147 / 1940, Force Matched Bolt?

[Absolut]

Just thought that is quite a nice 147 from 1940, but had to look a few times at the bolt assembly and thought that looks to be cold blue. Then I did check the serial on top of the bolt handle again and think it is ground and possibly re-struck. But it has the correct scripted serial on it too. So a higher end force match? Would appreciate others opinions on this rifle too:

LINK: https://www.egun.de/market/item.php?id=19706986

Thanks!

 

[Guillaume d'Orange]

Just thought that is quite a nice 147 from 1940, but had to look a few times at the bolt assembly and thought that looks to be cold blue. Then I did check the serial on top of the bolt handle again and think it is ground and possibly re-struck. But it has the correct scripted serial on it too. So a higher end force match? Would appreciate others opinions on this rifle too:

LINK: https://www.egun.de/market/item.php?id=19706986

Thanks!

Humped. 100% Frankenbolt.

Look at the "t" on this one:

147, 1938, 2494 "t"

This is one of my favorites. 147, 1938 in the “t” block. From what I can tell this is the highest observed 38 S&S until a later one shows up. Mostly 37 accepted but a few 214 parts including the upper band.

www.k98kforum.com

or even the "4" which have a large base on original markings, whereas the "4" on the bolt have no base

 

[Muncher 1953]

in the auction photos, the ‘t’ on barrel & receiver look like ‘f’s in some pics (to my eyes) and the ‘t’ on the bolt root like it was roto-engraved, rather than stamped. I’m also suspicious of the number on the safety, in addition to GO’s point about the font/serifs, the color of the groove where the number is marked is inconsistent with other surfaces & was ground & renumbered, IMO. At least when it was ground, it was ground straight, & not too deep. Compare to the rifle’s safety in GO’s link.

 

[heavy_mech]

I don't like any of the bolt numbering. The surfaces that are stamped have all been altered.

I added a photo with the things I noticed. That lead edge of the bolt collar pad is tough to get right. Also on the safety the edge or ledge is gone and it's too close to the hole. Subtle, but there. Compare to an unmolested bolt.

 

[Loewe]

t-suffix is give away, good humper work though (passes on a quickie)

three righteous examples all in this range...

 

[Loewe]

On the plus side it has a 936-dfb subcontract barrels which are the first to show up in1940; mostly in the s-v ranges of 147/40, though this doesn't make up for a bad bolt...

 

[Stephan98k]

On the plus side it has a 936-dfb subcontract barrels which are the first to show up in1940; mostly in the s-v ranges of 147/40, though this doesn't make up for a bad bolt...

I have "147 1940" Sn. "9602v" barrel code "936 144 40 D936 e/4 (3)", already with front sight hood. This "t" block doesn't have it.

The earliest Sauer & Sohn with Gustloff barrel which I know is "147 1940" Sn. "2748p".

 

[Loewe]

Stephan, I have pictures of 9602, they are good so must be from you! You are one of the best researchers out there these days, you should have been a moderator long ago! If you did Imperial or the republic you would be welcome to take my place... you combine trending and research in away no one else I have seen, really first class work.

 

[whcoyote]

Mind you, I am not the expert that many on this forum are but: The first big red flag was the authentic script “t” on the barrel & receiver compared to the vertical print fake “t”on the bolt root. The second flag was the wrong font on the “4” s on the bolt root. I quit looking after that.