Dou44, sometimes you lose some

[flynaked]

If someone bet me $100 that this was a stock m/m, I would be opening my wallet right now. Just got this in today and I got to looking it over. I popped just the HG off to look, blew the dust out and was surprised it was M/M, and so is the stock. Must be an old sporter resto I suppose, sure fooled me, the late dou stock looked the part. I’m assuming a CC block should have an unumbered stock? Another curious bit is the rear sight is unumbered, and I’ve seen DD blocks that were numbered, is Brünn II’s numbering sporadic around this time? All parts are unumbered on it, and I’m assuming, going along with the sporter resto theory that the French floorplate is a replacement, the wear doesn’t match necessarily looking at it in hand, but maybe? Any possibility that a numbered m/m stock could have been used on this?? We see renumbered m/m bolts etc out of Czechoslovakia around this time, what about stocks? Looking for opinions before I contact the seller. I can almost say for certain he never had it apart because an old dried spider crunched under the bandspring and fell out when I pulled it out haha.

 

[b32dominator]

Bummer about the stock, that is a fine looking rifle. Really like the white glue with darker wood.

 

[heavy_mech]

Is the entire rear sight unnumbered or just the base? I thought maybe someone cut the handguard ring off the base then that goes along with the sporter theory. Too bad, it had me believing too.

 

[flynaked]

All unumbered, here are some pictures. Getting it out in the light looks like the stock has been worked over a little, not bad but a little, oh well. Seller is refunding some value difference and I’ll keep it for a shooter, bore is near mint so that helps!

 

[mrfarb]

To me, rifles like this are an anomaly. This rifle was made right at the time unnumbered components were instituted ( late bb block ). Yes, the stock doesn't match, but the requirement for numbered stocks at this time was passed. Is it possible this stock was from an earlier rejected rifle that was scrapped, and used? With no numbering requirement it didn't need to match. Of course it's still valued as a stock mismatch, but I really feel it could be the original as built stock. The floorplate is most likely original too, lots of spare parts used at this time. As to rear sight parts not being numbered, again at the transition to unnumbered components some things could have been out of sync, and they could be legit. It is what it is, a nice original 98k, never have the value of a fully matching rifle but probably original just the same IMO.

For example, I've seen some other oddities from other makers during the Kriegsmodell serial numbering introduction, like byf44 K blocks with numbered bands, unnumbered stock, late style bolt numbering, numbered floorplate. Frankly, there is a lot we don't know, you just have to value stuff as it is though.

 

[CanadianAR]

It could be orignal as Mike said. Sometimes this stuff takes a little faith. Regardless it’s a great stock.

 

[jack944]

Yes

To me, rifles like this are an anomaly. This rifle was made right at the time unnumbered components were instituted ( late bb block ). Yes, the stock doesn't match, but the requirement for numbered stocks at this time was passed. Is it possible this stock was from an earlier rejected rifle that was scrapped, and used? With no numbering requirement it didn't need to match. Of course it's still valued as a stock mismatch, but I really feel it could be the original as built stock. The floorplate is most likely original too, lots of spare parts used at this time. As to rear sight parts not being numbered, again at the transition to unnumbered components some things could have been out of sync, and they could be legit. It is what it is, a nice original 98k, never have the value of a fully matching rifle but probably original just the same IMO.

For example, I've seen some other oddities from other makers during the Kriegsmodell serial numbering introduction, like byf44 K blocks with numbered bands, unnumbered stock, late style bolt numbering, numbered floorplate. Frankly, there is a lot we don't know, you just have to value stuff as it is though.

What is the chance somebody knew to put correct dou stock on it...?? Interesting rifle that some day may prove to be part of a pattern. People start switching things around to make them "more correct"..

I bought a "dual code" Mauser proofed bcd marked receiver. Previous owner put c marked Gustloff stock on it...still looking for correct un-numbered byf stock to restore it like it was...

 

[pzjgr]

What is the chance somebody knew to put correct dou stock on it...?? Interesting rifle that some day may prove to be part of a pattern. People start switching things around to make them "more correct"..

I bought a "dual code" Mauser proofed bcd marked receiver. Previous owner put c marked Gustloff stock on it...still looking for correct un-numbered byf stock to restore it like it was...

Ugh, no kidding, I wonder how many correct 98k's were buggered in the 80's and 90's because of Backbone....I am guilty of a few myself, including one I still have, a 1935 MO that was in a late war laminated stock...I believe everything else was matching (maybe a bolt m/m, can't recall, I'll have to look)....

Of course, being an expert steeped in Backbone, I thought, well, that's not right....

Eventually I got a really nice 1935 or 36 stock set from Vulch, and replaced it.

I didn't know shite about depot rebuilds, so didn't even know to look....there is a good chance that's what it was, and I messed it up....

I am sure hundreds of good, correct guns were messed up then...

Clay, I'd be happy with it, its a great looking gun, everything is the right timeframe, run with it man!

 

[flynaked]

Thanks for weighing in on it fellas. The more I think about it, I have to agree with this, “what are the chances it was replaced long ago with a correct stock”. Far less was known about maker specifics way back when. Getting it out in natural light too, the FP certainly does looked to have aged and worn with the TG. Also weren’t jwh floorplates almost exclusively delivered to BLM 41/42ish? So theoretically they were all numbered, and perhaps the left overs were distributed after they switched to semi-auto production, and could make sense why an unumbered one is on a CC block dou. Overall I’m liking this open-mindedness, y’all are going to have to keep it up for when I post my next rifle, haha.

 

[bnz41john]

Regardless I would be proud to have it in my collection! The Dou rifles dont get enough attention. Very cool. John.

 

[mike radford]

What is the chance somebody knew to put correct dou stock on it...?? Interesting rifle that some day may prove to be part of a pattern. People start switching things around to make them "more correct"..

These are very wise words. Leave it alone. Same thing has happened to many M1911s and A1s because some expert, even Clawson, said it should have X parts. Then we learn even he could be wrong and correct pistols were "corrected" to Wrong.

If one changes something they should label the parts removed and keep them with the firearm. Then if the most recent thinking is proven wrong, the parts are there. My approach on the pistols has been to buy a "correct" part if I find it and not change the current part but put the so called correct part with the pistol. Same thing can be done with a K98k. Leave it as is and find the part if you like and keep it with the rifle. JMO.

Nice rifle.

 

[flynaked]

Thanks Mike and John, yeah I will be leaving it as is for sure. I realized I’ve had about 10 dot 1944’s and never a dou44 until now! I’m really liking this rifle, I have always liked the look of dou’s in WGL, something about the stock shape and their finishing. There sure are some killer examples in the picture reference, mighty fine rifles and I can certainly agree with them being overlooked.

 

[b32dominator]

These are very wise words. Leave it alone. Same thing has happened to many M1911s and A1s because some expert, even Clawson, said it should have X parts. Then we learn even he could be wrong and correct pistols were "corrected" to Wrong.

If one changes something they should label the parts removed and keep them with the firearm. Then if the most recent thinking is proven wrong, the parts are there. My approach on the pistols has been to buy a "correct" part if I find it and not change the current part but put the so called correct part with the pistol. Same thing can be done with a K98k. Leave it as is and find the part if you like and keep it with the rifle. JMO.

Nice rifle.

I’ve also done this. I made my M1 carbine mostly period correct but left the adjustable sight. The stock is refurb marked, so I kept all the refurb and updated parts while “corrrcting” to original parts. As others have mentioned either originally, or more recently that stock is part of thats rifles history. It’s part of the reason we collect, preserve and share them with others.

 

[ditch68]

These are very wise words. Leave it alone. Same thing has happened to many M1911s and A1s because some expert, even Clawson, said it should have X parts. Then we learn even he could be wrong and correct pistols were "corrected" to Wrong.

If one changes something they should label the parts removed and keep them with the firearm. Then if the most recent thinking is proven wrong, the parts are there. My approach on the pistols has been to buy a "correct" part if I find it and not change the current part but put the so called correct part with the pistol. Same thing can be done with a K98k. Leave it as is and find the part if you like and keep it with the rifle. JMO.

Nice rifle.

Good advice, Mike, that is covering all the bases. I do that as well.

Nice dou by the way, I agree, leave it.

I miss having all the Czech stuff. I used to only collect that. Now I don't even have one dou or dot, etc!

Jeff