Bcd4

CanadianAR said:
The numbering could be ok. Those 1s would be tough to fake. But I believe the stock has had work done. When you see dirt and black all down in the grooves and tough to get areas but clean uniform colour on top, it’s a bad sign for me. I think it was chemically cleaned at Some point. Not to try to drag it down, if your friend is happy that’s great, but it should be mentioned
Click to expand...

Interesting. He said the inside was not too dirty either when he took it apart. But yeah I think the outside is a bit too clean and the colour seems a bit light. Do you think waxing it would be a good idea just to better protect the stock?
 
a j s said:
Whats going on with the 2 machined grooves in the right reciever,period or recent?
Click to expand...

I know I probably took too long to get back to this, but here goes. I wanted to ask those more experienced than I how this damage could happen to the right side receiver bridge on this bcd 4 because if it passed inspection like this it's way cool, but it it was something done by Bubba it's a bummer but still a cool bcd. a j s picked up on this right away and I hate to leave this unanswered. Those of you that are machinists may recognize this as something that could happen from a cutter coming loose and going wild. If it's something that Bubba did I can't imagine what he could have been trying to do, however we all know that Bubba marches to a far different drummer than most of us. I believe that this is a 1945 assembly and we all know that some crazy workmanship or lack of, passed inspection in 1945 and that Steyr is the main offender, however we've seen a few slip through from MO and Gustloff as well. There's an amazingly crude bolt in the Karem/Steves Kriegsmodell "Bible", but it has an additional Astrawerke inspection stamp right next to the SNAFU. It would be great to know if there isn't the same stamp somewhere on this receiver, also you might think if Astrawerke passed this receiver and Gustloff phosphated it, that the phosphate finish would be more apparent in the damaged areas. So, I was hoping that perhaps Mike, Clay and the many other long time collectors might be kind enough to indulge me and weigh in on this topic. Again, I'm not putting down the rifle at all because I think that many of us wouldn't mind owning it.
:happy0180:
 
Last edited:
It’s impossible to say when this was done from photos, this is something you’d need to see in hand imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mrfarb said:
It’s impossible to say when this was done from photos, this is something you’d need to see in hand imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thanks Farb,
Sorry to put you on the spot. I understand that the camera can tell many lies.:happy0180:
I'd love to have you get this "in hand", as I would like to, but I reckon it's not likely to happen. Still I'd like to also have an accomplished machinist look at it from his angle too.
 
Last edited:
swjXE said:
Still I'd like to also have an accomplished machinist look at it from his angle too.
Click to expand...

From the looks of it, I'm leaning heavily toward "manufacturing error". But without knowing the process that was employed to machine that particular feature on the receiver (e.g. the cutting tool and fixture used), it's difficult to be certain.
 
R.W. Parker said:
From the looks of it, I'm leaning heavily toward "manufacturing error". But without knowing the process that was employed to machine that particular feature on the receiver (e.g. the cutting tool and fixture used), it's difficult to be certain.
Click to expand...

-Thanks for the input Parker, I feel the same way, because I always try to fathom how Bubba's mind works, and I just can't come up with this approach.
 
FWIW (not much) Removed this part as I was thinking of a different rifle posted with 2 'slits' on the left front of the receiver right where the barrel is atrtached. Obviously this isn't that piece so my (not much) was pretty appropriate in this case. :googlie

As to the machining I believe for that operation it was chucked in a fixture and spun and the the receiver crown was cut radially. Especially in later examples you can really see the radial tooling marks from it being spun between centers.
 
Last edited:
Old rifle

stuka12358 said:
Interesting. He said the inside was not too dirty either when he took it apart. But yeah I think the outside is a bit too clean and the colour seems a bit light. Do you think waxing it would be a good idea just to better protect the stock?
Click to expand...

I was the previous owner of this rifle and sold around 1 year ago ! I got it that way with the stock untouched by me and machining mark was there ! BUT i completely cleaned grease and dirt from the inside of the stock and on all metal parts ! Before using ballistol on it ! I bought this one from a good collector in manitoba who is specialized in 44-45 k98k. So i think this rifle is legit !
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top