doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com Special Order Ross M-10 Sporter .280 Ross

By the way, I did lay all my M-10's out together tonight. I have seven of the so-called 1912 version with the turned down bolts. Interestingly, four have 28 inch barrels and three have 26 inch barrels. Length of pull varies from about 13 and 3/8 to 13 and 5/8. Most are in the 9xxx serial number range but a couple are a fair bit higher numbered. I have kept every turned down bolt variation I have acquired over the years.

I've certainly learned a lot about Ross from your threads, have you published what you know?

Thanks Mike. I have thought about it, but the time and discipline of doing it after a long work week is a big factor. It would be a fun retirement project. It would be fun to do a book (with lots of photos) but I am also aware it's a small group that would be interested enough to purchase a copy.

I was paging through some old Ross catalogs last night and I will have some more to post on the stocking topic later. Unfortunately, it probably adds to the mystery.

I'm curious about the inner curve. It looks to me to be close to the Rigby/general English magazine rifle design of the time. Can anyone do a [or series] of 'overlays', for comparison.

I'd agree that the Wundhammer layout has look of PG's that have felt natural to my average sized hand.

Not much time left in the day to say much tonight. I did check out some of my rifles and sure enough, there is a slight cast-off. In reading an old Ross catalog last night (1913, but I believe this same statement is found in several catalogs), I found the fcllowing:

The present Ross stocks are built with a very short, full pistol grip, supporting the hand close to the trigger, and giving a feeling of the utmost security in handling the arm. A slight cast-off is used to bring the sights in front of the eye without effort. Pitch a Ross rifle to your shoulder and try the fit of the stock.

The proportion of the grip, the comb and the butt are carefully worked out to suit the average man as nearly as possible. Shotgun shaped buttplates of graceful form are used, while the grip is full and capped over the end.

The walnut is all of the best selected European stock, not steamed or otherwise treated to make the wood easier to work or to hasten the drying. Some of the wood used is as handsome in figure as that put in the best shotgun stocks and all the walnut is tough and nearly unbreakable.

Standard stocks are furnished with steel butt plates and are without cheek piece. Cheek piece furnished without extra charge.

The last statement is the most surprising to me. A cheek piece stock for no extra charge, yet almost no one ordered one! And left me say, the sporter I show at the beginning of this thread with the cheek piece, makes for a very fine fit.

My current conclusion is that the E.C. Crossman titled "The New Ross" and published in the Outers magazine in 1912 is referring to the 1907 Scotch Deerstalker and not the M-10. Many people associate the M-10 with the year 1910, but it actually didn't come out until late 1911 or early 1912. So, it would seem Crossman was initially referring to the M1905-E Sporter in his admonitions of the earlier Ross and when he states, "Now comes the new Ross" he is referring to the M1907 SDS. Given the published date of 1912, it wouldn't seem that he would be referring to a rifle introduced five years earlier. I suppose news traveled slower back then. Anyway, this formulation would make it more plausible that Wundhammer was involved in the design of the stock of the M-10 Sporter. And the catalog information I quoted suggests that the M-10 was designed with the incorporation of American tastes and stockmaker input (presumably Wundhammer). What I don't find evidence of yet is the existence of two versions of the M-10. The "turned down bolt" version of 1912 would essentially be first year production. This version seems to have no differences in the stocking than the non-turned down bolt version. I think the best explanation is there was no turned down bolt "variation" at all. We know one other Ross rifle came with the turned down bolt - the .280 Military Match rifle. Sir Charles had tremendous hope for the military application of this rifle and I'll bet he never planned that production would be miniscule. In fact, likely only 25 were produced (of which I know 21 were destroyed by Canadian Police). Anyway, they may well have made an excess of bolts for the the Military Match rifles that didn't get used. These bolts would work without modification in the M-10 and actually made for a pleasing appearance. Thoughts from others?