Unknown Ross Carbine

T

Torandir

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
44   0   0
Location
Newfoundland
I have been looking for Ross rifle info on this for about a year and a half. Wondering if anyone may have info on this guy? No military marking on the stock, but it appears to be original. 1905 pattern, but the barrel length is wrong for any model I can find/think of. Was originally obtained from the RCMP along with a full length M10 and 1905.

Photos:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/JXBfdSniX4mqYSqK6
https://photos.app.goo.gl/kfhgHHEsr4ZQ2BsQ7
https://photos.app.goo.gl/xUESgHa23P8yHBDe7
https://photos.app.goo.gl/BLcb9ci3hXAAW1Sk8

Any info would be greatly appreciated!
Tor
 
Based on the Ross Mk II rear sight (not to be confused with Ross Mk II rifle) and overall appearance, it appears to be a Mk II* that has the bbl and forestock bobbed about 4 inches. The barrel on a Mk II* should be 28" in length.
Please post a clear photo of the right face of the butt. All the model info should be there.
There was a Mk I carbine with a 26 inch barrel, but this rifle is not a Mk I. Also, the forestock on the Mk I carbine extended right to the base of the foresight.

Reread the OP. If there is not a Ross cartouche, model designation and serial number on the butt, and there is no serial number on the left side of the barrel reinforce, it is almost certainly a cut down Mk II*. It would be very surprising if there is a serial number on the barrel reinforce.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the responses. the barrel reinforce you mention, is that just essentially the left side of the knoxform or is it under the hand guard? I am in the position to purchase all three of these Rosses and have handled all three. A couple of other interesting points with this "Carbine", there is no bayonet lug and never was one as far as I can tell, as well, there are four small tack/nail holes in the stock that look like where a plate was mounted. See here:https://photos.app.goo.gl/2w8pKFXUeGRbpfvQ9
Bore is at least very good, but i've no idea what to offer for this one, mostly cause i've never seen it before!
 
Yes, the reinforce is the knoxform. The serial number on commercial Ross rifles is on the left side just ahead of the receiver and just above the top of the stock. The rear handguard is likely hiding that area. I seriously doubt this is a commercial Ross and, in my opinion, the scrubbed butt confirms it to have been modified after being sold of to the civilian market. I would value it pretty much the same as any other sported Mk II* with the sights and top wood intact, the stock scrubbed and the barrel shortened. the modified upper band and the almost full length stock would add a little to the value. The shortened barrel significantly reduces it's value.
 
Thanks,
One other odd point, is it typical to have the rear sling swivel on the trigger guard? there is no provision for one on the butt stock, nor filled in hole where it used to be
 
Yes, the Mk IIs have a swivel on the TG ahead of the magazine. It provides a rear anchor point for the sling when used as a shooting aid. It should also have had a swivel on the butt.
 
Been a little while, and i've convinced to owner to loan me the rifle so that I can take it apart and look for reccomended markings from those here. Still Unsure what this is as the stock definitely does not have a rear sling swivel or a provision for one (was never filled in). I'm not 100% where all the serial numbers are on the ross mkII's but there is a noticable one under the rear buttplate, and the nose cap appears to be the one used on the 1903 RCMP Carbines. If anyone would like a specific photo, not that i have the rifle in hand, i'm happy to do so. I've added the stock photos to the same album.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/RKWx2YXGRCZxdjrN7
 
That’s an interesting Ross. It does look original but it does have some contradictions. No hole drilled for a rear sling swivel and no bayo lug on the nose cap. I’m wondering if you have a close up pic of the front sight and crown of the barrel? If it’s been cut 4 inches the original front sight would need to be enlarged. That would probably be visible. Is the barrel crowned? The rear handguard has some tell tale evidence of sanding (the two rivets are very shiny). I like that rifle!
 
Two approaches to dealing with a front sight band when the barrel has been shortened were to either swage the band slightly larger or turn a step in the barrel. I have owned sported Ross rifles with both.
Although I cannot explain the lack of a screw hole for the rear sling swivel, I hold firm in my belief this is a Ross Mk. II* that has the bbl and forestock bobbed about 4 inches. It is not difficult to remove a bayonet lug and recontour the area.
 
I will Grab some photos of the crown and front sight when I get home. I was leaning towards bubba as well, though the mid band doesn't match any patter I've seen either, and the lack of swivel hole in the stock is the most confusing part. Worst problem is the historical documentation of ross rifles in general isn't exactly the best. Especially with so many models. Haven't heard of serial numbers under the butt plate on ross rifles either, but I may be mistaken on that front.

***EDIT*** I hav added photos into the album of the muzzle/front sight/crown along with measurements.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/RKWx2YXGRCZxdjrN7
 
Last edited:
Mid band appears correct for a Mk II*. Upper band also appears correct with bayonet lug removed and stacking hook retained. Can you see a step in the barrel immediately behind the sight band?
 
There is no discernable step visable, however the muzzle diameter is 0.01" smaller in diameter than behind the sight block. also, the front band has a sling swivel, not a stacking swivel, not sure if that's what you meant. I'm used to stacking/piling swivels being open to link to other rifles.
 
Measurements on full-length barrel:
ahead of band 0.558"
behind band 0.566"
taper under band 0.008"
band 0.685"
Perhaps the subject band has been reamed to fit.
Yes, I was referring to the sling swivel/stacking hook attached to the upper band.
 
My .02 cents worth of opinion. If this is believed to be some kind of one-off or prototype, it won't necessarily include all the indicators of an in service rifle. It would have been made from parts off the bench and bins before they were installed in something else. So, look for signs of uniqueness. Secondly, you have to think why would Sir Charles Ross, whose ego knew no bounds, would have changed anything on his perfect rifle just because someone mentioned a shortcoming in a report? No, he would have just kept on going. The changes he made were tinkering around the edges once a specific pattern was introduced. It is my understanding, his factory and his skilled workers were very busy correcting faults found in service and would have been too busy to experiment very much.
 
Thanks for the measurements, I would tend to agree that it looks like its a shortened Mk2* action, and i would have to guess they must have reamed out the front sight base to fit the barrel, as the outside diameter hasn't changed. The truely odd part is the stock it's sitting in. But likely never going to know what that is from. It looks like from photos that the mk2* has a sling swivel on the nose cap where as other variations have a split stacking swivel similar to the enfields. I do know the 1903 RNWMP carbine has a very similar nose cap as well with a proper sling swivel and no bayonet lug, though those are exceedingly rare, and this is definitely not one of thoes as they were MK1's. I'm not sure where serial number locations are on the MK2*s i know that military accepted ones have all the markings on the wood on the butt, but i'm not sure if parts such as the bolt/action/triggerguard etc. were serialized.
 
Looks like it was a mk II rifle with mk II rear sight when it was made. Then it was made into a mk II* for the cadets before the Ross model 1912 in .22 was invented.

After the military switched too Ross rifles with flip up peep sights (mk II 3* 4* 5* and last 2*)the mk IIs with mk II sights and mk IIs with mk III sights were both redesignated mk II* and given to cadets. I have seen a similar mk II* that has a shortened handguard like yours but it had the mk III rear sight. It was probably an unofficial modification to prevent the kiddos from fixing a bayonet or just to make it lighter for them.

Also remember Canada's military before WW1 was mostly a ragtag group of different militia and policing groups, with only a small army formed by the federal government itself.

Of course option B is that your rifle is just one of Bubba's rare creations that is actually tasteful.
 
It would be interesting to see credible documentation that Ross rifles were converted for cadet use. I do not hold myself out to be a Ross rifle expert, but I have never seen or heard of any such documentation or converted Ross. Any cadet conversions of Sniders or Lee Metfords I have owned or seen were crudely done in comparison to the subject rifle and, as I recall, significantly shorter. Furthermore, the military would have no reason to remove the butt markings during such a conversion, and every reason not to. There is also an obvious question to be asked. Why would the Ross Rifle Company upgrade a Mk II to Mk II* for cadet use?

Some points of clarification:
We can leave the Mk II** out of the discussion since it is a purpose-built target rifle and differs from all the rest.

The Mk II**** (4*) did not have peep sights. It had the Mk III Ross rear sight, which was rejected by the military. The rear sights were subsequently replaced with the H-type Sutherland sight and the rifles were re-designated as Mk II *** (3*)

The rear sights on the Mk II*** (3*) and the Mk II***** (5*) were U notches when in the down position. The aperture, if so equipped, was only available when the staff was raised to the upright position. Although I may be incorrect, I believe the 3* was equipped with the Sutherland Mk II sight, which has an aperture, and the 5* was equipped with a Sutherland Mk I sight, which did not have an aperture.

If I am not mistaken, the Mk II (no star) and the Mk II* were the only Mk IIs to be equipped with the Ross MK II rear sight. The Mk II rear sight had durability issues.

The only Mk II to be equipped with the Ross Mk III rear sight was the Mk II**** (4*), as mentioned above, and that model was most definitely not re-designated as a Mk II*. The Mk II and Mk II* are easily distinguishable from subsequent marks (2* through to 5*). Amongst other things, they have a much narrower mid band and an abbreviated upper band.

Mark II rifles were available for private purchase, and presentation rifles do show up. Such rifles tend not to have the military-style butt markings and are sometimes found with attached presentation plaques. The lack of butt markings on the subject rifle and the four holes on the right side of the butt might indicate the subject rifle was a private-purchase presentation rifle. If that is the case, one would expect to find a serial number on the left side of the barrel just ahead of the receiver and just above the stock line. It would also explain the apparent serial number under the butt plate and might explain the lack of a rear sling swivel. Some, if not all, commercial rifles had the serial number stamped on the butt under the butt plate - in addition to on the barrel. If the rifle were mine, I would carefully remove the rear hand guard and look for a serial number. The rear hand guard wood is thin and allowing the spring clips to snap shut can cause the wood to split longitudinally. remove the hand guard slowly so as to allow the spring clips to slowly relax.

Whatever the case, I continue to believe the barrel and stock were shortened after the rifle left the factory, and, if military, not while in military service. The evidence currently points to private purchase.
 
The nomenclature gets confusing for the mk IIs,

The best description is under the "military variants" and "military redesignation" tabs in the Ross rifle wikipedia page. The citation for this page is the Ross rifle story, I don't have access to it from the library right now so I can't confirm.

To put it simply most of the "Lange vizier" style ones would have been originally marked mkII on the butt and the * was added in 1909 when they were handed down to the cadets. Some clearly missed this redesignation because you can find what we think of as mkII*s without the *.
 
This rifle is old enough it should have a serial number and date under the rear handguard if it's military, they stopped doing this after the first year or so of production but all the mkII sight ones should have it. Just be careful the rear handguard is delicate

The lack of a sling swivel hole and the holes on the butt is throwing me off though. Presentation rifle of some kind? Now if it's a one of a kind presentation rifle for a carbine that never took off that would be really cool, or it was just mucked with. Either way I'd say it's a keeper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom