Does code "bnz 40" exist?

[SVW1945]

Thanks for posting this and reviving the thread. I had not thought about this topic for years.
What ever became of Scott B btw?

He is around. He is always at the sos and tulsa. Don't know if he is still on gun boards.or this site. I still see him every once in awhile.

 

[bruce98k]

Pretty sure Scott B.is not on our forum....

 

[heavy_mech]

Again the overstamp of the 1.

Are you talking about the zero in the '40?

 

[bruce98k]

Yep...

The same situation applied at Mauser Oberndorf in late 1942 and early 1943 with the use of the byf43 receivers using double letter suffixes in the serialization.
Technically these are 1942 production and if Mauser did what Steyr did, those receivers would have been overstamped to 42.

Basically Mauser ran out of roll marked 42 dated receivers and began using 43 dated receivers late in the production run.

In the case of Steyr, it appears they went and deliberately overstamped the '1' to designate the correct year of production.

 

[heavy_mech]

Yep...

The same situation applied at Mauser Oberndorf in late 1942 and early 1942 with the use of the byf43 receivers using double letter suffixes in the serialization.
Technically these are 1942 production and if Mauser did what Steyr did, those receivers would have been overstamped to 42.

Basically Mauser ran out of roll marked 42 dated receivers and began using 43 dated receivers late in the production run.

In the case of Steyr, it appears the went and deliberately overstamped the '1' to designate the correct year of production.

I thought that what my eyes were telling me. Quite the interesting situation, backdating receivers after running out. Thanks for clarifying Bruce.

 

[bruce98k]

The existence of that Norwegian conversion should put the whole debate to rest.

 

[nirvana]

The existence of that Norwegian conversion should put the whole debate to rest.

Agreed. It’s done.

 

[Stephan98k]

Yep...

The same situation applied at Mauser Oberndorf in late 1942 and early 1943 with the use of the byf43 receivers using double letter suffixes in the serialization.
Technically these are 1942 production and if Mauser did what Steyr did, those receivers would have been overstamped to 42.

Basically Mauser ran out of roll marked 42 dated receivers and began using 43 dated receivers late in the production run.

In the case of Steyr, it appears they went and deliberately overstamped the '1' to designate the correct year of production.

I like the example with Mauser Oberndorf and I agree with you, SDP assembled K98ks with the code "bnz 40".

I will copy your sentence and in red a very important correction.

"Basically Mauser ran out of roll marked 42 dated receivers and began using 43 dated receivers late in the production run.
In the case of Steyr, it appears they went and deliberately overstamped the '1' to designate the correct year of production."

In the Steyr case it is much more complex and here is just a short correction. Steyr went and deliberately overstamped the '1' to designate the correct year from the order. The "bnz 40" belong to the "660 1940" order/production run. The K98ks with the code "660 1940" and "bnz 40" in the "k" and "l" blocks got assembled in April/May 1941.

I have read some "bnz 40" get called fake due to the 1941 dated barrel. We should look at these K98ks again, because a 1941 dated barrel is not impossible.

By the way, in 1939 there was no K98k production, the assembly of the first order "660 1939" started in January 1940. By January 27, 1940, a total of 1,440 K98ks had been accepted.