337 1940 matching

[Loewe]

I found it suspect also, mostly because it has so many Mauser parts, especially the barrel. Mauser made G98 barrels in number early on 35-38, very few are 98k if any, I would have to refer to the actual rifles rather than trend sheets. They really didn't supply barrels to anyone else until 1943 or so, and this is an early barrel, - made by Mauser almost for sure, I would be amazed if it weren't... I think it is possibly legit, depots sometime recycle parts from salvaged rifles (this was less common with the goosesteppers, they were spendthrifts, but it is very possible this occurred more often than we suspect - Imperial era were far more frugal than WWII, they reused everything)

The OP says a serial is rotated off center, this would support salvage (assuming the serial is different), you do see similar occasionally. Seems too good of work to be a humper, most are pretty ignorant of whatis right and wrong, they tend to get carried away and the collector market is such that most collectors discount sharply reworks, which take the guts out of incentive, - but there is always new guys fueling some demand..

Yes photos. I know (and you guys do too) I don't know that much but the preponderance of early MO parts on this rifle caused me to (possibly prematurely) call this 'no bueno' Not near the bible so I can't check but was MO pounding out contract spares in late '37-38?

 

[Stan]

Interesting that the firing pin looks to have been salvaged from a Lithuanian Mauser, or perhaps a depot spare from that contract, with the "Pillars of Gediminas" stamp ahead of the s/n.

 

[2SO71]

Odd duck 98

I just got back tonight. I don't think that the serial numbers were faked. There is no indication of scrubbing (file marks or dimples in the metal) and the rifle was not sold as a collector piece, but a sporter. Why fake-match numbers on a sporter. The bore condition is turning out to be great, which isn't what you'd expect from a war beaten rifle, maybe the receiver went through a depot rebuild and didn't see much action after. Again, the action was very dirty below the woodline and difficult to take out of the stock, it hasn't been apart probably since it was taken home and sanded on. There is uniform light pitting on the barrel, receiver and safety. I pulled the butt plate off and, if I'm reading the stamped numbers correctly, they indicate a 1941 make for the stock. All the waffenamts seem to be WaA63. I enjoy rifles with history and this "odd duck" seems to have an interesting one, and it didn't cost me too much. It will look good in a flat butt plate stock. I plan on getting some 8mm reloading dies and shoot it. Thanks again on the information and I'll add better pics this weekend.

Todd

 

[2SO71]

Odd duck pics

Last couple. I found a WaA 1 on the extractor. There is something on the stock behind the trigger guard cut out, but it is too sanded to define.

 

[heavy_mech]

Ok so this one has had me scratching my nug since I looked at it.

What I'll call the base rifle for lack of a better term is 1939 o block MO production. The Silesiastahl barrel lot code 59 e/63 x 3 fits perfectly in that slot. Bottom metal, front and rear sight parts and trigger group all match '39 o block production in both serial number and acceptance patterns and placement. However the front sight base is cut for a hood and wouldn't have been originally. So this saw a shop at minimum.

Roll mark and RR straight up Gustloff 1940. Don't have anything for this one?

Bolt is FN which obviously would not have been there is 1939. 40 maybe but more probably 41 or later. Astra extractor with an e/280 retainer. Bolt collar e/63 x 2. Not sure if this odd combo provides any clues?

Now the oddest part IMHO. The stock is a flat butt plate MB with a date code of 3.15.41 which is April 9th, 1941. That date code fits perfectly between the f and i block of AR41 production. Band, butt plate and trigger guard screw confirm this by both serial number and acceptance. The B in the BR laminate supplier code seems 'odd' and both letters are capitalized. It's also stamped not an ink stamp. A few other thoughts. The serial in the barrel channel does not match the font in examples and there is no suffix. The butt plate is also missing a suffix which also should be there.

Salvage job by a depot in '41 sometime maybe?

 

[Loewe]

This is probably legit, a coupled problems though... first this is something that we have been trying to put in a box and I have been looking at it backward... first this is a rifle built around the barrel and TG group, the central element isn't the receiver as is usually the case. This is far more typical of Imperial (wartime) or Republican era rifles, and rarely if ever seen in the NS war era. Typically there are two critical (bottleneck) parts that are the central components, that is the receiver and barrel, for that reason in the Imperial wartime era, and Republican era more common, sometimes you see rifles built around barrels, the receiver having no relationship to the rifles component parts. Though in most cases the receiver isn't salvaged, rather it is a leftover Spandau/17-18 receiver or Simson ordnance spare, but rarely an older receiver reused. In the NS era they were far more reliant upon ordnance spare barrels and receivers, also bolts and stocks. Being socialists frugality was not in their dictionary and you see huge numbers of ordnance spare barrels and receivers in the mix, not so in the Imperial era where receivers were often recycled during the war and ordnance spare barrels are less seen. Imperial & Republican salvaged and reused part on a far larger scale.

The barrel serial that is rotated off center (below the stock line) is the barrels original serial, the one newly applied in-line with the receiver serial (which is almost for sure restruck over the receivers original serial) dates to when this work was done, possibly 1942 but probably later.

It would be helpful if the OP post really clear pictures of the barrel serial and receiver serial, the receivers original serial is probably partially removed and overstruck to match. What concerns me most is that this mating didn't acquire a new FP on barrel or receiver, but better picture might reveal evidence of counterstriking over old serials and proofs, - something like this would require new proofing somewhere, possible over struck. Also, any marking on the barrel or sharp direct pictures of anything that could date to this later work, I still need to dig into trends to see possible comparisons, but they will not be this involved, I don't recall ever seeing a 98k with so many related parts from another rifle (but probably why they went with the barrels serial) If the lot is 59 then this barrel is probably off a 42/1939 o-block, Si/39 lots are double this in 42/1940 o-blocks.

 

[heavy_mech]

I'll be honest I'm quite shocked. Almost a thousand views over a week and not really many more comments? Did we miss something? Any conspiracy theories as to how this came together? Somebodies got to be thinking something. Come on guys.

Oh and to what Paul said... yes OP please post clear pics of all the marks. Not holding out hope on the stock but maybe the keel escaped the belt sander?

 

[Loewe]

The stock I keep thinking about, but that picture of it sure looks like a total loss... stocks are often the most useful component in evaluations.

Very few people have researched reworks in detail, far fewer across 1898-1944, those that do often specialize, HZa/HZNa, builds and reworks/acceptance. Even if you do across the board it could be a lifetime of research and probably little in results (as in rules to the process, seems pretty diverse 1898-1944, but with a certain continuity based upon conditions), I have been trending 20 years, naturally that evolved constantly (more detailed) and I still see new stuff all the time. It is why reworks are the trickiest purchases, with a little research (real research, not just forum or internet searches. - establishing what is common and sticking with those patterns, not getting too exotic or carried away..) and skills in metal work and stamping you can fool anyone.

This rifle is very unusual, the only thing I can think of is this came about later in the war because so much of the ordnance spares were exhausted, even that seems not enough though, generally you see a lot less ordnance spare barrels being made after 1942, a lot less, generally replaced by a few select firms coming on board to supply barrels for concerns that have problems (not HZa supplied but direct - SDP with the bombings & rearranging production lines taking barrels from just about everyone- SDP probably one of the largest barrel makers of the war! Later a beggar... Brno supplying both SDP and dou later in the war.. dou even supplying SDP at the same time; even more shockingly is SDP getting barrels from byf, almost unheard of, -also JPS,), the barrel suppliers, Geco, ERMA essentially stop with the war, certainly by 1941, Geco getting back in the business in 1944, probably because of the barrel crunch, (even Mauser started buying barrels late in the war); then some small fries (large firms but new to rifle barrels - Fritz Werner 1943-44) get involved or evolve in some cases.

The big picture on barrels probably made this sort of thing necessary. Note too how Brno (dot) took on loads of used receivers in 1944, I would imagine the HZa's had plenty of salvaged receivers that needed barrels 1943-1944.

I'll be honest I'm quite shocked. Almost a thousand views over a week and not really many more comments? Did we miss something? Any conspiracy theories as to how this came together? Somebodies got to be thinking something. Come on guys.

Oh and to what Paul said... yes OP please post clear pics of all the marks. Not holding out hope on the stock but maybe the keel escaped the belt sander?

 

[Stephan98k]

It's a interesting rifle and I enjoy your discussion about it.

Now the oddest part IMHO. The stock is a flat butt plate MB with a date code of 3.15.41 which is April 9th, 1941. That date code fits perfectly between the f and i block of AR41 production. Band, butt plate and trigger guard screw confirm this by both serial number and acceptance. The B in the BR laminate supplier code seems 'odd' and both letters are capitalized. It's also stamped not an ink stamp. A few other thoughts. The serial in the barrel channel does not match the font in examples and there is no suffix. The butt plate is also missing a suffix which also should be there.

I don't think it's a Mauser Berlin stock from a "ar 41" coded rifle. The Gustloff stocks in this range have "BR" laminate supplier codes with capitalized letters and they don't have ink stamps. It's from a "bcd 41", around "d" or "e" block short before transition to the cupped buttplate.

 

[heavy_mech]

It's a interesting rifle and I enjoy your discussion about it.

Thanks and I appreciate the information and candid discussions. It's interesting to me too trying to understand how this may have come together and it's legitimacy or not.

Gustloff stocks in this range have "BR" laminate supplier codes with capitalized letters and they don't have ink stamps. It's from a "bcd 41", around "d" or "e" block short before transition to the cupped buttplate.

Thanks and please don't take my response as being contrarian or argumentative just for it's own sake. While I see they are in fact stamped not ink stamps I did not see an example the had BR both in capital letters. All the examples I found were in the Br format. Obviously you've been tracking and trending this so I take it by your response you have documented that in this range?

The other 2 things I mentioned still give me pause.

The font in the barrel channel doesn't match any from Gustloff from this period I could find AND the suffix is missing as was practice until '44.

The associated stock metal (band, butt plate and action screws) are all e/26 accepted and serial matched according to the MB standards of that time. I can't see that connection.

Again, I appreciate the knowledge, effort and discussion!

 

[2SO71]

I'll take pics of the receiver serial and barrel serial at the woodline. I'll look over the stock again; however, there isn't much hope. It's been sanded so much that the all metal such as the reinforcing bolt, trigger guard, butt plate are all very proud over the stock. Any areas that I should check specifically? Thanks for all the information on the K98ks. There seems to be much more nuance than similar US rifles of the time

 

[heavy_mech]

Yes please. Maybe on the bottom behind the trigger guard? Right along the bottom edge. Look carefully they may be very faint. Also better, clear photos of the entire barrel code and acceptance all the way around. I think it's 39 Si 59 but I could be wrong. What follows continuing around?

 

[Stephan98k]

Thanks and please don't take my response as being contrarian or argumentative just for it's own sake. While I see they are in fact stamped not ink stamps I did not see an example the had BR both in capital letters. All the examples I found were in the Br format. Obviously you've been tracking and trending this so I take it by your response you have documented that in this range?

You are very welcome and don't worry, I don't take it in a bad way. A contrarian theory is often helpful, sometimes you(not you personally) have a tunnel view if you spend too much time on something and then other theories are very helpful.

In Volume II Gustloff chapter is a paragraph about Gustloff manufactured stocks with "s" code (you know the "c" coded stocks from Hermann Menzel are common) and there are pictured two rifles with "BR" laminate code both in capital letters. The first is "337 1940" serial number "3168 l" and the second is " bcd 41" serial number "9245 i". Another example is "bcd 41" serial number "2131 f", unfortunately it's not reported if the stock is "c" or "s" coded.

If I remember it right, user Absolut has "bcd 41" serial number "8568 i" and the stock is "s" coded - it would be interesting to know the laminate code and if the code is also in capital letters.

 

[2SO71]

barrel code is 39 Si 55. Also, found an interesting personal inscription on the butt plate.
Happy New Year!
Todd

 

[M1903A3]

Fascinating thread! The serial on the bolt looks similar to Norwegian reworks, being centered and very even which is decidedly unlike many German bolt roots. In fact often the style of serial number stampings is detectable, think of Steyr late in the war. Late Steyr numbers appear to be individual number stamps and NEVER in line, but these (like Norwegian bolts) are perfectly straight. Even the serial on number on the barrel is straight but rotated off line. The bluing even looks a tad like what I’ve seen on Norwegian captures, but that bolt numbering jumps out. No real conclusion here just an observation.

As always great stuff from Paul and Mike and everyone else. This is a great part of the fun in K98s. The OP mentions this as differing from US rifle collecting, the real difference is that a lot of the changes on US rifles are pretty well known to those who care! The group here are professional sleuths, and conversely I have yet to see an engaging discussion in a Garand forum on who made the stamped trigger guards and when they appear! Here, this kind of scrutiny is common and all the more interesting because all we have are the guns themselves and what paperwork and records there are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stephan98k]

337 1940

I received this rifle a few days ago and was just able to get into it today. I've focused my collecting on US military arms for the past 10 years. Before that I had a mix. The only K98k that I previously owned was a dud with a sewer pipe for a barrel and complete mismatch and the incorrect bolt (looking back, I believe it was from a Polish mauser).

This rifle is all matching, with the only exception being the bolt sleeve, which makes me wonder if this could have been a factory mismatch. Even the wood is matching. Unfortunately the stock has been cut, sanded heavily and polyed. The bore is shiny and the muzzle wear is minimal, so it should be a good shooter.

It's not a rework or something, the rifle is factory original. The serial numbers are not faked and in my opinion the bolt sleeve is a factory mismatch. I wouldn't change the stock, I admit it's ugly but at least it's the original one.
Maybe it's a good shooter, but I wouldn't use it as a shooter, it's a rare example.

It may sound like sarcasm or mockery, but I'm serious.