https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-sights/1895-src-rear-sight/

Steve

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

JWA said

deerhunter said
Price reduced to $100 shipped.
  

Hi Don, that is a fair price, I will take it - thanks!
  

Sold--thanks Jeff.

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.

deerhunter said
Price reduced to $100 shipped.
  

Hi Don, that is a fair price, I will take it - thanks!

Need help identifying this rear sight. It looks like the base is similar to the 50-B but with a folding open style notched sight.

I have yet to receive the rifle, pictures are taken from the auction listing.

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

You pays your money and you takes your choice, in jobs of gun engraving as in other commissioned works of art. And one man's meat is another man's poison.

But I believe there are certain verities peculiar to gun engraving. 

One of those was summed up by the late Jack O'Connor:  

If it [ a job of gun engraving] is not very well done, it is ghastly. 

I will add:  Less is usually better. The more extensive the coverage, the more the job demands perfection in pattern design, scale, and execution. An engraver of modest skill and experience might be able to produce an attractive monogram, but butcher a 50% coverage commission. The flaws add up. 

The Dallas area, perhaps Texas generally, seems to be the national repository for garish, loud, awkward, really bad gun engraving.  As Mother said at every opportunity, "Money doesn't make manners." She might have added, "or any grasp of good art."

I am not a collector of engraved pieces but I have spent a lot of years looking and trying to understand what truly excellent engraving looks like. When Jack Prudhomme was alive, his reviews and commentary were most helpful. He was aided in that by the late John Amber. I miss both of their guidance. 

The old collector's adage, "When in doubt, do without", should apply with equal force to the question of gun engraving - particularly the selection of the engraver. There are no bargains in neurosurgeons or engravers. 

mrcvs said
Even just sticking to levers—any consensus relative to the Model 1895 as to which ones by date and/or serial number should be blued or case coloured,
  

Ian,

On page #99, in the Winchester M-1895 book, which is in the, "Levers and Links section", which starts on page #98, one can see the forging drawing of the two piece jointed finger lever, unlike any other Winchester Model that we're familiar with, naturally.

There is no mention of any Case Colored Hardened Levers, as they all appear to be a bright nitre blued finish, in this book! Even on the rare serial #814, as a rare C.C.H. receiver is shown on page #71, the lever is blued. Scanning through the book, I haven't seen one with a C.C.H. lever, as I did see a few that show some honest wear of blued finish that has a very normal, and honest patina look to them.

It is my opinion, as a collector, and I am far from being an expert on this model or any other, if a M-1895 is encountered and has a case colored lever on it, I would have to say it's an aftermarket finish. IMHO!

Tony

As far as FACTORY engraved M70s, I know of at least (9) authenticated ones, not counting ones that are just monogrammed or were done as outside commissions like my Dad's gun pictured earlier.  Of those nine, seven were done by George Ulrich and two by John Kusmit.  

While it's apparently true that the engravers hated to work on M70s due to their hardened receivers and lack of flat surfaces to embellish, I'm pretty sure you'd have to have some pretty serious polydactly to count them all on two hands... There are probably quite a few of them out there IF you could only authenticate them as having been originally ordered that way.

Lou

Bert is correct insofar as I know.  At least some of the Model 21 records exist, as these were mostly bespoke (made to order) shotguns and the records were preserved.  Not true for anything else.  I tried to track down information when doing the RCS article and pretty much came up with zip... 

The best records for documenting Winchester factory engraving would be the engraver's log books.  At least for work done while "on the clock", as these logs were where they recorded their hours.  Of course any work they did "on the side" (and they all did outside work except Ed Crowley) wouldn't be recorded.  As I understand it CFM has many of the engraver's logs from the 19th Century.  Like the Shipping Department ledgers, they are not available for viewing on-line, but I suppose that if you had a suspected John Ulrich engraved M1873 you could possibly get them to find something in his engraver's log.  I have been told that the individual engravers varied in terms of how much detail they put into their log, some have sketches or smoke pulls, others don't have much...

Pertaining to M70s (1937 - 1963)... Nobody seems to have Alden George Ulrich's logs (1919-1949), but McCracken Library is supposed to be checking for me...  Pauline has many (or all) of the logbooks beginning with John Kusmit and ending with her own.  So she might very well be able to find something on later Custom Shop engraved guns.

Best,

Lou