SDP did do many odd things, many of their early rifles, in this range especially (1940-1942), have characteristics of later rifles. Meaning they were actually finished much later. This is supported by documents Wolfgang and Jon Speed found that SDP was having difficulties getting rifles accepted.
I decided to go back through my database and examine all the rifles around these ranges, some of my earlier comments were not clear and some were incorrect.
1. serialing of
both receiver and barrel is consistent through the early bnz/42 first block, there are a couple exceptions in the j & k block (
SRO), but both were later assembles, rifles finished in early 1942.
2. right receiver acceptance, the last rifle with full RR acceptance is a bnz/41 j-block, and it is lonely... consistent full RR acceptance (
meaning e/77 e/623x3, or e/623x4) seems to end early in the j-block. No rifle has been recorded with full RR acceptance after the 7000-j block of bnz/41.
3. On closer examination, the bnz/41 range ends at 5949 k, the l-blocks on closer examination were actually i-blocks I miss filed. Backbone has a 9724 k as the high rifle, so an L-block probably does exist, but I have not recorded one (
one might note that 9724 k is also THE bnz/40, so who knows what Bob Jensen's next highest is?).
That the two known bnz/40 overstrikes have full e/623x4 on the RR, no finals (
some i-k bnz/41 have no finals, but most do, latest w/o is 6056 j, an rc, and it is lonely.. all k-blocks have finals and only one RR acceptance) seem to suggest these were made earlier in 1941 or in late 1940. Because by the bnz/41 k-block, actually the bnz/41 j-block, rifles generally start to have only have one RR acceptance and have a final. The later it gets from the bnz/41 j-block on, the more
unlikely these are to be
bnz/41 k-blocks or l-blocks with these characteristics, and both would be new highs if they are actually bnz/41's.
Anyway, while i still think these deserve a healthy dose of skepticism, I think it is at least plausible and there is at least as good a case these are legit as they are fraudulent. I do agree though that "normally" makers did not overstrike dates on rifles made later (BLM, Gustloff etc..), though these are receivers made "earlier", using the following years receivers pattern. Something like this probably couldn't occur at Mauser, or a privately held firm (
such as "Private" property existed in NS Germany... especially at war), though a mismanaged company, owned by the state, loaded up with NS dirtbag opportunists that hold their positions due to influence rather than competence, - sure anything is possible.
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.
