I had the Devil's own time getting it back OUT. And that was with a BADLY-worn bolt and action which had had almost ZERO maintenance and a lot of hard use for many, many years. Generally, with this model, a great deal of playing around MIGHT get the bolt assembled wrong but then it won't go into the action at all.
Yes, I HAVE found unpinned 1910s in shops, assembled incorrectly. If I can afford them, I buy them just to get them out of the shop. SOME shop-owners just do not want ANYBODY dicking with their stock...... and they don't know enough themselves. It's easiest just to buy the damned thing. At least you know where it is afterwards and you know that it's not hurting anyone. Hmmm..... come to think of it, I have got a couple of VERY decent shooters like this.
Hah! I was in a gun shop in Brandon one day, years and years ago. Old fellow in there, a customer, was talking guns and I joined in. We talked about some of the older ones and I asked if he had any experience with Rosses. He then told me that you have to be very quick with Rosses because of the self-ejecting action: the rifle ejects the fired round AND the bolt when you pull the trigger. I assured him that they were not supposed to work like that, had an awful time convincing him that they were not supposed to do that. I only found out several years later that I had been talking with Fred Jensen..... and there was NOBODY who knew more about guns than Fred! He is much more famed as the gunsmith that hardly anybody could get a rifle out of, famed still (he is long gone at the young age of a mere 96) for his super-accurate rifles, his rages and his utterly incredible long-range shooting.......... but his sense of humour was seen by very few people.
In my one-and-only meeting (a life ambition) with Ellwood Epps, years after his retirement, I made the TERRIBLE mistake of asking about problems with the Ross Rifle. Ellwood exploded into a screaming rage, yelling at the top of his lungs, "It's a lie! It's a Gxx-dxmned lie! There was NOTHING wrong with the Gxx-dxmned Ross Rifle! I've built HUNDREDS of them!" Once Ellwood learned that we were on the same side, he told me that he would make me a .280 if I sent him an action. I never had the money, so this incredible offer lapsed when Ellwood passed on. I still don't have a .280. Just have to save up a lot more money.......
I also interviewed two men who were with A Company, 8th Battalion, during the St. Julien gas attack in April of 1915. They were part of the Reserve Company and went up through the gas when the French line collapsed. In the ensuing rifle engagement, it was a single Company trying to hold back an entire German Division. They very nearly succeeded. Their fight that day was one of the critical points of the Great War and made the War last another 3 years. Both men told me that they had had NO trouble with their Ross Rifles. They both admitted changing rifles during the battle, but only because the rifle they ere using got too hot to touch to try to reload. Their own rifles were allowed to cool while they heated-up pickup rifles from casualties. The used all their own ammunition, every round they could scavenge from the dead and wounded, and very round that could be brought up. I asked what ranges they were shooting at and the NCO just shook his head, looked down and said quietly, "Too close to miss...." The important point is that they had NO trouble with the Ross Rifles in this fight, which likely tried the rifle harder than anything else it ever endured. Thank you, L/Cpl Robert A. Courtice, thank you, Pte. Alex McBain. RIP, heroes.
Hope this helps.
.
Thank you again Smellie!
If we had sent the Ross Mk III over with
Large bolt stop
All Canadian in-spec ammo (and kept the Brits' hands off our our excellent ammo that worked in the Ross while fobbing off their out of spec junk on us)
pinned bolt sleeves
the story would be a lot different.
If Canada had built the .280 Military Match rifle...instead of the .303 version...the Brits wouldn't have had any reason to take our ammo.
Hindsight is always 20-20 though right?
If we had sent the Ross Mk III over with
Large bolt stop
All Canadian in-spec ammo (and kept the Brits' hands off our our excellent ammo that worked in the Ross while fobbing off their out of spec junk on us)
pinned bolt sleeves
the story would be a lot different.
If Canada had built the .280 Military Match rifle...instead of the .303 version...the Brits wouldn't have had any reason to take our ammo.
Hindsight is always 20-20 though right?
If a model 10 Ross bolt is improperly assembled I was told by an old Ross hand that the locking lugs can actually be seen NOT turning into the receiver far enough. He said if you had any doubt about the bolt assembly you could push the bolt home slowly and see that the lugs were fully engaging.
I handled the Mk 111 rifle that Tiriaq mentioned. I noticed the bolt had been installed "short", and let the shop know. Obviously, the shop did nothing about it, as Tiriaq witnessed. The rifle was in very good shape otherwise.
To be sure. As long as you know that and check carefully you are unlikely to go wrong. The problem is the people who lay hands on the rifles without having it all explained to them.
BTW, I have a Ross Mk II with Mk III backsight. When I got it, the bolt was misassembled. It wasn't locking up at all. The bolt just went in and didn't turn at all, which was very obvious. Actually there was no way to fire it.
So, anyone who had it lo those many years was frustrated in any effort to shoot it. As a result it has a mint, perfect, like new bore!
When I got it I took the bolt apart and played with it for a full day. I could not figure out how to put it together. There are like 2 or 3 different tracks the bolt can go into and none of them was right.
Finally, it suddenly went together right. You have to put it in a track, start it in, then pull it out slightly, give it a turn, and suddenly...success!
Here's a pic of the bolt as I received it.
Here's the rifle after fixing the bolt and having the forend stretched.
- Location
- Beaverlodge, Alberta
Thanks for all the info Smellie, especially about the .280s. I'm really kind of glad I left that M10 on the table now, I had never heard that about them from anyone. A guy learns lots every day hanging around here!
As far as the 1910 is concerned, the thing can NOT get out of whack by itself.
In order to make the bolt of a properly-assembled rifle dangerous, it would be necessary to smash out the internal CAM-TRACKS of the Bolt Sleeve, or else the CAMS on the BOLT HEAD. Either one. These are VERY solid parts: wide, deep and VERY HARD steel.
Considering the tales of Ross Rifles which were ON the firing-line, being shot and SUDDENLY blew back, I think there is a solution. It is this:
1. the rifle Bolts were IMproperly assembled all along.
2. when the Bolt was thrust forward, the EDGES of the locking-lugs engaged with the EDGES of the locking-recesses. They WILL try to do this, should you look very carefully.
3. as this happened, it provided JUST enough interference between the steel parts to keep the rifle closed.
4. the steel parts, however, not being hardened TOO hard, which would cause them to shatter, distorted slightly with each shot.
5. finally, the distortion became too great and, when peak pressure was reached, the now-CAM-SHAPED surfaces simply slipped........ and allowed the bolt (which had not been locked properly all along)..... to slam backwards at terrific velocity.
6. the rifle Bolt would be recovered and discovered to be in an UNlocked position. Conclusion? "Well, it's obvious: the damn thing isn't safe to hold onto! Ban it!"
And, all along, the Rifle was doing EXACTLY WHAT THE SHOOTER TOLD IT TO DO.
The real PROBLEM was that the Shooter had dicked with the Bolt WITHOUT reading the MANUAL.
Gentlemen, you input, kindly.
Does this make sense to you?
....................................................................................................................
All I really KNOW is that I have been shooting Ross Rifles for 50 years now.
I still have both eyes and both cheekbones and all my fingers.
I have heard a thousand TALES about the Dangerous Ross Rifle, but it seems to me that they should all be tales of Dangerous Ross Rifle OPERATORS.
I have NO fear of a properly-assembled Ross Rifle.
@ Flying Pig: You should try one out some time. You are really missing an experience: an encounter with real Canadian history, right in your hands. C'mon out here and us'll edjumacate ya!
.
.
In order to make the bolt of a properly-assembled rifle dangerous, it would be necessary to smash out the internal CAM-TRACKS of the Bolt Sleeve, or else the CAMS on the BOLT HEAD. Either one. These are VERY solid parts: wide, deep and VERY HARD steel.
Considering the tales of Ross Rifles which were ON the firing-line, being shot and SUDDENLY blew back, I think there is a solution. It is this:
1. the rifle Bolts were IMproperly assembled all along.
2. when the Bolt was thrust forward, the EDGES of the locking-lugs engaged with the EDGES of the locking-recesses. They WILL try to do this, should you look very carefully.
3. as this happened, it provided JUST enough interference between the steel parts to keep the rifle closed.
4. the steel parts, however, not being hardened TOO hard, which would cause them to shatter, distorted slightly with each shot.
5. finally, the distortion became too great and, when peak pressure was reached, the now-CAM-SHAPED surfaces simply slipped........ and allowed the bolt (which had not been locked properly all along)..... to slam backwards at terrific velocity.
6. the rifle Bolt would be recovered and discovered to be in an UNlocked position. Conclusion? "Well, it's obvious: the damn thing isn't safe to hold onto! Ban it!"
And, all along, the Rifle was doing EXACTLY WHAT THE SHOOTER TOLD IT TO DO.
The real PROBLEM was that the Shooter had dicked with the Bolt WITHOUT reading the MANUAL.
Gentlemen, you input, kindly.
Does this make sense to you?
....................................................................................................................
All I really KNOW is that I have been shooting Ross Rifles for 50 years now.
I still have both eyes and both cheekbones and all my fingers.
I have heard a thousand TALES about the Dangerous Ross Rifle, but it seems to me that they should all be tales of Dangerous Ross Rifle OPERATORS.
I have NO fear of a properly-assembled Ross Rifle.
@ Flying Pig: You should try one out some time. You are really missing an experience: an encounter with real Canadian history, right in your hands. C'mon out here and us'll edjumacate ya!
.
.
You are preaching to the converted, smellie, at least in my case. The Ross is a fine rifle, always has been, always will be. Not a great combat rifle but a great hunting/target rifle. A smear campaign began in the 1920's and has continued ever since with most of the critics simply repeating whatever they had heard.
Oh, I know I'm preaching to the choir in many cases: lot of people here have their heads on straight.
Right now, I am interested in some kind of consensus regarding the reported incidents of a Ross being fired successfully and THEN going kablooey after several rounds.
Using reason and a knowledge of how the critter works, I have (in concert with Buffdog) come up with a scenario which explains that ugly phenomenon.
Your comments would be appreciated.
.
Right now, I am interested in some kind of consensus regarding the reported incidents of a Ross being fired successfully and THEN going kablooey after several rounds.
Using reason and a knowledge of how the critter works, I have (in concert with Buffdog) come up with a scenario which explains that ugly phenomenon.
Your comments would be appreciated.
.
- Location
- Beaverlodge, Alberta
Smellie, your posts about the Ross had bit me months ago. I've been looking off and on ever since for one that I had liked but I haven't really been concentrating on learning a lot about them.
A road trip to Manitoba would be a lot of fun! Ha Ha. I'm sure I'd learn more in an afternoon than I could reading on the net in a year.
I found one three days ago that has my interest and has me wanting to know a lot more. I traded the fellow another rifle for it and it is on its way here from BC right now. My questions about the 1903 and 1905's a couple pages back were because I'm trying to figure out what I traded for, and I think i can make a mildly internet educated guess? All I have to go on are these grainy cell phone pics.
Here it is:
I was on milsurps in the Ross section and posted these yesterday and a fellow posted a link to pics of a few 1903s and 1905s. From looking at them I think its a 1903 MkI sporter? Has someone replaced the front sight with a LE one?
I'm bit by yet another collecting bug, a year ago I had one Lee Enfield, now I have 7. At least the Rosses aren't as easy to come by!
A road trip to Manitoba would be a lot of fun! Ha Ha. I'm sure I'd learn more in an afternoon than I could reading on the net in a year.
I found one three days ago that has my interest and has me wanting to know a lot more. I traded the fellow another rifle for it and it is on its way here from BC right now. My questions about the 1903 and 1905's a couple pages back were because I'm trying to figure out what I traded for, and I think i can make a mildly internet educated guess? All I have to go on are these grainy cell phone pics.
Here it is:
I was on milsurps in the Ross section and posted these yesterday and a fellow posted a link to pics of a few 1903s and 1905s. From looking at them I think its a 1903 MkI sporter? Has someone replaced the front sight with a LE one?
I'm bit by yet another collecting bug, a year ago I had one Lee Enfield, now I have 7. At least the Rosses aren't as easy to come by!
Sportered Mark I, also called the 1903.
When you hit it right, you hit it right!
They are VERYVERYVERY scarce, believe me!
And the BARREL hasn't even been cut. This one is restorable into the centrepiece of a fine collection.
Congratulations on such a FINE find.
.
Note the heavy shroud on the Bolt.
It will have a very narrow Extractor.
Cut-off is a SWITCH below the Triggerguard.
Bolt-handle swept DOWN. These are all the identification points to a Mark I. Built 1903 to 1905 only.
Ergonomically the finest military bolt rifle EVER.
.
When you hit it right, you hit it right!
They are VERYVERYVERY scarce, believe me!
And the BARREL hasn't even been cut. This one is restorable into the centrepiece of a fine collection.
Congratulations on such a FINE find.
.
Note the heavy shroud on the Bolt.
It will have a very narrow Extractor.
Cut-off is a SWITCH below the Triggerguard.
Bolt-handle swept DOWN. These are all the identification points to a Mark I. Built 1903 to 1905 only.
Ergonomically the finest military bolt rifle EVER.
.
