I am trying to find a legitimate example of a bnz 40 K98k for a receiver photograph. I have no records of a matching rifle at auction and can find no examples on this forum, Gunboards or even Google. The only example I have ever seen is in Backbone of the Wehrmacht. So... do they exist or not?
Does code "bnz 40" exist?
- Thread starter D-K
- Start date
I do not think the photo was edited, but it is hard to tell if the "0" is struck over something because the markings were whited-in to get them to stand out for an old-school camera. I just find it odd that there are so many truly rare rifles on this forum and Gunboards, and yet no bnz 40. I also track Gunbroker auctions and with over 1,000 auctions saved, I have never seen a bnz 40. My page 152 does not appear to have information on the BNZ 40, but does have the 660 1940 listed.
NathanLM
Senior Member
Apparently RIA sold one along with a "tanker" swp45!
http://www.rockislandauction.com/viewitem/aid/1022/lid/3305
On a more serious note, Bob Jensen wrote this in a kcn article in 2002:
"1940 dated “bnz” K98k rifles were surrounded with controversy. It has been reported that David Armstrong, who was a dedicated K98k researcher throughout the 1970’s, recorded several “bnz” 1940 dated K98k's. Unfortunately his findings have not been made available to other collectors. Bob Jensen, however, reported on a 1940 “bnz” rifle which conforms to the 1940 code “660” K98k rifles including the absence of the siderail Mod.98 stamping. Unfortunately its serial number is 9724k which puts it into the “660” code serial number range. The “660” serial number range which includes the “l” and “n” suffixes accounts for approximately 20,000 rifles, or two weeks production. Certainly a 1940 “bnz” coded rifle could be correct and both “660” and “bnz” coded rifles could have been made concurrently within these letter blocks. The controversy cannot be resolved until more serial numbers and examples in those blocks are identified. (Note * an early “bnz” 41 dated rifle can be made into a 40 dated example by carefully stamping a zero over the 1 and 1940 dated rifles used the four digit date while the 1941 rifles used only a two digit date.) It would seem that a “bnz” 40 should be a “bnz” 1940 to be correct."
http://www.ycgg.org/pdfpages/ww2/Steyr.pdf
This article was written four years after BBOTW. Also, the example in BBOTW is a "BNZ 40". While the author notes 1940-dated rifles used a four digit date, Berlin Lubecker used a four-digit date for the 237 code and a two-digit date for the DUV code in 1940.
http://www.rockislandauction.com/viewitem/aid/1022/lid/3305
On a more serious note, Bob Jensen wrote this in a kcn article in 2002:
"1940 dated “bnz” K98k rifles were surrounded with controversy. It has been reported that David Armstrong, who was a dedicated K98k researcher throughout the 1970’s, recorded several “bnz” 1940 dated K98k's. Unfortunately his findings have not been made available to other collectors. Bob Jensen, however, reported on a 1940 “bnz” rifle which conforms to the 1940 code “660” K98k rifles including the absence of the siderail Mod.98 stamping. Unfortunately its serial number is 9724k which puts it into the “660” code serial number range. The “660” serial number range which includes the “l” and “n” suffixes accounts for approximately 20,000 rifles, or two weeks production. Certainly a 1940 “bnz” coded rifle could be correct and both “660” and “bnz” coded rifles could have been made concurrently within these letter blocks. The controversy cannot be resolved until more serial numbers and examples in those blocks are identified. (Note * an early “bnz” 41 dated rifle can be made into a 40 dated example by carefully stamping a zero over the 1 and 1940 dated rifles used the four digit date while the 1941 rifles used only a two digit date.) It would seem that a “bnz” 40 should be a “bnz” 1940 to be correct."
http://www.ycgg.org/pdfpages/ww2/Steyr.pdf
This article was written four years after BBOTW. Also, the example in BBOTW is a "BNZ 40". While the author notes 1940-dated rifles used a four digit date, Berlin Lubecker used a four-digit date for the 237 code and a two-digit date for the DUV code in 1940.
waffenmeister
Senior Member
Five or six years ago while looking at a table full of RCs at the York, Pa. show just to see what receivers had been destroyed by rebuild I found a bnz 40 in the l (L) block, typical RC but still with a nice blue on the receiver and no "X". I should have picked it up just as a curio.
DK, Nothing new to add, this was quite a controversy a decade ago, but it rarely comes up today. To aid further discussions on this, I will post up some of these lost threads and comments from long ago:
Rich
Gunboards Member
19 PostsPosted - 12/31/2003 : 4:24:16 PM
I was lucky enough to find one of these. Although it's just a barreld reciever. Imported by Century awhile back. Bore is pretty rough. Majority of blueing still intact. Complete rear sight assembly and trigger/sear assembly match. Double E/623 on right side of rear sight tube. 6 on the bottom of the rear sight tube. 6 at 6o'clock position on the barrel ring, D on the left side of the front triggerguard screw lug, K in a circle proof, squiggle line mark and a M on the bottom reciever flat. Barrel code 41 40RD followed by 3 E/WaA623. 7.91 on the top side of barrel ring.
Download Attachment:
30.51 KB
Download Attachment:
29.98 KB
Download Attachment:
26.86 KB
Rich
Gunboards Member
19 PostsPosted - 12/31/2003 : 4:24:16 PM
I was lucky enough to find one of these. Although it's just a barreld reciever. Imported by Century awhile back. Bore is pretty rough. Majority of blueing still intact. Complete rear sight assembly and trigger/sear assembly match. Double E/623 on right side of rear sight tube. 6 on the bottom of the rear sight tube. 6 at 6o'clock position on the barrel ring, D on the left side of the front triggerguard screw lug, K in a circle proof, squiggle line mark and a M on the bottom reciever flat. Barrel code 41 40RD followed by 3 E/WaA623. 7.91 on the top side of barrel ring.
Download Attachment:
30.51 KB
Download Attachment:
29.98 KB
Download Attachment:
26.86 KB
Attachments
2005 Gunboards post - Lengthy debate
Just to clear, this thread was more than 10 years ago, I haven't re-read it, so it should be understood that opinions can change over such a period of time. Also research is far advanced since then. I will look at my SDP trends sheets for further observations, but my trends work was not done in 2005.
howiebearse
Gunboards.Com Silver Star Member
USA
840 PostsPosted - 10/12/2005 : 11:37:09 AM
just found a german list of 98k manufacture codes serial number production and year. this list says 660 serial number 48-505n total production 130492 bnz 9724k-352n total production unknown for the year 1940 ive read here that many believe the 40 dated bnz to be fake this website is www.wachbataillon-siegburg.de/karabinerherst.html i have seen a couple pics of 40 date rifles on the boards how would these be faked?
Scott B
Gunboards Premium Member
USA
119 PostsPosted - 10/12/2005 : 1:49:29 PM
The bnz40 pictured in 'BBOTW' is an absolute fake. The picture of it clearly shows how the "1" in bnz41 has been scrubbed and replaced with an off size/center "0" wich is not a component of a single "40" die. The serial range of the fake bnz40 also shows it to be in a range wherein the 660-1940 code was still in use and nowhere near a potential transition point. I have seen one other bnz40 which the owner frely admitted was fake. These are pure fantasy pieces and are further evidence why both 'BBOTW' and the "expert" need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Scott B
Mike442
Gunboards Premium Member
USA
174 PostsPosted - 10/13/2005 : 1:27:38 PM
Scott,
If the serial number is still in the range of the 660 code, then why doesn't the BBOTW photo show a 660 code on top of the receiver instead of the bnz. code it shows? Or am I misinterrupting something here?
Scott B
Gunboards Premium Member
USA
119 PostsPosted - 10/14/2005 : 07:17:55 AM
Mike,
Serials for 660-1940 and bnz-41 are repeated. The rifle serial and actual features 9not exactly as described) falls within the range of BNZ41. So what you are seeing in the picture is a bnz-41 with the '1' scrubbed off and replaced with a '0'. The subject rifle is a joke and has been accepted as such by the old time collecting community for some time.
You can see many other items from this collection appearing on the arms auctions on the net. Suffice it to say that for the most part they have not aged well in todays more informed collector environment.
Scott B
howiebearse
Gunboards.Com Silver Star Member
USA
840 PostsPosted - 10/16/2005 : 10:18:52 PM
what about the referances in that german website showing the serial numbers for 660 and bnz in 40. are they showing bad info? is law the only source? i know i have seen photos of bnz 40 before that did not look scrubbed and restamped they look right.
johnny_mustang
Gunboards Super Premium Member
USA
406 PostsPosted - 10/16/2005 : 11:03:25 PM
Can't say about the 40 bnz, but I do know he is wrong on 337 1939 and 27 1935. I've recorded rifles higher than what he or Law shows.
So I don't think he has better data than what has been seen before.
graf
Gunboards.Com Silver Star Member
USA
796 PostsPosted - 10/17/2005 : 12:03:49 AM
Many if not most experienced collectors doubt these; I know of 3 such rifles- Jensen owns/owned one (9724 k), Law bought another in 95/96 (1965 l) & an rc that showed up in 2002...
Both Jensen & Law wrote short articles (that was combined into one by Chris Cox June95) the rc that showed up is 1940 bnz ser. 2024 l rc and was discussed in the MRJ: (http://www.gunboards.com/sites/mrj2003/)
I later came across pictures of this rifle (3 shots of the receiver- which with an rc is all you have), reportedly found at the Ohio Gun Collectors Show Sept 2002 by Richard Walkis for $250.
At least two of these rifles are rc's or surplus rifles with little supporting proof outside of the barreled receiver; not sure off hand on Jensen’s example but I doubt it is all matching- though he seems to imply it in his article (never fully documented as far as I know? One would expect that if it were matching they would have illustrated it more in Backbone as at the time it was quite unusual with only Armstrong’s comments to Jensen as proof)
Naturally, many doubt these rifles authenticity and the only well known collectors I know of that do believe in them are the owners of these rifles- Jensen, Law & probably Walkis (the author of the article said he believe it legit for what that's worth... Marion Mericle)
As for the German website it probably is quoting Law or Armstrong.
To answer your question on Law & bad information; just like with the svwMB controversy Law put forth information that was in dispute at the time and wrote on the subject as though fact- terribly obvious in 95 a lot of collectors didn’t agree with him or Jensen on this subject- many still don’t as no quality matching example has been shown to substantiate this “variation” and though rc’s & m/m imports are good for serial studies they are very limited in variation research.
quote:
Originally posted by howiebearse
what about the referances in that german website showing the serial numbers for 660 and bnz in 40. are they showing bad info? is law the only source? i know i have seen photos of bnz 40 before that did not look scrubbed and restamped they look right.
http://gewehr98.com/
Rich
Gunboards Member
61 PostsPosted - 10/17/2005 : 10:04:26 PM
ScottB,
By they way you have worded your reply to Howiebearse you must be one of the 'experts' that roam these boards.Have you personally seen, I mean held in your hands a bnz40???? Or is your 'expert' testamony based on a photo???
I am the owner of one of the bnz40's. Let me start out by saying, nobody get it NOBODY know's for sure one way or the other. They are head scratchers. Old times and newbes alike. True they do not make sence. Why would the German's do something like this? I don't know. Are they fakes? I don't know.
There is alot we don't know and unfortunetly will never know. Just think what we all could have learned if the Russian's had not dicked with the rifles the held.
Anyway I can only speak for the one I own. I bought it because the price was not bad and I wanted to study it closer.
This is what I have found. Compared to my 660 1940. The thickness of the reciever is the same(from bottom flat to top of reciever). There is a noticable step on both recievers just forward of the front screw lug from machining. the bnz, the 4, AND the 0 all appear to be the same size and depth. Just like on the 660 1940.
There is no, got that 'expert' NO evidence of grind marks, file marks, polish marks at all. The finish on this rifle is somewhat worn, with a little brownish plum color starting on the top of reciever and barrel behind the rear sight, and the exposed area of the barrel forward of the handguard and bayonet lug. Rear sightS/n and worn finish matches and so does the sear S/n. It is import marked K98 GERMANY 8mm CAT ST ALB VT. Bore is good but not the best. There was some corrosion under the bayonet lug and the solid front band. and under the handguard were the rear band touches. All have been scrubbed white and there is some lite pitting. Even though the white area shows a solid front band you can see by the way the corrosion pattern is, that there was a H band there for some time.
Now for the 0 over the 1. Yes Mr. expert, there is a 0 stamped over the 1. Expertly done! The only one I have to compare it to is the one in Backbone. It is done exactly the same. Absolutly dead on. You would think if faked them there would be some difference in the position of the 0. But maybe not. I'm not that good. But maybe someone is. You have to look close to see the shadow of the 1. There is no high swelled up area around the 0. It is just as flat in the surounding area as the rest of the letters and numbers. I already mentioned that the depth of the 0 is the same as the 4.
That's pretty much it. Honestly I really do not know for sure if real or not. But I can tell you this. Anyone claming to know for sure one way or the other on this topic or any other 98k topic is full of BS. Things change daily.
howiebearse
Gunboards.Com Silver Star Member
USA
840 PostsPosted - 10/17/2005 : 10:34:15 PM
Graf, i thank you for this explaination. but for me i do not understand the importance of a matching rifle having any bearing on the reciever marks. it would be fairly obvious if someone scrubbed and remarked a reciever. if some have shown up and are not outright lousy atempts at faking maybe they did make them hope this brings out some more examples. the RC rifles should be taken into consideration as bbl and receivers generally are intact who cares about the rest when trying to understand if they did have a split year on production and marked early 660 and late bnz. thanks Rich im with you lets see if any more examples can be studied these boards are very important for the exchange of info the more examples the closer we will be to finding out the truth. but im not hung up on matching examples. after reading the forgotten soldier i can understand how the 98k rifles got field repairs and mixed parts and how so many never got out of russia in one piece.
Rich
Gunboards Member
61 PostsPosted - 10/17/2005 : 10:38:20 PM
Graf,
Nicely put. If I knew you more or any of the other old time collectors. I would be happy to send you the bnz40 for inspection. There are alot of people on this site that know a hell of alot more than I do and know exactly what to look for. I really would like to know more about it, because I really do not know.
Do you know Mike Steves??
I have to ask you, does something have to be all matching before we(the collecting community) can take it and it's information seriously? I also have the svwMB R/c that I have posted a few times here. Did I misunderstand you?
Scott B
Gunboards Premium Member
USA
119 PostsPosted - 10/18/2005 : 10:42:38 AM
As previously stated, I have seen another bnz40 and held it in my hands. I thought it was fake and the owner freely admitted it was fake. I wouldnt be surprised if the source for the bnz40 in 'BBOTW' was the same source as this rifle. Just a little clue. I have also spoken to a close friend who I consider an expert on K98k's who has personally examined the bnz40 in 'BBOTW'. He also considers it a fake. I cannot speak to any RC import bnz40s. However, it would not be the first time that I heard of these being played with. In that case who could tell if the same quality RC refinish was reapplied? Another interesting question for you to ponder is how the bnz40 variation compares to other '40 transitional codes such as duv40 and ax40. As a person who has aggresively collected Steyrs for many years I have every reason to want such a unique variation to exist. However, given the information and experience I have there is no reason to consider this a legitimate variation. A lot of fraudulent junk was passed off in the 'BBOTW' and the old KCN as legit. I consider this more of the same. Such instances might have been considered legitimate errors. That is until such time as the pump and dump strategy became known.
Scott B
Edited by - Scott B on 10/18/2005 10:46:37 AM
johnny_mustang
Gunboards Super Premium Member
USA
406 PostsPosted - 10/18/2005 : 11:15:27 AM
Maybe I missed the point or don't understand, but from this comment:
Now for the 0 over the 1. Yes Mr. expert, there is a 0 stamped over the 1. Expertly done!
Why would the 1 be there to start with? If it is a 1940, why would there be a 41 stamped on the receiver? Doesn't seem to add up to me.
Scott B
Gunboards Premium Member
USA
119 PostsPosted - 10/18/2005 : 11:48:51 AM
johnny mustang - Exactly right and thats the point.
Rich - A few questions:
1. Under what conditions have any other legit K98ks been found where a receiver has had an original date stamp removed and a back (previous) date applied? Show me a legitimate example of any other code where this was done. The general manufacturing pattern seems to be to use up all existing receivers of the previous year before switching to new production not the opposite.
2. In the event Steyr chose to do this, why did they continue with 660-1940 marked receivers after the bnz40s? If serial ranges data on the bnz40s is accepted - why did the bnz40 marking stop and 660-1940 continue for another 10K+?
3. Why wasnt the 'bnz' mark added in between the 660 and 1940 if they were committed to this change? Thats what Steyr did on some Polish G29/40 variations and what they later did on the bcd/bnz4. It certainly would have been a shorter process than grinding off a number and adding another. In any case, Steyrs application of the 660 mark over the crest of some Polish rifles certainly demonstrates their marking methodolgy prior to this bnz40 question which is consistent with what they also did later on bcd/bnz4's.
I look forward to your answers. Perhaps you can enlighten me as I do not consider myself an expert. But then I do not consider 'BBOTW' my bible either.
Scott B
Edited by - Scott B on 10/18/2005 12:11:20 PM
graf
Gunboards.Com Silver Star Member
USA
796 PostsPosted - 10/18/2005 : 4:04:08 PM
A rifle as a variation is supported by its various parts, no one that studies a subject likes to base arguments on altered rifles (or chair, cars, rugs or what ever)... I primarily study Imperial rifles these days but from 84-97 collected the 98k near exclusively and any alteration of a rifle from its original is a negative for research sake- most post war used rifles were refurb'd or refinished by the country that they served with post war, who is to say what they did to a rifle; further it is much less likely a knucklehead to try & alter a matching original rifle as you risk more with a original quality rifle... usually if a humper uses a matching quality rifle for a fraudulent "variation" its to make a sniper or aSSed up SS rig- or both as many of these clowns get greedy and like to make dual rarities.
I think there is nothing wrong with including rc's or Romanian surplus in serial studies or to support observation but it is always best to have original matching rifles as a foundation (imo) as the sum of the parts will support a rifles authenticity- especially with rare variations, snipers or SS rigs where fraud is so profitable.
We do agree on one thing, I would like to see more of these “variations” before I claim them all as fraudulent but having studied both Imperial & nazi era rifles- reworks in particular are a minefield for the beginner- I find it exceedingly strange the overdate as I know of no other time it was done, the Germans did force match serials on non-primary parts sometimes but never to my knowledge over dates (scrubbing & reserialing occurred on a limited basis & later in the war primarily)- they always just added a new date or maker mark (sometimes not but used final proofs to indicate assembly… dot44 reworks & MO n blocks a perfect example) very unusual and I tend to follow ScottB’s line of thought on this variation.
At least until some original un-molested rifles come along for study.
As for hang up on matching rifles that is your purgative; I have followed the boards through several changes and one thing rarely changes- the worst information on collecting or observations come from collectors who blather on with front line expediencies or from quotes from backbone- both have a place but only in support roles within an argument- I mean if all you have to say is “it could have been” or “when at the front you do with what you have” or all the support you have is in a 10 year old book everyone else has then why post at all?
quote:
Originally posted by howiebearse
Graf, i thank you for this explaination. but for me i do not understand the importance of a matching rifle having any bearing on the reciever marks. it would be fairly obvious if someone scrubbed and remarked a reciever. if some have shown up and are not outright lousy atempts at faking maybe they did make them hope this brings out some more examples. the RC rifles should be taken into consideration as bbl and receivers generally are intact who cares about the rest when trying to understand if they did have a split year on production and marked early 660 and late bnz. thanks Rich im with you lets see if any more examples can be studied these boards are very important for the exchange of info the more examples the closer we will be to finding out the truth. but im not hung up on matching examples. after reading the forgotten soldier i can understand how the 98k rifles got field repairs and mixed parts and how so many never got out of russia in one piece.
http://gewehr98.com/
graf
Gunboards.Com Silver Star Member
USA
796 PostsPosted - 10/18/2005 : 4:25:53 PM
Rich, I have pictures of all three rifles I referenced above, and for the reasons I specified above have my doubts seeing a rc in hand won't help as I have Jensen's original description & observations in hand that acknowledge the overstamp... he knew as well as does everyone else how odd that is for it just isn't done before or since; there are numerous examples where scrubbing was done & remarking was done- the 1919 dated examples in both bayonets & rifles occurred are documented; the dot 44 reworks & numerous other reworks that had scrubbed & serialed into a production run of the reworker concern is documented; as is SS reworks of Imperial rifles... not a lot of variation before or after these 1940 oddities- then you have the 660 production after these "k & L" block 40 bnz's were done- how does one explain that?
Jensen mentioned this post production of 660 & even the intermingling of other observed 660 coding within the K & L block but doesn't really explain why?
Yes, I know Mike Steves fairly well; he does my website matter of fact & I consider him a friend (even if a late war junkie)
I don't think you misunderstood me; rc's & surplus have a place in studies but only in support roles- anyone who bases a theory on them alone are doing shoddy research imo... I like the svwMB rc you have far more than a 40 bnz as I do think in the svwMB question it does prove something more than the average rc would-
quote:
Originally posted by Rich
Graf,
Nicely put. If I knew you more or any of the other old time collectors. I would be happy to send you the bnz40 for inspection. There are alot of people on this site that know a hell of alot more than I do and know exactly what to look for. I really would like to know more about it, because I really do not know.
Do you know Mike Steves??
I have to ask you, does something have to be all matching before we(the collecting community) can take it and it's information seriously? I also have the svwMB R/c that I have posted a few times here. Did I misunderstand you?
http://gewehr98.com/
howiebearse
Gunboards.Com Silver Star Member
USA
840 PostsPosted - 10/18/2005 : 8:01:08 PM
Graf, thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts on the posts. i consider your information a great resource. i asked these questions as a learning tool and am glad you and the others took the time to answer thoughtfully. i am a collector of sks rifles and am a skeptic of much of the information thats been printed. i like to study the rifles and let them tell some of the story but like the 98k rifles of later years you cant trust even what you see. i have an idea most of all the chinese and russian rifles as well as the yugo sks rifles came into this country after being rebuilt. so the people that observe the rifles and say this and that was how it originally was assembled may not be at all right. unfortunetly not much info comes out of any communist goverment. i am currently photographing my 70 sks rifles to make a photo referance for collectors. its very interesting to look at all the differant samples. but really how can you make any informed statements when you do not have any coment from the factory that built them. its always going to be that not enough is ever known about the military rifles we collect. how many garands are really as assembled from the factory. they are rebuilt by collectors that use various books to guide them with drawing numbers etc. its a tough call but not nearly as bad as all nazi collecting where money is such a big influence.
Rich
Gunboards Member
61 PostsPosted - 10/18/2005 : 11:00:14 PM
Graf,
Thank you for your honest opinion and the info. I see what you were talking about now. Your the type of person I like to talk to. You give your answer and back it up.
Like I said before. I can not concider my bnz40 ligit nor a fake. I do not even have it displayed. I just do not have enough information either way, so it sits in a sleeve. Somebody asks a question about it, I give them the info and leave it up to them.
I would like to see the R/c bnz40's up close just for the hell of it. I would like to know if they all came from the same importer. I know of no one who's has them, but I to have heard about them. Mine is just an old century arms import.
ScottB,
Chill out. It was your attitude, your insistance. Unless you can back up your insistance that what you say is the only correct view with solid evedence, maybe you should not say it.I just gave out the info on mine and my see-saw opinion because someone asked, and to dispute some of what you said. Some of the things you said ,simply were not true of mine. Maybe mine is a fake also, but it definetly is not as you describe. And no I'm not dumb enough to think of Backbone as the bible.
I don't think anymore needs to be said. I bow down to your infinite knowledge of Styer, You are the Grand Pooba. I say uncle.
boltactionsforever
Gunboards.Com Gold Star Member
USA
1059 PostsPosted - 10/19/2005 : 08:40:11 AM
Rich....
Yes I have seen in hand a example as you have pictured...actually many years before this current crop of RC came ashore...
The age difference between the "1" and the overstamped "0" is significant on the one example I have seen period--NOT original German 1940/41 era. Yes I did examine a example just like the BBOTW example at a German specific local show. It was a early Century import from the early 90's and the gentleman had purchased it directly from Century and did not and was not marketing it in any way, it was in a pile of common guns. When examined under a glass, the "1" had pitting and wear consistant with the "4" and the "BNZ"--I would call this number original GERMAN....Now the "0" had little to no pitting--aligned just as you have described--no abnormal looking raised area's consistant with punching---Serial number and prefix was within common known BNZ41...Plain and simple done well after WWII.
Scott B gave you some questions in his last post which obviously nobody as of now has good answers too, including yourself--he gave you his idea's on why it is probably a humped up piece from who knows where/when...and supplied example where BBOTW created many different "wrong" examples by cons copying a humped up mess to begin with...And dont think for a minute that just because it's a RC that it did not happen....I have seen enough black spray painted RC example from the wholesalers to know someone was "fixing"--"repairing" this lot of K98's pretty darn recently that's for sure!
I myself have seen in hand a few very obviously humped up RC examples directly from the wholesalers---Now you ask yourself for what reason??? MONEY, plain and simple. Maybe Dennis from Empire Arms can comment, he seen these guns first hand, I'm sure he seen more then one example that differed from the norm and considered them very questionable when it came time to pay a premium price for them....And for anyone to base a opinion about what is correct/incorrect from the RC imports is minimal in my estimation.
If you choose to not comment--add--or refute any of the given examples--maybe this should be a LEARNING enviroment, and not a defensive one....I think your taking this the wrong way with your forcefull opinions and finger pointing----where all here to learn, not to find out who/why/what someone knows--dont know--or finger point..
And yes, I would trust Scott B. opinion on just about any/all Steyr manufactured questions without a doubt because of his many years of Steyr collecting data---I think you will find many long time collectors of Steyr manufactured weapons will step up and say the same thing.....But your more then welcome to help anyone else with your wealth of information/research you have done on your BNZ40.
FYI
BAF
"the only way to fix that poor gun my lad"....
"Is to find the time machine that is set to one day before bubba' "
Scott B
Gunboards Premium Member
USA
119 PostsPosted - 10/19/2005 : 09:06:14 AM
Graf,
We are on the same page regarding the value of RCs as primary research examples.
Rich,
Your initial comments began with sarcasm and a somewhat personal atack against me. Sorry if you didnt like my message. There are ways to disagree without being disagreable. Convince me that your argument has merit. You should debate with facts and logical arguments. It weakens your position to do otherwise. I admit I am often rather direct - however I dont apologize for that. I have come to find PC a waste of time and energy in almost every aspect of life. I think BAF and I are on the same page on the PC position.
BAF - thank you for the kind words.
Scott B
Edited by - Scott B on 10/19/2005 09:19:35 AM
Just to clear, this thread was more than 10 years ago, I haven't re-read it, so it should be understood that opinions can change over such a period of time. Also research is far advanced since then. I will look at my SDP trends sheets for further observations, but my trends work was not done in 2005.
howiebearse
Gunboards.Com Silver Star Member
USA
840 PostsPosted - 10/12/2005 : 11:37:09 AM
just found a german list of 98k manufacture codes serial number production and year. this list says 660 serial number 48-505n total production 130492 bnz 9724k-352n total production unknown for the year 1940 ive read here that many believe the 40 dated bnz to be fake this website is www.wachbataillon-siegburg.de/karabinerherst.html i have seen a couple pics of 40 date rifles on the boards how would these be faked?
Scott B
Gunboards Premium Member
USA
119 PostsPosted - 10/12/2005 : 1:49:29 PM
The bnz40 pictured in 'BBOTW' is an absolute fake. The picture of it clearly shows how the "1" in bnz41 has been scrubbed and replaced with an off size/center "0" wich is not a component of a single "40" die. The serial range of the fake bnz40 also shows it to be in a range wherein the 660-1940 code was still in use and nowhere near a potential transition point. I have seen one other bnz40 which the owner frely admitted was fake. These are pure fantasy pieces and are further evidence why both 'BBOTW' and the "expert" need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Scott B
Mike442
Gunboards Premium Member
USA
174 PostsPosted - 10/13/2005 : 1:27:38 PM
Scott,
If the serial number is still in the range of the 660 code, then why doesn't the BBOTW photo show a 660 code on top of the receiver instead of the bnz. code it shows? Or am I misinterrupting something here?
Scott B
Gunboards Premium Member
USA
119 PostsPosted - 10/14/2005 : 07:17:55 AM
Mike,
Serials for 660-1940 and bnz-41 are repeated. The rifle serial and actual features 9not exactly as described) falls within the range of BNZ41. So what you are seeing in the picture is a bnz-41 with the '1' scrubbed off and replaced with a '0'. The subject rifle is a joke and has been accepted as such by the old time collecting community for some time.
You can see many other items from this collection appearing on the arms auctions on the net. Suffice it to say that for the most part they have not aged well in todays more informed collector environment.
Scott B
howiebearse
Gunboards.Com Silver Star Member
USA
840 PostsPosted - 10/16/2005 : 10:18:52 PM
what about the referances in that german website showing the serial numbers for 660 and bnz in 40. are they showing bad info? is law the only source? i know i have seen photos of bnz 40 before that did not look scrubbed and restamped they look right.
johnny_mustang
Gunboards Super Premium Member
USA
406 PostsPosted - 10/16/2005 : 11:03:25 PM
Can't say about the 40 bnz, but I do know he is wrong on 337 1939 and 27 1935. I've recorded rifles higher than what he or Law shows.
So I don't think he has better data than what has been seen before.
graf
Gunboards.Com Silver Star Member
USA
796 PostsPosted - 10/17/2005 : 12:03:49 AM
Many if not most experienced collectors doubt these; I know of 3 such rifles- Jensen owns/owned one (9724 k), Law bought another in 95/96 (1965 l) & an rc that showed up in 2002...
Both Jensen & Law wrote short articles (that was combined into one by Chris Cox June95) the rc that showed up is 1940 bnz ser. 2024 l rc and was discussed in the MRJ: (http://www.gunboards.com/sites/mrj2003/)
I later came across pictures of this rifle (3 shots of the receiver- which with an rc is all you have), reportedly found at the Ohio Gun Collectors Show Sept 2002 by Richard Walkis for $250.
At least two of these rifles are rc's or surplus rifles with little supporting proof outside of the barreled receiver; not sure off hand on Jensen’s example but I doubt it is all matching- though he seems to imply it in his article (never fully documented as far as I know? One would expect that if it were matching they would have illustrated it more in Backbone as at the time it was quite unusual with only Armstrong’s comments to Jensen as proof)
Naturally, many doubt these rifles authenticity and the only well known collectors I know of that do believe in them are the owners of these rifles- Jensen, Law & probably Walkis (the author of the article said he believe it legit for what that's worth... Marion Mericle)
As for the German website it probably is quoting Law or Armstrong.
To answer your question on Law & bad information; just like with the svwMB controversy Law put forth information that was in dispute at the time and wrote on the subject as though fact- terribly obvious in 95 a lot of collectors didn’t agree with him or Jensen on this subject- many still don’t as no quality matching example has been shown to substantiate this “variation” and though rc’s & m/m imports are good for serial studies they are very limited in variation research.
quote:
Originally posted by howiebearse
what about the referances in that german website showing the serial numbers for 660 and bnz in 40. are they showing bad info? is law the only source? i know i have seen photos of bnz 40 before that did not look scrubbed and restamped they look right.
http://gewehr98.com/
Rich
Gunboards Member
61 PostsPosted - 10/17/2005 : 10:04:26 PM
ScottB,
By they way you have worded your reply to Howiebearse you must be one of the 'experts' that roam these boards.Have you personally seen, I mean held in your hands a bnz40???? Or is your 'expert' testamony based on a photo???
I am the owner of one of the bnz40's. Let me start out by saying, nobody get it NOBODY know's for sure one way or the other. They are head scratchers. Old times and newbes alike. True they do not make sence. Why would the German's do something like this? I don't know. Are they fakes? I don't know.
There is alot we don't know and unfortunetly will never know. Just think what we all could have learned if the Russian's had not dicked with the rifles the held.
Anyway I can only speak for the one I own. I bought it because the price was not bad and I wanted to study it closer.
This is what I have found. Compared to my 660 1940. The thickness of the reciever is the same(from bottom flat to top of reciever). There is a noticable step on both recievers just forward of the front screw lug from machining. the bnz, the 4, AND the 0 all appear to be the same size and depth. Just like on the 660 1940.
There is no, got that 'expert' NO evidence of grind marks, file marks, polish marks at all. The finish on this rifle is somewhat worn, with a little brownish plum color starting on the top of reciever and barrel behind the rear sight, and the exposed area of the barrel forward of the handguard and bayonet lug. Rear sightS/n and worn finish matches and so does the sear S/n. It is import marked K98 GERMANY 8mm CAT ST ALB VT. Bore is good but not the best. There was some corrosion under the bayonet lug and the solid front band. and under the handguard were the rear band touches. All have been scrubbed white and there is some lite pitting. Even though the white area shows a solid front band you can see by the way the corrosion pattern is, that there was a H band there for some time.
Now for the 0 over the 1. Yes Mr. expert, there is a 0 stamped over the 1. Expertly done! The only one I have to compare it to is the one in Backbone. It is done exactly the same. Absolutly dead on. You would think if faked them there would be some difference in the position of the 0. But maybe not. I'm not that good. But maybe someone is. You have to look close to see the shadow of the 1. There is no high swelled up area around the 0. It is just as flat in the surounding area as the rest of the letters and numbers. I already mentioned that the depth of the 0 is the same as the 4.
That's pretty much it. Honestly I really do not know for sure if real or not. But I can tell you this. Anyone claming to know for sure one way or the other on this topic or any other 98k topic is full of BS. Things change daily.
howiebearse
Gunboards.Com Silver Star Member
USA
840 PostsPosted - 10/17/2005 : 10:34:15 PM
Graf, i thank you for this explaination. but for me i do not understand the importance of a matching rifle having any bearing on the reciever marks. it would be fairly obvious if someone scrubbed and remarked a reciever. if some have shown up and are not outright lousy atempts at faking maybe they did make them hope this brings out some more examples. the RC rifles should be taken into consideration as bbl and receivers generally are intact who cares about the rest when trying to understand if they did have a split year on production and marked early 660 and late bnz. thanks Rich im with you lets see if any more examples can be studied these boards are very important for the exchange of info the more examples the closer we will be to finding out the truth. but im not hung up on matching examples. after reading the forgotten soldier i can understand how the 98k rifles got field repairs and mixed parts and how so many never got out of russia in one piece.
Rich
Gunboards Member
61 PostsPosted - 10/17/2005 : 10:38:20 PM
Graf,
Nicely put. If I knew you more or any of the other old time collectors. I would be happy to send you the bnz40 for inspection. There are alot of people on this site that know a hell of alot more than I do and know exactly what to look for. I really would like to know more about it, because I really do not know.
Do you know Mike Steves??
I have to ask you, does something have to be all matching before we(the collecting community) can take it and it's information seriously? I also have the svwMB R/c that I have posted a few times here. Did I misunderstand you?
Scott B
Gunboards Premium Member
USA
119 PostsPosted - 10/18/2005 : 10:42:38 AM
As previously stated, I have seen another bnz40 and held it in my hands. I thought it was fake and the owner freely admitted it was fake. I wouldnt be surprised if the source for the bnz40 in 'BBOTW' was the same source as this rifle. Just a little clue. I have also spoken to a close friend who I consider an expert on K98k's who has personally examined the bnz40 in 'BBOTW'. He also considers it a fake. I cannot speak to any RC import bnz40s. However, it would not be the first time that I heard of these being played with. In that case who could tell if the same quality RC refinish was reapplied? Another interesting question for you to ponder is how the bnz40 variation compares to other '40 transitional codes such as duv40 and ax40. As a person who has aggresively collected Steyrs for many years I have every reason to want such a unique variation to exist. However, given the information and experience I have there is no reason to consider this a legitimate variation. A lot of fraudulent junk was passed off in the 'BBOTW' and the old KCN as legit. I consider this more of the same. Such instances might have been considered legitimate errors. That is until such time as the pump and dump strategy became known.
Scott B
Edited by - Scott B on 10/18/2005 10:46:37 AM
johnny_mustang
Gunboards Super Premium Member
USA
406 PostsPosted - 10/18/2005 : 11:15:27 AM
Maybe I missed the point or don't understand, but from this comment:
Now for the 0 over the 1. Yes Mr. expert, there is a 0 stamped over the 1. Expertly done!
Why would the 1 be there to start with? If it is a 1940, why would there be a 41 stamped on the receiver? Doesn't seem to add up to me.
Scott B
Gunboards Premium Member
USA
119 PostsPosted - 10/18/2005 : 11:48:51 AM
johnny mustang - Exactly right and thats the point.
Rich - A few questions:
1. Under what conditions have any other legit K98ks been found where a receiver has had an original date stamp removed and a back (previous) date applied? Show me a legitimate example of any other code where this was done. The general manufacturing pattern seems to be to use up all existing receivers of the previous year before switching to new production not the opposite.
2. In the event Steyr chose to do this, why did they continue with 660-1940 marked receivers after the bnz40s? If serial ranges data on the bnz40s is accepted - why did the bnz40 marking stop and 660-1940 continue for another 10K+?
3. Why wasnt the 'bnz' mark added in between the 660 and 1940 if they were committed to this change? Thats what Steyr did on some Polish G29/40 variations and what they later did on the bcd/bnz4. It certainly would have been a shorter process than grinding off a number and adding another. In any case, Steyrs application of the 660 mark over the crest of some Polish rifles certainly demonstrates their marking methodolgy prior to this bnz40 question which is consistent with what they also did later on bcd/bnz4's.
I look forward to your answers. Perhaps you can enlighten me as I do not consider myself an expert. But then I do not consider 'BBOTW' my bible either.
Scott B
Edited by - Scott B on 10/18/2005 12:11:20 PM
graf
Gunboards.Com Silver Star Member
USA
796 PostsPosted - 10/18/2005 : 4:04:08 PM
A rifle as a variation is supported by its various parts, no one that studies a subject likes to base arguments on altered rifles (or chair, cars, rugs or what ever)... I primarily study Imperial rifles these days but from 84-97 collected the 98k near exclusively and any alteration of a rifle from its original is a negative for research sake- most post war used rifles were refurb'd or refinished by the country that they served with post war, who is to say what they did to a rifle; further it is much less likely a knucklehead to try & alter a matching original rifle as you risk more with a original quality rifle... usually if a humper uses a matching quality rifle for a fraudulent "variation" its to make a sniper or aSSed up SS rig- or both as many of these clowns get greedy and like to make dual rarities.
I think there is nothing wrong with including rc's or Romanian surplus in serial studies or to support observation but it is always best to have original matching rifles as a foundation (imo) as the sum of the parts will support a rifles authenticity- especially with rare variations, snipers or SS rigs where fraud is so profitable.
We do agree on one thing, I would like to see more of these “variations” before I claim them all as fraudulent but having studied both Imperial & nazi era rifles- reworks in particular are a minefield for the beginner- I find it exceedingly strange the overdate as I know of no other time it was done, the Germans did force match serials on non-primary parts sometimes but never to my knowledge over dates (scrubbing & reserialing occurred on a limited basis & later in the war primarily)- they always just added a new date or maker mark (sometimes not but used final proofs to indicate assembly… dot44 reworks & MO n blocks a perfect example) very unusual and I tend to follow ScottB’s line of thought on this variation.
At least until some original un-molested rifles come along for study.
As for hang up on matching rifles that is your purgative; I have followed the boards through several changes and one thing rarely changes- the worst information on collecting or observations come from collectors who blather on with front line expediencies or from quotes from backbone- both have a place but only in support roles within an argument- I mean if all you have to say is “it could have been” or “when at the front you do with what you have” or all the support you have is in a 10 year old book everyone else has then why post at all?
quote:
Originally posted by howiebearse
Graf, i thank you for this explaination. but for me i do not understand the importance of a matching rifle having any bearing on the reciever marks. it would be fairly obvious if someone scrubbed and remarked a reciever. if some have shown up and are not outright lousy atempts at faking maybe they did make them hope this brings out some more examples. the RC rifles should be taken into consideration as bbl and receivers generally are intact who cares about the rest when trying to understand if they did have a split year on production and marked early 660 and late bnz. thanks Rich im with you lets see if any more examples can be studied these boards are very important for the exchange of info the more examples the closer we will be to finding out the truth. but im not hung up on matching examples. after reading the forgotten soldier i can understand how the 98k rifles got field repairs and mixed parts and how so many never got out of russia in one piece.
http://gewehr98.com/
graf
Gunboards.Com Silver Star Member
USA
796 PostsPosted - 10/18/2005 : 4:25:53 PM
Rich, I have pictures of all three rifles I referenced above, and for the reasons I specified above have my doubts seeing a rc in hand won't help as I have Jensen's original description & observations in hand that acknowledge the overstamp... he knew as well as does everyone else how odd that is for it just isn't done before or since; there are numerous examples where scrubbing was done & remarking was done- the 1919 dated examples in both bayonets & rifles occurred are documented; the dot 44 reworks & numerous other reworks that had scrubbed & serialed into a production run of the reworker concern is documented; as is SS reworks of Imperial rifles... not a lot of variation before or after these 1940 oddities- then you have the 660 production after these "k & L" block 40 bnz's were done- how does one explain that?
Jensen mentioned this post production of 660 & even the intermingling of other observed 660 coding within the K & L block but doesn't really explain why?
Yes, I know Mike Steves fairly well; he does my website matter of fact & I consider him a friend (even if a late war junkie)
I don't think you misunderstood me; rc's & surplus have a place in studies but only in support roles- anyone who bases a theory on them alone are doing shoddy research imo... I like the svwMB rc you have far more than a 40 bnz as I do think in the svwMB question it does prove something more than the average rc would-
quote:
Originally posted by Rich
Graf,
Nicely put. If I knew you more or any of the other old time collectors. I would be happy to send you the bnz40 for inspection. There are alot of people on this site that know a hell of alot more than I do and know exactly what to look for. I really would like to know more about it, because I really do not know.
Do you know Mike Steves??
I have to ask you, does something have to be all matching before we(the collecting community) can take it and it's information seriously? I also have the svwMB R/c that I have posted a few times here. Did I misunderstand you?
http://gewehr98.com/
howiebearse
Gunboards.Com Silver Star Member
USA
840 PostsPosted - 10/18/2005 : 8:01:08 PM
Graf, thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts on the posts. i consider your information a great resource. i asked these questions as a learning tool and am glad you and the others took the time to answer thoughtfully. i am a collector of sks rifles and am a skeptic of much of the information thats been printed. i like to study the rifles and let them tell some of the story but like the 98k rifles of later years you cant trust even what you see. i have an idea most of all the chinese and russian rifles as well as the yugo sks rifles came into this country after being rebuilt. so the people that observe the rifles and say this and that was how it originally was assembled may not be at all right. unfortunetly not much info comes out of any communist goverment. i am currently photographing my 70 sks rifles to make a photo referance for collectors. its very interesting to look at all the differant samples. but really how can you make any informed statements when you do not have any coment from the factory that built them. its always going to be that not enough is ever known about the military rifles we collect. how many garands are really as assembled from the factory. they are rebuilt by collectors that use various books to guide them with drawing numbers etc. its a tough call but not nearly as bad as all nazi collecting where money is such a big influence.
Rich
Gunboards Member
61 PostsPosted - 10/18/2005 : 11:00:14 PM
Graf,
Thank you for your honest opinion and the info. I see what you were talking about now. Your the type of person I like to talk to. You give your answer and back it up.
Like I said before. I can not concider my bnz40 ligit nor a fake. I do not even have it displayed. I just do not have enough information either way, so it sits in a sleeve. Somebody asks a question about it, I give them the info and leave it up to them.
I would like to see the R/c bnz40's up close just for the hell of it. I would like to know if they all came from the same importer. I know of no one who's has them, but I to have heard about them. Mine is just an old century arms import.
ScottB,
Chill out. It was your attitude, your insistance. Unless you can back up your insistance that what you say is the only correct view with solid evedence, maybe you should not say it.I just gave out the info on mine and my see-saw opinion because someone asked, and to dispute some of what you said. Some of the things you said ,simply were not true of mine. Maybe mine is a fake also, but it definetly is not as you describe. And no I'm not dumb enough to think of Backbone as the bible.
I don't think anymore needs to be said. I bow down to your infinite knowledge of Styer, You are the Grand Pooba. I say uncle.
boltactionsforever
Gunboards.Com Gold Star Member
USA
1059 PostsPosted - 10/19/2005 : 08:40:11 AM
Rich....
Yes I have seen in hand a example as you have pictured...actually many years before this current crop of RC came ashore...
The age difference between the "1" and the overstamped "0" is significant on the one example I have seen period--NOT original German 1940/41 era. Yes I did examine a example just like the BBOTW example at a German specific local show. It was a early Century import from the early 90's and the gentleman had purchased it directly from Century and did not and was not marketing it in any way, it was in a pile of common guns. When examined under a glass, the "1" had pitting and wear consistant with the "4" and the "BNZ"--I would call this number original GERMAN....Now the "0" had little to no pitting--aligned just as you have described--no abnormal looking raised area's consistant with punching---Serial number and prefix was within common known BNZ41...Plain and simple done well after WWII.
Scott B gave you some questions in his last post which obviously nobody as of now has good answers too, including yourself--he gave you his idea's on why it is probably a humped up piece from who knows where/when...and supplied example where BBOTW created many different "wrong" examples by cons copying a humped up mess to begin with...And dont think for a minute that just because it's a RC that it did not happen....I have seen enough black spray painted RC example from the wholesalers to know someone was "fixing"--"repairing" this lot of K98's pretty darn recently that's for sure!
I myself have seen in hand a few very obviously humped up RC examples directly from the wholesalers---Now you ask yourself for what reason??? MONEY, plain and simple. Maybe Dennis from Empire Arms can comment, he seen these guns first hand, I'm sure he seen more then one example that differed from the norm and considered them very questionable when it came time to pay a premium price for them....And for anyone to base a opinion about what is correct/incorrect from the RC imports is minimal in my estimation.
If you choose to not comment--add--or refute any of the given examples--maybe this should be a LEARNING enviroment, and not a defensive one....I think your taking this the wrong way with your forcefull opinions and finger pointing----where all here to learn, not to find out who/why/what someone knows--dont know--or finger point..
And yes, I would trust Scott B. opinion on just about any/all Steyr manufactured questions without a doubt because of his many years of Steyr collecting data---I think you will find many long time collectors of Steyr manufactured weapons will step up and say the same thing.....But your more then welcome to help anyone else with your wealth of information/research you have done on your BNZ40.
FYI
BAF
"the only way to fix that poor gun my lad"....
"Is to find the time machine that is set to one day before bubba' "
Scott B
Gunboards Premium Member
USA
119 PostsPosted - 10/19/2005 : 09:06:14 AM
Graf,
We are on the same page regarding the value of RCs as primary research examples.
Rich,
Your initial comments began with sarcasm and a somewhat personal atack against me. Sorry if you didnt like my message. There are ways to disagree without being disagreable. Convince me that your argument has merit. You should debate with facts and logical arguments. It weakens your position to do otherwise. I admit I am often rather direct - however I dont apologize for that. I have come to find PC a waste of time and energy in almost every aspect of life. I think BAF and I are on the same page on the PC position.
BAF - thank you for the kind words.
Scott B
Edited by - Scott B on 10/19/2005 09:19:35 AM
Some casual comments, - what we know of 660/1940 production and bnz/41 production shows that these rifles have some characteristics that do not fit either range for the years involved.
Rifles known:
9724 k - RR e/623 x4, (RD/40 barrel), Serialed both receiver and barrel, no top final
2024 l - RR e/623 x4, (RD/40 barrel), Serialed both receiver and barrel, no top final
352 n - nothing known, assumed similar to 9724 k
The characteristics of the two years are very much the same, 1940 production is known through the n-block, but bnz/41 production is only known to the "L-block", the very early L-block. Serialing on both receiver and barrel are consistent through very early 1942, so no discrepancy can be made there. However, the top finals start in the bnz/41 i-block and it is rare for a rifle by the j-block not to have one (some do though), it is also common for bnz/41 to have the full RR acceptance pattern and a TF, so if these were bnz/41 someone altered to bnz/40's they should still have a top final in most cases. The barrel codes are no clue, both are RD 40's which can range wide.
The strongest argument against these being authentic is the overstamped dates, which is clear, and the wide range these appear, k-n, with no supporting rifles. The strongest supporting for them is the ranges reported, - bnz/41 is not known to have gone so high as the n-block and 2024 l would be the highest bnz/41 known, but not much of a stretch (I suspect they did go well into the L-block, but the "n-block"? That would skip the m-block and that is a lot of rifles inbetween, none of which have been observed yet. Other researchers may have higher numbers known of course, but only 660/1940 is known to the n-block)
In short, for these to have been bnz/41's altered (by a humper), he would have had to remove the TF, strike a "0" over the "1", but there is still the serialing, which is authentic, not altered, but only "fits" 1940 ranges. The general theme here is they are possibly authentic. However, this could, actually can only, be resolved by seeing an original rifle, assessing these by the barreled receiver alone is impossible.
That is the shortcomings of research by "rc", they have very limited value for such research. Have to go, but this general overview should offer a starting place for consideration. DK is well versed in research, so perhaps he can take this further.
Rifles known:
9724 k - RR e/623 x4, (RD/40 barrel), Serialed both receiver and barrel, no top final
2024 l - RR e/623 x4, (RD/40 barrel), Serialed both receiver and barrel, no top final
352 n - nothing known, assumed similar to 9724 k
The characteristics of the two years are very much the same, 1940 production is known through the n-block, but bnz/41 production is only known to the "L-block", the very early L-block. Serialing on both receiver and barrel are consistent through very early 1942, so no discrepancy can be made there. However, the top finals start in the bnz/41 i-block and it is rare for a rifle by the j-block not to have one (some do though), it is also common for bnz/41 to have the full RR acceptance pattern and a TF, so if these were bnz/41 someone altered to bnz/40's they should still have a top final in most cases. The barrel codes are no clue, both are RD 40's which can range wide.
The strongest argument against these being authentic is the overstamped dates, which is clear, and the wide range these appear, k-n, with no supporting rifles. The strongest supporting for them is the ranges reported, - bnz/41 is not known to have gone so high as the n-block and 2024 l would be the highest bnz/41 known, but not much of a stretch (I suspect they did go well into the L-block, but the "n-block"? That would skip the m-block and that is a lot of rifles inbetween, none of which have been observed yet. Other researchers may have higher numbers known of course, but only 660/1940 is known to the n-block)
In short, for these to have been bnz/41's altered (by a humper), he would have had to remove the TF, strike a "0" over the "1", but there is still the serialing, which is authentic, not altered, but only "fits" 1940 ranges. The general theme here is they are possibly authentic. However, this could, actually can only, be resolved by seeing an original rifle, assessing these by the barreled receiver alone is impossible.
That is the shortcomings of research by "rc", they have very limited value for such research. Have to go, but this general overview should offer a starting place for consideration. DK is well versed in research, so perhaps he can take this further.
Interesting discussion which comes around every decade 
I remember watching the one quoted by Loewe years back. I can't add anything more to it than: I've never seen a bnz 40 or bnz 1940 I thought authentic; however, years back the conventional wisdom was that the swjXE was a unicorn. I would think that a couple of these bnz.s would have turned up by now such that a couple good pics would confirm their existence.
I remember watching the one quoted by Loewe years back. I can't add anything more to it than: I've never seen a bnz 40 or bnz 1940 I thought authentic; however, years back the conventional wisdom was that the swjXE was a unicorn. I would think that a couple of these bnz.s would have turned up by now such that a couple good pics would confirm their existence.
S/42
Thunda from down unda
I have seen exactly 2 online images of bnz. 40 - and EACH ONE looks as if the last digit was over-struck over a LATER date! The image PS shows certainly looks like a 41, with the 1 partially removed and the 0 over-struck. The other one I saw distinctly had a 3 from 43 removed and 0 struck over top.
Tom-foolery IMHO.
Tom-foolery IMHO.
Attachments
Last edited:
S/42
Thunda from down unda
What this, and many other posts clearly show is that Backbone of the Wehrmacht is so flawed and and of date to be rendered more or less useless.
yes, we used to read it like a Bible... but then things started making no sense... word got around about the nefarious activities of some including contributors to the book.... and this compelled Mike and Bruce to start the REAL chapter on K98's.
I just cannot fathom why someone would want to make fantasy date rifles... it defies any logic, except maybe some stupid hard-headed opinionated gesturing by some of the old school K98 collectors. Almost like a bar bet
yes, we used to read it like a Bible... but then things started making no sense... word got around about the nefarious activities of some including contributors to the book.... and this compelled Mike and Bruce to start the REAL chapter on K98's.
I just cannot fathom why someone would want to make fantasy date rifles... it defies any logic, except maybe some stupid hard-headed opinionated gesturing by some of the old school K98 collectors. Almost like a bar bet
39 might be a stretch 
S/42
Thunda from down unda
I know Steyr did some truly weird and wacky things, but why would they scrub later date actions and restamp them? Makes zero sense.
Unless sabotage meant that some 40 actions were stamped in error with a wrong date, forcing a time and effort log jam to rectify the rifles. Actually kind of a smart saboteur move.
Unless sabotage meant that some 40 actions were stamped in error with a wrong date, forcing a time and effort log jam to rectify the rifles. Actually kind of a smart saboteur move.
