Sauer SSR prototype with offset feed ramp

I wanted to get this up for discussion as I am assuming will be controversial.
Not making any calls on this one for now. This is the same rifle thats in the Senich book.

Also these are cell phone pics so excuse the quality.

And of course the stock has been cleaned and bleached - typical old collection practice.

Well. Given what they all experimented in regards to sniper rifles (and what period documents suggest), I wouldn't be surprised. And if there was someone willing to do this work, then it would be Sauer. Would want to see more details of the rifle first to give a better opinion. If SSR is not good, then I would doubt this too. Do I see it correctly the thumbhole is welded/closed too? Base looks longer than what I would expect for SSR.

Are you able to take SSR Rail off to see wear marks below?

I always wondered why Sauer would concentrate on that aspect of a SSR. It's more about accuracy than quantity of shots. Seems weird. If you go to the trouble for that then make it a LSR as well. That being said who's going to fake that? Would seem pointless for a faker to do all that as most fakers would just only put the rail on in order to call it a legit sniper.

I think you should buy it?

Edit: Joking aside on the buy it part is the condition of the rest and price of course.

The stock looks sanded (note recoil lug) from this one picture. The clip guide looks like it was welded on. The bolt stop screw and thumb abutment shows much wear to the bluing for such a shielded part. Should be interesting to see inside the action
Edit: the additional pictures and different lighting angles make it appear more authentic. The guide still has a welded appearance.

Personally it makes no sense to me, but lots of ways to determine legitimacy. For one, this would require a specific forging - any kind of welding would expose It.

If this rifle was featured in Senich’s sniper book, that was published in 1982, correct?

With prices of k98ks in those days, I just don’t see all the effort into someone making such a Mauserstein SSR sniper. I understand that sniper k98k variants always commanded a premium, even 40+ years ago, but why focus your gunsmithing skills on doing this to a receiver?

The bluing and finish looks typical Sauer to me. If it is a creation, my goodness… it looks totally professional. Are there any other documented examples?

Georg`s comment about the SSR Base looking longer made me look closer at this photo . I went and looked at a couple of my SSR Rifles in fact this Base does look longer than the production SSR Bases . Intern that also reminded me of the 2 intermediateUnKnown type of SSR Mounts and Bases I have in my collection

Here are some SSR Rifles showing Bases for comparison to OP photo and also a few pics of the Longer Unfinished SSR Mount and I have another Mount thats was finished and Mounted to a Rifle at one time , I am also posting that one . The Bases are different from production SSR which I am sure will be mentioned by others . I am more interested if in fact the pic Bruce posted is showing a longer type SSR Mount & Base .

mrfarb said:

Personally it makes no sense to me, but lots of ways to determine legitimacy. For one, this would require a specific forging - any kind of welding would expose It.

Click to expand...

Not the same thing, but to address the welding... Swiss K31/42's for the first ~120-150 rifles produced (1943ish) had the scope tubes shrink-fit dovetailed onto the receiver, then the gap between the scope tube and receiver filled with weld. So significant welding done to the whole left length of the receiver was apparently not cause for concern to the neighbors to the south. Just food for thought.

With additional photos from Bruce looks legit to me. Matching mount helps. Looks worth the risk price depending. What I think.

With the new pics posted I like it. There are several other rifles during this period ('43) that Sauer used to test the useability of a longer rail (both thick sidewall and non).

As for the offset feed system. I am sure there were probably several tries to get optics mounted rifles to allow for the feeding with stripper clips, along with that I am sure they would want to blend two experiments into one test bed gun.

The Mount & Base on the Side Rail Sniper Rifle Bruce posted is without any doubt longer in length than that of the Standard SS SSR , Sauer or Mauser Standard Model SSR Conversion Mounts & Bases .

Thanks for the additional pictures. When I made my reply the starting post only had the first image at all. With these new pictures I vote for original and experimental. Looks that we have a new variant that is longer than the SHORT side rail and shorter than the LONG side rail .. so lets call it INTERMEDIATE side rail . The perfectly matching font serialized scope mount with scripted suffix too (typical for Sauer SSR!) IMHO is a giveaway.

If there is any chance to, would appreciate a picture of where the thumbhole would be located, with bolt open, to see if possibly weld closed. Overall, that thick cover of grease/oil/whatever that makes the thing so shiny is not helpful to tell whether it may had been welded.

The mount design btw also makes it clear as to why they moved the stripper clip feeder. With a base this long there is no thumb hole possible. This makes feeding ammo from stripper clip tough. So they therefore just moved it to the other side.

Edit: was going to question if the safety would clear the scope .. then saw the scope position in the mount. If I was to guess, it had been moved forward a bit in the rings. The Ajack normally sits in the SSR mount in that the cone of the objective is at the front ring, so it needs to be moved to the rear in the mount. Then most possibly the safety would also clear the scope (right now there may be issues?).

Dave Roberts said:

Here are some SSR Rifles showing Bases for comparison to OP photo and also a few pics of the Longer Unfinished SSR Mount and I have another Mount thats was finished and Mounted to a Rifle at one time , I am also posting that one . The Bases are different from production SSR which I am sure will be mentioned by others . I am more interested if in fact the pic Bruce posted is showing a longer type SSR Mount & Base .

Click to expand...

Can't stop it ... Dave, check out the position of the screw holes on the base that you have posted pictures of. These are different from the one that Bruce has posted. Please try holding the base to a receiver. Would it sit in the same position as on rifle Bruce has posted?

Georg, this rifle is available for trade.
Bob Landies has this rifle.

Bob is a dedicated Oberndorf collector if you get my point.

B.

Absolut said:

Can't stop it ... Dave, check out the position of the screw holes on the base that you have posted pictures of. These are different from the one that Bruce has posted. Please try holding the base to a receiver. Would it sit in the same position as on rifle Bruce has posted?

Click to expand...

Georg
I know the Bases are different and hole placement also , I posted them with the Mounts as these are the Bases that came with these Mounts and also to show was different SSR Mounts & Bases were being developed and used . It is the Mounts that I was mainly referring too as both of them I posted are loner than the production SSR and I suspect these 2 Mounts are same overall length as one on rifle Bruce posted . By the way look closely at the numbering on the blued used SSR Mount I posted specifically the # 2 the fonts are identical to those on Mount/ Rifle Bruce posted .

I will try both of the Bases to see how they fit up to a receiver .

Firebug90 said:

Not the same thing, but to address the welding... Swiss K31/42's for the first ~120-150 rifles produced (1943ish) had the scope tubes shrink-fit dovetailed onto the receiver, then the gap between the scope tube and receiver filled with weld. So significant welding done to the whole left length of the receiver was apparently not cause for concern to the neighbors to the south. Just food for thought.
View attachment 425938

Click to expand...

You by chance use handloads? Or you using GP11 ammo?

I’d still like to see what the receiver looks like from the inside, but I know that won’t happen. I’m still not convinced 100%.

Jdt said:

You by chance use handloads? Or you using GP11 ammo?

Click to expand...

Hand loads, RL-17 and 174gr ELD-VT's in converted .284 brass, although a friend did hook me up with some proper Thun 7.5x55 cases not long ago.

Firebug90 said:

Hand loads, RL-17 and 174gr ELD-VT's in converted .284 brass, although a friend did hook me up with some proper Thun 7.5x55 cases not long ago.

Click to expand...

Very nice, heard that bullet is better with seating depth over other brands aside maybe the VLD target from Berger. Hope ya got that reloader 17 stacked deep haha.

To me rifle looks good, but….. Where’s it been for the last several decades and what’s the price? Hard to pay big money for one of kind experimental guns with no path of ownership.