Ross rifle

[45Auto]

The proof is in the action. Also in the history of the Ross.

[Jim K]

Hi, 45Auto,

Can you post some pictures of that action? I think we would all like to see what happens when the bolt blows out. My experiment proved to me that a 1910 can be fired with an unlocked bolt, but I used a primed case. I saw no reason to destroy the rifle when I knew what would happen.

Jim

[45Auto]

Hello Jim,

Here you are. The bolt will not go all the way back into the damaged action. Note the bulged out section and cracks on the left side. The back of the bolt appears to have hit something as it flew out. The barrel in this action was otherwise in good condition. I would not have wanted to be the one who fired this rifle when it failed.

[nmckenzie]

From the battering on both the bolt and receiver, my guess is that someone was trying to hammer the bolt closed, rather than the bolt blasting back and hitting something, or someone. Just bought a bubba'd 1905 Ross a few months ago. Got a great deal on it because the bolt had been incorrectly assembled, and while it could be inserted in the action, the bolt head kept trying to twist to the left, and jammed hard against the port side of the receiver in exactly the position the receiver bulge is located. If the owner had persisted in trying to bash it closed I'm sure he would've bulged the receiver eventually. Offered him a Mauser that did work (one of Mitchell's masterpieces) for a Ross that didn't, and that's how it ended up coming home with me. I am NOT an expert on the Ross rifle, but I stripped it down, disassembled the bolt, then reassembled things. Found that the bolt can be assembled two ways; one leaves you roughly 1/4" between the face of the bolt body and the back of the bolt head, which results in the head trying to twist, the other leaves roughly 1" between parts, and the completed assembly slides home and locks up smooth as silk. A word regarding the incorrect assembly, while the bolt can be closed by sorta manually holding the bolt head while sliding the body forward, it then locks into its recesses by just the barest margin - I'd estimate only 1/8th or so of the bolt lug surfaces being locked up. Whether it could be fired in this condition I don't know.

[45Auto]

Notice that the back of the action, the area which held the take-down button, is broken off. Also, the ejector was violently broken off. These things could only have been broken from the bolt flying back with grate force. They would not have been broken off from the bolt being forced forward.

[nmckenzie]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

Notice that the back of the action, the area which held the take-down button, is broken off. Also, the ejector was violently broken off. These things could only have been broken from the bolt flying back with grate force. They would not have been broken off from the bolt being forced forward.

Good points. They do make the case for backward thrust of the bolt. Which raises the question, for me at least, as to why it would've taken off in the first place. With my bubba'd 1905 MkII the bolt head was VERY firmly twisting against the left side of the receiver. If you manually pulled and twisted the bolt head into proper position - fighting the spring, and eased the bolt body forward, the head would begin to rotate into locked position, but only just. I'd say if fired in that position it probably would've unlocked, with resulting bolt blowback. As noted earlier, there was about a 1/4" gap between the face of the bolt body and rear face of the locking lugs when this condition existed. I was tempted to see if I could duplicate the condition by disassembling the bolt and trying to reassemble it to that 1/4" gap condition, but figured it's working the way it's supposed to - with about a 1" gap, so leave well enough alone. As also noted earlier, I am NOT any kind of an expert with Ross rifles, and in fact the bubba'd 1905 is only the second one I've ever seen - the first being a thoroughly botched sporterized MkIII back in the '60s. Interestingly, a few weeks after the bubba'd rifle ended up in our gun racks I ran across an unaltered US surcharge 1905 MkII*** in great condition with a really nice bore, accompanied by a US surcharged bayonet and scabbard bearing the same Winnipeg Cadet Corps rack number (on the scabbard) as the rifle. It, too, now roosts in our gun racks. Funny how these things sometimes work out.

[Jim K]

That is certainly evidence that there was a problem with the 1905. Unfortunately, I no longer have the 1905 worked with, only a 1910, but I think I know who bought the 1905 and I will try to get it back and do some more experimenting.

Thanks for the good pictures and info.

Jim