Thanks for remembering the name I couldn't -- Halger.  I didn't know they had reduced groove diameter to .284.  Either Phil Sharpe or somebody else got some internal ballistics tests run on the 280 Halger after the war. My understanding is (1) the published velocities were created on a typewriter; and (2) in a pressure barrel the breech pressures were hair-raising.  

Like women's skirt lengths,  the popularity of various sets of external ballistics rises and falls with every generation. 

Now thst I am deaf and arthritic, 7/8 ounce 12 gauge loads have become remarkably effective -- something our British cousins knew when the Dodo Bird was still in season. 

My father's generation thought the 30 Govt '06 was adequate for the big bears and anything else in America.  While still in school, I'd begun to read climbing a tree was safer than hunting Grizzlies with one.  A 338 Magnum was the minimum prudence demanded. (I still have no experience in such matters and have no idea. But I do know what high intensity noise did to me.)

It comforts me to know the Fearless Magnum craze started in England and Greater Deutschland (to include Austira) rather than America. If you doubt me, consider the 240 H&H Magnum and, of course, Halger but also some pretty ambitious metrics created by DWM. 

Roy Weatherby and his big blasters did not come into this World sui generis. By all accounts a really nice man liked by everyone, he had a grand imagination and a child's delight in new things. Did you know he was interested in photography, model railroading, and ham radio - as well as learning to run mills and lathes and gunsmithing in his garage? That kind of enthusiasm is infectious and with his capacity to make anyone a friend, it made him a salesman sales managers dream about. 

Roy's legacy includes my hearing loss, although Elmer Keith gets part of the blame. 

I only hope the current craze for long, narrow bullets at moderate velocity with attendant mild blast and recoil, and longer barrels and suppressors, lasts long enough to spare my grandchildren their hearing. 

In what time remains to me, I'm going to explore what can be done with a 6.5 x 55 Swedish Mauser cartridge in a 24" 1-10  barrel.  And whether I can throttle back a 9 pound Winchester 45-90 Model 1886 enough to.be fun to shoot. 

And I'm going to burn through all the 22 long rifle ammo I can afford. 

Can you post pictures of a WRACo 280 Ross cartridge?  I have never seen one of them.

While we are on the subject of obsolete cartridges, does anyone here own a rifle chambered for the 7x61mm Sharpe & Hart cartridge?  I have 4-boxes of factory new (old) Norma 7x61 S&H empty cases sitting in my reloading supply locker that need a new home (somebody that can use them).

Bert

Zebulon said
Thanks for the detailed description of that assembly, Steve. I think Sir Charles likely thought sportsmen too "stupid" to correctly assemble and install the bolt of his rifle deserved to get a one-shot lobotomy. A natural sorting out of the unworthy. 
There was a prewar German manufactured rifle advertised for a proprietary cartridge said to be supernaturally fast. It turned out the silly numbers couldn't be duplicated but the cartridge - which was producing very fast velocities for that day -- was just a copy of the 280 Ross. The name of the firm was made up from the names of two partners.
Didn't some of the London and Birmingham gunmakers offer their Mauser action bolt guns chambered for the 280 Ross? Westley-Richards? Holland? 
Winchester would have done well to offer the Model 54 in 280 Ross, although might have dimmed the luster of the 270. I'll bet they thought about it.
  

Bill, Kevin and Anthony -

I'm glad my post and information was of interest.  It is intriguing to consider the extent to which Winchester may have considered offering their Model 54 in the .280 Ross.  

Across the pond, there were other high velocity cartridges.  For example, there was the .280 Jeffery, which pushed a 140 grain bullet at 3,000 fps.  This was developed by W.J. Jeffery and Co. in about 1913 and no doubt was inspired by .280 Ross ballistics which came on the scene about six years earlier.  It was a rimless bottlenecked case and was based on necking the .333 Jeffery case down to .288.  

The .280 Halger HV magnum came out in the mid-1920's out of Hamburg, Germany and Halbe & Gerlich were chambering Mauser M98 rifles for it.  With the agenda of avoiding paying patent royalties, they took the Ross case and necked it down to .284 and increased case capacity by about 10 water grains.  This allowed them to bump up the powder charges - very likely to unsafe levels.  Those powder charges probably didn't reach advertised velocities:

100 grain at 3,900 fps

143 grain at 3,510 fps

180 grain at 3,043 fps

We already have enough skepticism that the original .280 Ross loadings reached advertised velocities.  There is even more skepticism over Halger's velocity claims. I will also note the Mauser action was not as strong as the Ross M-10 action, so safety is an even greater question mark.  I have confidence Winchester gave these safety considerations serious thought as they pondered potential exotic chamberings for their M54.

Not being a Ross rifle collector, but an enthusiast just the same, you have enlightened and educated me over the past few years on the rifle and it's design.

Tony

There was a prewar German manufactured rifle advertised for a proprietary cartridge said to be supernaturally fast. It turned out the silly numbers couldn't be duplicated but the cartridge - which was producing very fast velocities for that day -- was just a copy of the 280 Ross. The name of the firm was made up from the names of two partners.

Didn't some of the London and Birmingham gunmakers offer their Mauser action bolt guns chambered for the 280 Ross? Westley-Richards? Holland? 

Winchester would have done well to offer the Model 54 in 280 Ross, although might have dimmed the luster of the 270. I'll bet they thought about it.

Winchester of course engaged in cartridge testing and there is lore that a "catastrophic failure" occurred with their Ross test rifle.  Some of this lore has consisted of the bolt embedding in a wall, the bolt going through the roof and so on. In addition, there is lore that even suggest Winchester was not using a Ross rifle at all, but a, "prototype" action.  This actually makes sense to me given E.C. Crossman's testing demonstrated the Ross action could not be blown (even with compressed pistol powder loads combined with greasing the cases).  I have not been able to find any specific documentation as to what actually happened.  I have read that Winchester was attempting to duplicate as well as exceed .280 loads of the time.  Perhaps somewhere, there exists further documentation? 

In another recent thread, mention was made of the Ross bolt blow-out issue.  This is a topic that has received a great deal of ink dating back to the WWI era.  It had been a hot controversial issue. 

I want to clarify that this topic is specific to the last variation of the Ross Rifle - those rifles built on the M10 action (the military version was the MkIII).  This is the multi-lug action and not the early M1903 (MkI was the military version) or the various M1905 Sporting rifles (the MkII was the military version).  These earlier versions were not multi-lug actions and there is no, "bolt mis-assembly" issues associated with them.

For the M-10 and MkIII actions, there were isolated reports that the bolt could be incorrectly re-assembled whereupon the lugs of the bolt head would not engage with their corresponding counterparts in the front receiver ring (i.e. they wouldn't reach them). 

Along with other Ross collectors, I've researched this topic a good bit.  I've spent plenty of time manipulating Ross M-10 and MKIII bolts.

The Ross straight-pull bolt is a complicated piece of machinery.  It is a basically a corkscrew screwdriver design and is spring loaded.  It won't give you bit a problem unless you take it out of the rifle.  It's not difficult to remove it from the receiver.  But this is where the easiness stops.

For example, I've had a few frustrated calls over the years from a new M-10 owner:  "how do I get the bolt back in the rifle?!

There's a fork in the road here as far the answer.  The one fork is the simple answer - "put it back in the way it came out."  And then the response is, "I can't."  I almost always do it this way - I put it right back in the way I took it out.  BUT, I don't touch the bolt to anything.  I don't touch it to the rear of the receiver as I take it out, I don't touch the bolt head to anything when I set it down.  This is because the Ross bolt is a mouse trap.  It is spring loaded.  When you are baiting a mouse trap and then you set it - you are very careful when you set it down, lest it will snap shut.  The Ross bolt acts the same way.  It doesn't snap shut, but the bolt head snaps back into the bolt body.  

So, you grab it, pull it back out and essentially "set" it.  Then you move it toward the rear of the receiver and start to insert it.  If you're new to this, you will touch the inside of the rear of the receiver and it will snap shut again.  You will get frustrated.  But, you will try it many times and eventually with practice and patience, you will get it. Well... if you have shaky hands, you probably will not get it.

My thoughts on the what could cause the bolt blow-back issues:

Assuming you don't actually disassemble the bolt and then put it back together incorrectly, what could potentially happen is when you grab the bolt head to reset it - you have to pull it out and twist - and you might twist it in the opposite direction it needs to be.  This will shorten the overall length of the bolt and hence, the lugs will not engage in the front receiver ring.  As fellow Ross collectors as well as myself have found, it is nearly impossible to slide the bolt in when it is in the state.  The bolt quickly binds.  As one collector stated, "maybe I could get it in with a hammer." I have had the same experience.  However, I recall one rifle I had where I was able to slide it in (without a hammer).  

The Canadian Armorers ultimately addressed this by putting a rivet in the bolt body which prevented internal twisting.  The same invention was never used on commercial Mk10 sporting rifles.

So, how do you know you're safe with your M-10 or MkIII?  There's more than one way to determine that all is well with the bolt but I think the most reassuring way is a simple virtual inspection as you are closing the bolt.  If you lower your head down and look at the bolt head as it enters the front receiver ring, you can watch the lugs rotate in place as they match up with the inside of the receiver ring.  You can actually watch it lock up.

The Ross story is an interesting one and I certainly agree with Bill (Zebulon) that Sir Charles was quite the character.  Winchester's experience with the .280 Ross round is intriguing - especially if the tales are true and they were attempting to hotrod and already very hot cartridge

I confess I'm confused by your photos.  The Lyman scope (#17021) appears to be on a M70 Super Grade S/N 12723, not S/N 61978.  Is it possible that the Super Grade is S/N 12723 and that the Standard rifle is S/N 61978?  Just typed in the wrong place?

Anyway, assuming it's the Super Grade, S/N 12723 was made in late 1937.  The condition of the rifle appears to be very good.  The rifle has the early front sling swivel placement, and I'm assuming that is a Redfield full gold front sight (photo is dark but it looks like one).  The sling looks to be the one Winchester would have provided with the rifle.  The wear to the floor plate is very common on the early guns where the bottom metal was charcoal blued.  The only major distraction is that the receiver was drilled on the bridge for the Redfield JR scope mount base.  

So... As to value...  IMHO a completely unaltered (no added hole) 1937 vintage 30 GOV'T'06 Super Grade in excellent condition is about a $5,000 gun.  I'll show a slightly earlier one (with factory Lyman 48WJ receiver sight) below.  How much the hole in the bridge hurts the value depends on the buyer, but I'd say knock off a third.  The Lyman scope (with good finish and clear glass) could itself bring $250 to $300.  So my guess at value would be around $3750 for rifle and scope.

It's hard to give a value on the second rifle without some pics to estimate graded condition.  Assuming the serial number is 61978, then it's a "transition" era gun.  Good news is that those receivers had a bridge that was smooth on top with two factory drilled holes.  So the addition of a scope doesn't hurt value.  Of course, Standard rifles bring less than Super Grades, transition rifles bring less than unaltered pre-war guns, and 30 GOV'T'06 was the most common caliber.  Still, assuming it's in true excellent condition, I'd put it in the $2800 range (again plus the value of the scope).  The gun I'm picturing below is what it should look like, except mine is a 270 WCF.  Any detractions, like an added recoil pad, would cut that value in half IMHO.

I have no sepcific recommendations regarding the best way to sell them.  I'll leave that to others with more experience selling guns.  I will add that there's no additional "documenting" or "verifying" the rifles that you can do beyond getting the serial number application date from the lookup tool on this website.  As CFM told you, there are no surviving records on Model 70s to consult.  If you list them for sale yourself, just be sure to show LOTS of good clear pictures.  I'd suggest you go on Guns International and look at M70s listed by "Frontier Guns" (Dave Morris), just to illustrate what good photos look like and which views are helpful.

Hope this helps,

Lou

There will be others who can better help with value but they will need pics and serial #’s to do it any justice. You can easily visit websites like GunBroker.com and GunsInternational.com to see what your guns are currently selling for. This will help you to know a ballpark of their worth. The best way to get top dollar is by selling them yourself on those same sites. However, if that is more work than you desire I would recommend you sell them at a Bass Pro shop or a Cabela’s. For the most part, they don’t cheat folks. If you check out those websites I mentioned, you can help yourself to avoid being cheated by knowing their worth. We can also help out if you choose to upload pics and give us more data. We are sorry for your loss! Buck

Two Winchesters in the collection are Pre-64 Winchester Model 70s in .30-06, and I'd love guidance on both:

• A Pre-64 Super Grade with factory "SUPER GRADE" stamped floorplate, original Lyman Alaskan 2.5x scope (#17021), Lyman 48 receiver sight base, fancy walnut stock, decorative leather sling, and original Winchester buttplate. Serial 61978, approximately 1946-47.

• A Pre-64 Standard Grade with original Lyman Alaskan 2.5x scope (#20038) on a Redfield JR mount. Plain stock and buttplate. Both guns are in excellent condition.

I contacted the Cody Firearms Museum and unfortunately their records don't cover the serial range for the Super Grade, but the factory SUPER GRADE floorplate stamping appears to be its own authentication.

My questions:
1. What is the value range for both given current market conditions?
2. Would you recommend selling through a specialty dealer, auction house, or directly through a collector network like this one?
3. Is there anything about these two rifles I should be documenting or verifying before I list them?

Any guidance from folks who know these guns is genuinely appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Winchester Model 70 Super Grade .30-06