Third Party Press

1915/16 WMO Gew98 Bond Rifle (and "Spill-over" suffixes at WMO?)

chrisftk

Moderator²
Staff member
Hi All,

I picked this one up as a relatively inexpensive example of a "War Bond Rifle", but also because it has a double date / serializing peculiarity.

The base rifle itself is a textbook bond gun-- the serial numbers match except for the bolt- even the cleaning rod. These, to the newer guys here, were rifles captured and brought back to the USA as raffle prizes for buying war bonds. The bolts were removed and the bolt faces partially cut to render them unserviceable. I don't know that I've ever seen a bond rifle with a matching cut bolt, so they were likely taken out and cut en masse, then randomly mated to rifles later. The bores were also plugged with lead as an additional means of rendering them wall-hangers.

Condition-wise, this thing is untouched as you can find them. There was a thin layer of grime on the metal, which really protected it for further corrosion (probably from years of hanging on the wall of an American Legion hall and soaking up tobacco residue lol) The grime cleaned right off, leaving wonderful, unmolested metal.

As noted above, this is a neat example of a "double date" as some might call it. The receiver was produced in 1915, but final assembly was in early 1916. Interestingly, this rifle is in a late 1915 suffix (x-block)-- Sam astutely pointed out that WMO possibly did "spill-over" production, finishing out old prior-year receivers until supplies were exhausted, then re-starting suffixes with the new year. This receiver was approved by the revisions committee (crown/RC), so maybe it was at the bottom of the barrel for 15 production. Not conclusive, but in comparing double date Spandau production, which appeared to be "no-suffix", seems to show they re-started numbering and simply added the second date. Maybe some sort of internal accounting at WMO, but I'd welcome any discussion on this.

Here's the data sheet:

Receiver 7909 x
Barrel 7909 x (BS 384)
Front Sight 09
Rear Sight Leaf 09
Sight Slider 09
Ejector Box 09
Trigger Sear 09 (faint)
Front Barrel Band 09
Rear Barrel Band 09
Trigger Guard 7909
Trigger Guard Screws 09,09
Floor Plate 09
Follower 09
Stock 7909
Handguard 7909
Buttplate 7909 x
Bayonet Lug 09
Cleaning Rod 09
Bolt Body mm
Extractor mm
Safety mm
Cocking Piece mm
Bolt Sleeve mm
Firing Pin mm

IMG_20221001_162817494_HDR.jpgIMG_20221001_162900330_HDR.jpgIMG_20221001_164231718_HDR.jpgIMG_20221001_162934022_HDR.jpgIMG_20221001_164128748_HDR.jpgIMG_20221001_163001723_HDR.jpgIMG_20221001_163036699_HDR.jpgIMG_20221001_163100284_HDR.jpgIMG_20221001_163109645_HDR.jpgIMG_20221001_163115751_HDR.jpgIMG_20221001_163217712_HDR.jpgIMG_20221001_163300772_HDR.jpgIMG_20221001_163314941_HDR.jpgIMG_20221001_163336941.jpgIMG_20221001_163405312.jpg
 
Beautiful condition and interesting example Chris.This is only the second one I’ve seen and the double date is very cool.
Do I see a flat on the barrel shank just ahead of the serial number?
 
I really love this one, Chris. Glad you snagged it and got such great photos for us. Added to the reference!
Thanks Cyrus, glad this one had some interesting peculiarities to it. It also checked my bond rifle box, so that was nice!

Beautiful condition and interesting example Chris.This is only the second one I’ve seen and the double date is very cool.
Do I see a flat on the barrel shank just ahead of the serial number?
Thanks Rick! Definitely a neat find with some niche traits.

I had noticed the flat on the barrel collar too. My guess would be a machining fault that was milled down, but hard to say.
 
Chris, I would be curious to know how much lead they put in that barrel. Kroil and a brass rod might be enough to dislodge it, unless the present war bond config is more appropriate. Was curious as to the level of determination involved in the decommissioning process.
 
Last edited:
Excellent example Chris! This one really hammers down the number made in 1915. Would be curious to hear Paul’s take in it. I would think finishing out the spillover block must have been an internal accounting function.
 
Chris, I would be curious to know how much lead they put in that barrel. Kroil and a brass rod might be enough to dislodge it, unless the present war bond config is more appropriate. Was curious as to the level of determination involved in the decommissioning process.
It's about 75%-80% the length of the barrel-- enough to plug it good, though I would imagine with enough effort one could clear it. The big factor is the cut bolt face-- it would require a bolt change for sure. I find the bond conversion a neat part of the history-- I've got a big pile of live Gew98s-- this one is staying as is :)

Excellent example Chris! This one really hammers down the number made in 1915. Would be curious to hear Paul’s take in it. I would think finishing out the spillover block must have been an internal accounting function.
Thanks Sam! We find answers in some of the least likely places. This rifle didn't get much attention due to the demil, but it still has a lot to tell us.
 
It's about 75%-80% the length of the barrel-- enough to plug it good, though I would imagine with enough effort one could clear it. The big factor is the cut bolt face-- it would require a bolt change for sure. I find the bond conversion a neat part of the history-- I've got a big pile of live Gew98s-- this one is staying as is :)


Thanks Sam! We find answers in some of the least likely places. This rifle didn't get much attention due to the demil, but it still has a lot to tell us.
Never having had one in hand, @80% is a lot of lead. It was more out of curiosity that I ask. The bolts don’t match anyway. Cool part of history. Thank you for posting it as always!
 
Never having had one in hand, @80% is a lot of lead. It was more out of curiosity that I ask. The bolts don’t match anyway. Cool part of history. Thank you for posting it as always!
Actually more like 95% lol. I just looked.
 
Chris,

I have no evidence, nor any information other than conjecture, just thinking aloud, but are we SURE that Mauser did the /16 on rifles? I ask because historically, from my understanding, Mauser did not care about the ring date in relationship to when the rifle was actually built. I have a Mauser military rifle (not German military) that is ring dated from 1901, but the rifle was more likely built around 1904. Many other rifles show ring dates that do not directly correlate to when they were built, but rather the date being when the receiver was made.

Unless buried in the German standards for ordering Gewehr 98's maybe there was a clause stating that the ring date must match the year of manufacture?
 
Chris,

I have no evidence, nor any information other than conjecture, just thinking aloud, but are we SURE that Mauser did the /16 on rifles? I ask because historically, from my understanding, Mauser did not care about the ring date in relationship to when the rifle was actually built. I have a Mauser military rifle (not German military) that is ring dated from 1901, but the rifle was more likely built around 1904. Many other rifles show ring dates that do not directly correlate to when they were built, but rather the date being when the receiver was made.

Unless buried in the German standards for ordering Gewehr 98's maybe there was a clause stating that the ring date must match the year of manufacture?
I believe that Storz references that the assembly date was a military requirement on the receiver ring, though I have personally seen exceptions to this outside of "normal" production- (particularly with some builds from salvaged receivers at depots) Even Sterngewehre used this "/" date convention. My guess would be it was to pinpoint letter blocks vs. dates to know when a rifle was truly assembled. Just conjecture though.

On the commercial side, all bets were off though-- as you well know. The serial numbers there were more or less internal and seem a lot harder to trend-- though I'm a military weapons guy and used to their way.
 
Last edited:
I can see that the military depots would be an exception, likely as there were not as formal stipulated conditions, where Mauser, and even state arsenals had stringent controls to adhere to. It's just an odd thing for Mauser to do.

Interesting to think that "in theory" there are another nearly 8000 of these rifles out there.
 
Out of curiosity, could you post a closer up pic or two of the cuts to the bolt? I’ve never handled one of those in person and I’m curious how they did it.
 
Certainly an effective demilitarization process. Chris how common are these to find? I have heard of them of course, but I don’t remember noticing any in all my years of scanning auctions. Bond rifles in general, not the double dates
 
Certainly an effective demilitarization process. Chris how common are these to find? I have heard of them of course, but I don’t remember noticing any in all my years of scanning auctions. Bond rifles in general, not the double dates
I wouldn't call them common, but I see enough of them out there not to call them scarce. I've personally seen maybe 3-4 this year for sale, but this was the first one that "jumped" at me. Often times they seem to go for more than I'm willing to pay for a wall-hanger.. this one was $650 all-in, so that was palatable for one with a neat double date in untouched condition.
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top