Bond drive Gewehr 98

Cannot disagree and to date other than lots of elbow grease and preserving measures nothing has been done with it. Thinking perhaps the fort lee museum may like a loan unless I can find another collection that's in need. Need more information on them but this thread was a good start.
I'd avoid sending it to a museum. There's a lot of dumb stuff involved with that, and frankly most museums have more than enough small arms for their displays. I don't have the time to really write up all the BS, but the simple reality is that it's not going to be appreciated by the museum going public as more than "oh hey old nazi gun - this is the war with Nazis, right?" and most museums don't have the space or the inclination to display a ton of rifles beyond the obvious representative pieces along with a uniform etc.
 
I'd avoid sending it to a museum. There's a lot of dumb stuff involved with that, and frankly most museums have more than enough small arms for their displays. I don't have the time to really write up all the BS, but the simple reality is that it's not going to be appreciated by the museum going public as more than "oh hey old nazi gun - this is the war with Nazis, right?" and most museums don't have the space or the inclination to display a ton of rifles beyond the obvious representative pieces along with a uniform etc.
Hmmm something to ponder. Thank you
 
Clearing the plugs may be possible however the orginal barrel would not be functional after the fact. From all I have read about the process of installing the plug it was done with a holding vice and press. There are marks on the muzzle end of the barrel that indicates this is indeed factually correct. If I could find a period correct, good 29" barrel perhaps that would be an option. While having one made is possible as well.

From my one experience it can be done and function normally, however there is a risk the chamber plug removal damages the safety of the rifle, - MauserBill stated the risk in the 1905/Spandau-CGH 1915 operation, and Bill's threshold for accepting potentially dangerous techniques is higher than mine!

But in several cases known to me it works, but there is a risk of injury and ruination of the rifle, or at least lessen its value with no gain.
 

Attachments

  • MVC-858F.JPG
    MVC-858F.JPG
    62.7 KB · Views: 17
  • MVC-860F.JPG
    MVC-860F.JPG
    60.2 KB · Views: 17
  • MVC-861F.JPG
    MVC-861F.JPG
    50.7 KB · Views: 19
  • MVC-862F.JPG
    MVC-862F.JPG
    50 KB · Views: 20
  • MVC-863F.JPG
    MVC-863F.JPG
    42.8 KB · Views: 22
  • MVC-864F.JPG
    MVC-864F.JPG
    67 KB · Views: 17
  • action 1.jpg
    action 1.jpg
    53 KB · Views: 17
  • bore1.jpg
    bore1.jpg
    42.3 KB · Views: 16
  • MVC-003F.jpg
    MVC-003F.jpg
    36.5 KB · Views: 16
Here’s my war bond with the bulged barrel. Obviously, from the rod that they inserted through the muzzle.

The rifle is entirely mismatched. Only the barrel and receiver match, plus the small parts on both of those.

Came with an incredibly nice stock that I sold on here. I wanted the rifle since it has a nice early war receiver that is in good condition.

Think I am going to remove the barrel. Then have the most badass paper weight lol.

Patrick, You simply must show the RR (right receiver acceptance) on this rifle, - although there is a e-block reported for Danzg/06, it is clearly a Berlin build (due to it's loneliness this high though the RR is not shown the fireproof attributes it to a Berlin firm, probably Spandau, but DWM or build remains possibilities) the current high is a rather low b-block and this would represent a significant jump over 10,000 rifles... the numerical style and especially FP identifies this as Danzig made, so this would be a rifle of considerable research value (with what you show, an original BC which is nearly as impossible to trend...)
 
From my one experience it can be done and function normally, however there is a risk the chamber plug removal damages the safety of the rifle, - MauserBill stated the risk in the 1905/Spandau-CGH 1915 operation, and Bill's threshold for accepting potentially dangerous techniques is higher than mine!

But in several cases known to me it works, but there is a risk of injury and ruination of the rifle, or at least lessen its value with no gain.
That's one heck of a rifle Paul. The start-up Consortium production are some of the most intriguing to me. I'm hoping more continue to emerge.
 
Patrick, You simply must show the RR (right receiver acceptance) on this rifle, - although there is a e-block reported for Danzg/06, it is clearly a Berlin build (due to it's loneliness this high though the RR is not shown the fireproof attributes it to a Berlin firm, probably Spandau, but DWM or build remains possibilities) the current high is a rather low b-block and this would represent a significant jump over 10,000 rifles... the numerical style and especially FP identifies this as Danzig made, so this would be a rifle of considerable research value (with what you show, an original BC which is nearly as impossible to trend...)

As requested!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8881.jpeg
    IMG_8881.jpeg
    337.1 KB · Views: 8
Early DWM/04 "so far" are KM, up to 1079 but switch to Army after, this is the earliest after the KM end known, - of course a meager sample to pontificate over, 6-7 rifles split between to variables is hardly definable (definitive).
Thank you. Good to know. Will add to the description.
 
Last edited:
more....
 

Attachments

  • 8.jpg
    8.jpg
    416.8 KB · Views: 3
  • 0FC.jpg
    0FC.jpg
    402.5 KB · Views: 3
  • 8.jpg
    8.jpg
    416.8 KB · Views: 3
  • 9.jpg
    9.jpg
    456.8 KB · Views: 3
  • 9a.jpg
    9a.jpg
    455.9 KB · Views: 3
  • 10.jpg
    10.jpg
    424.3 KB · Views: 2
  • 11.jpg
    11.jpg
    478.5 KB · Views: 3
  • 12.jpg
    12.jpg
    432.7 KB · Views: 3
  • 13.jpg
    13.jpg
    434.5 KB · Views: 4
  • 14.jpg
    14.jpg
    462.3 KB · Views: 4
  • 15.jpg
    15.jpg
    443.6 KB · Views: 4
  • 16.jpg
    16.jpg
    537.1 KB · Views: 4
  • 17.jpg
    17.jpg
    466.5 KB · Views: 4
  • 18.jpg
    18.jpg
    555.1 KB · Views: 3
  • 19.jpg
    19.jpg
    183.7 KB · Views: 2
Back
Top