Third Party Press

DWM 1917

mauser1908

mauser1908

Senior Member
Hi Everyone, I snagged this about a month ago, I've been bogged down making maple syrup and I'm just catching up on things now. Anyway, I was able to add this pretty solid 'q' block DWM 1917, a very late rifle relatively speaking. Late DWMs are sneaky rare, they're not unlike a 1917 WMO or Spandau and rarely turn up. It took DWM almost until they curtailed production to adopt post 1916 stock features. Chris, developed a theory about that, I'll leave it to him to explain. Anyway, this one fits nicely, I fancy myself as a late war collector, not necessarily by focus but rather luck.

Receiver SN: 5149q
Barrel SN: 5149q Bo 787
Rear sight SN: 49
Sight Slider SN: 49
Ejector box SN: 49
Trigger Sear SN: 49
Front barrel band SN: 49
Rear barrel band SN: 49
Trigger guard SN: 5149
Trigger guard screws SN: 49, Unnumbered
Floor Plate SN: 49
Follower SN: 49
Stock SN: 5149 (Internally and externally, change in 1917 for DWM)
Handguard SN: 5149
Buttplate SN: 5149q
Bayonet lug SN: 49
Bolt SN: M/M


IMG_3908.jpegIMG_3884.jpegIMG_3885.jpegIMG_3886.jpegIMG_3887.jpegIMG_3888.jpegIMG_3897.jpegIMG_3898.jpegIMG_3899.jpegIMG_3900.jpegIMG_3901.jpegIMG_3905.jpegIMG_3889.jpeg
 
Last edited:
That's a beaut Sam! It'll look even better when that very coincidentally numbered depot bolt I sent arrives. This one has the lovely beech wood and untouched metal I just love to see in late war guns.

As you mentioned, the resistance of DWM to adopting the TD and finger grooves is pretty remarkable. To me, the two possibilities that come to mind are that DWM had a massive stockpile of stocks in their inventory, or perhaps they, or more likely a major subcontractor, delayed the change. I believe the second one more- it sort of reminds me of the "C" stocks on late war Gustloff and WMO k98k. Seeing the full stock phosphate bcd4s is always neat .Either way, my only DWM with a disc and grooves is a b block 1918.
 
Great looking rifle. Question, what do you mean by:

“Stock SN: 5149 (Internally and externally, change in 1917 for DWM)”?

Are you saying DWM did not internally or externally serialize the stock pre ‘17? (One or the other).

Also stock disk doesn’t have a proof. Worth trying to remove to check the underside?

-D
 
DWM did not number stocks internally when they resumed Gew 98 production in 1914. By 1917 they had, but it’s always worth noting on DWMs to help narrow the timeframe.

This is a great example, Sam! Glad you were able to get it, and that you finished your syrup enterprise. I’ll get it in the study, great to have another well documented example.

I agree with Chris, seems like for whatever reason DWM had a large quantity of early type stocks in beech on hand which lasted them well into 1917. This is the slightly later variety with the larger B.
 
Neat to see a later war rifle without the upgraded stock. Even more so with it being a beech Wood stock.
chrisftk said:
As you mentioned, the resistance of DWM to adopting the TD and finger grooves is pretty remarkable. To me, the two possibilities that come to mind are that DWM had a massive stockpile of stocks in their inventory, or perhaps they, or more likely a major subcontractor, delayed the change. I believe the second one more
Click to expand...
With DWM’s location, there are two nearby major beech wood forests. What makes more sense to me would be them not having the machines/bits to make those cuts. DWM was still a commercial company so I could see them dragging behind the state arsenals on any changes.

Plus the factory had a strike that year iirc. Having worked in a factory myself, experienced workers aren’t the most accepting of change, especially when they’ve been doing something the exact same way for what could be the last ~18 years.

My big question on your theory, why didn’t DWM start sending excess stocks to other arsenals that can get the rifles out faster?
And maybe they did. We might find an example, maybe we already have and I just haven’t seen it yet.
 
Thanks for the kind words everyone.

OzzMan said:
Neat to see a later war rifle without the upgraded stock. Even more so with it being a beech Wood stock.

With DWM’s location, there are two nearby major beech wood forests. What makes more sense to me would be them not having the machines/bits to make those cuts. DWM was still a commercial company so I could see them dragging behind the state arsenals on any changes.

Plus the factory had a strike that year iirc. Having worked in a factory myself, experienced workers aren’t the most accepting of change, especially when they’ve been doing something the exact same way for what could be the last ~18 years.

My big question on your theory, why didn’t DWM start sending excess stocks to other arsenals that can get the rifles out faster?
And maybe they did. We might find an example, maybe we already have and I just haven’t seen it yet.
Click to expand...

I really like Chris' theory for a few reasons. Each maker transitioned on their own time-table, adopting the features as they used up what they had on hand. There is credence to the tooling argument, but that largely manifested with one feature being adopted before the other. Mauser, Simson, Spandau, DWM, and WOK rolled their features out together; all other makers staggered them.

DWM would have had large stores of finished stocks on hand as they were a massive producer in 1916, however they were not the leader. Mauser and Spandau's production in 1916 was commensurate with DWM, with Danzig leading the other three firms. All three of those firms successfully transitioned to stocks with both features by the end of the year. Danzig, Mauser and Spandau would have had loads of finished stocks on hand, none were afflicted by the latent adoption issue. Which, in my view, aligns with an unknown subcontractor supplying these stocks.

There were two rifle manufacturers (Erfurt and DWM) that were actually deep into armaments production. By armaments production, I'm referencing serious projects that were not limited to rifles. When we examine the historical timeline of these firms, we can see a drop off in Gewerh 98 production when other projects are picked up. In 1917 this coincides with doctrinal changes as well. For Erfurt, rifle production was curtailed for the 98a and the P08. With DWM, it was the 08-15 and LP08s. With the Gew 98 becoming less relevant, I think it makes a lot of sense that makers resorted to using subcontractors, or sluffing off their production to depots or subsidiaries. I think that is likely the case with these stocks.

To answer your question on why DWM didn't send stocks to other makers to aid in production. There was no reason to; the army was oversaturated with rifles by 1917. In fact, so saturated that the piled up at depots awaiting issue. Sadly, most would simply be destroyed in the immediate postwar era in an effort to comply with pending IMCC inspections. This is also the reason for the huge reduction in 1918. Extra stocks, if their manufacture wasn't done in advance of yearly production requirements probably would have gone directly into the depot system.
 
biggymu said:
Really nice rifle! Any idea where the dowels in the pistol grip area came from? The rifle doesn’t look to have been abused. Post war?
Click to expand...
Thanks Rick! I’m not sure, I suspect a postwar repair, there’s a pretty good crack in the wrist. It’s very professional, they were able to do it without sanding the area around it.
 
Well said Sam.

On the subject of strikes, they weren't unique to DWM and occured elsewhere too. I can't imagine they had any meaningful impact on stock change implementations, though I suppose anything is possible. The solution to the 1917 strikes by the government was to threaten to revoke skilled worker's exempt status and give them a free vacation to the Siegfriedstellung. This got them back to work pretty quickly. I recall a discussion a couple years ago that there was supposedly also talk of total militarization of the factories. This would make the workers military personnel and subject to court martial and other measures for work stoppage. The threat of this seemed an effective deterrent at the time-- at least until things collapsed in late 1918.
 
mauser1908 said:
I really like Chris' theory for a few reasons. Each maker transitioned on their own time-table, adopting the features as they used up what they had on hand. There is credence to the tooling argument, but that largely manifested with one feature being adopted before the other. Mauser, Simson, Spandau, DWM, and WOK rolled their features out together; all other makers staggered them.

DWM would have had large stores of finished stocks on hand as they were a massive producer in 1916, however they were not the leader. Mauser and Spandau's production in 1916 was commensurate with DWM, with Danzig leading the other three firms. All three of those firms successfully transitioned to stocks with both features by the end of the year. Danzig, Mauser and Spandau would have had loads of finished stocks on hand, none were afflicted by the latent adoption issue. Which, in my view, aligns with an unknown subcontractor supplying these stocks.

There were two rifle manufacturers (Erfurt and DWM) that were actually deep into armaments production. By armaments production, I'm referencing serious projects that were not limited to rifles. When we examine the historical timeline of these firms, we can see a drop off in Gewerh 98 production when other projects are picked up. In 1917 this coincides with doctrinal changes as well. For Erfurt, rifle production was curtailed for the 98a and the P08. With DWM, it was the 08-15 and LP08s. With the Gew 98 becoming less relevant, I think it makes a lot of sense that makers resorted to using subcontractors, or sluffing off their production to depots or subsidiaries. I think that is likely the case with these stocks.

To answer your question on why DWM didn't send stocks to other makers to aid in production. There was no reason to; the army was oversaturated with rifles by 1917. In fact, so saturated that the piled up at depots awaiting issue. Sadly, most would simply be destroyed in the immediate postwar era in an effort to comply with pending IMCC inspections. This is also the reason for the huge reduction in 1918. Extra stocks, if their manufacture wasn't done in advance of yearly production requirements probably would have gone directly into the depot system.
Click to expand...
Even if they had large stockpiles of stocks. Why not bring them back in and cut them for the bolt takedown and the finger grooves? If you’ve been threatened with being sent to the frontline or court martial, why continue to not do exactly as the military/government wants?

A subcontractor is possible. But I would fondly it highly unlikely. Subbing work out to a different company costs you money first and foremost, and at the end of the day these companies weren’t making weapons for the military out of the kindness of their hearts. With a subcontractor you now have to pay the workers, pay them or get them material to use, shipping to and from, relocating any on-site machines to the sub’s location if they don’t have any, and then there is any other backgrounds costs as well. I know the Germans like using their subcontractors as it shows with some wwii weapons, but the amount of time and money wasted for slowing production doesn’t make much sense to me. If Gewehr production is slowing down, why send any work out to subcontractors at all?
 
OzzMan said:
Even if they had large stockpiles of stocks. Why not bring them back in and cut them for the bolt takedown and the finger grooves? If you’ve been threatened with being sent to the frontline or court martial, why continue to not do exactly as the military/government wants?
Click to expand...
Reworking finished stocks makes zero sense. This wasn't done elsewhere as the new features were implemented, so it is very doubtful it would have occurred with DWM.

OzzMan said:
subcontractor is possible. But I would fondly it highly unlikely. Subbing work out to a different company costs you money first and foremost, and at the end of the day these companies weren’t making weapons for the military out of the kindness of their hearts. With a subcontractor you now have to pay the workers, pay them or get them material to use, shipping to and from, relocating any on-site machines to the sub’s location if they don’t have any, and then there is any other backgrounds costs as well. I know the Germans like using their subcontractors as it shows with some wwii weapons, but the amount of time and money wasted for slowing production doesn’t make much sense to me. If Gewehr production is slowing down, why send any work out to subcontractors at all?
Click to expand...
Connor, I appreciate the comments, though I'd suggest reading up a bit on this subject rather than inserting anecdotal examples drawn from your understanding of how manufacturing works today in the USA (and in an economy that the government has not exercised wartime control of)

Subcontractors were absolutely used extensively in German rifle and other small arms production during and before WW1. The practice continued into WW2 (and is well documented)

I'll use an extreme example: An MG 08/15, is a potpourri of different trademarks from various subcontractors responsible for certain components. If you check the one I posted a few years ago you can get a good idea for how outsourced component production could be . Back to rifles, it varies case to case, but the lead firm would have made some parts and subcontracted others. In some cases, there was even assignment of responsibility between firms (The Consortium is a good example with CGH making receivers and bolts, VCS making stocks and JPS barrels) Final assembly was the responsibility of the lead firm regardless of how outsourced components were.

Further, locations like Dresden and Hannover were strictly assembly operations funneling salvaged and third party parts into complete rifles.

On Gewehr 98s many parts including stocks, cocking pieces, triggerguards, bayonet lugs and even receivers were sourced from third parties (S&H, Pieper etc..) Some have a trademark on the parts (easy ID), others we can tell only by acceptance being deviant from the standard trends.

The bottom line is that subcontracted parts were indisputably used and a good look through the reference section would provide a deep dive with plenty of visual evidence. We don't have all the answers as to what, where and who (and probably never will) but we certainly know more than we did 10-15 years ago.
 
I’ll second and add a little to Chris’s explanation: for the reputation that Germans have for being doctrinal and nit picky, they are, and were in WWI above all, practical. Though design regulations had changed, the weapons manufacturers would use up existing components. DWM, Simson, and the consortium used earlier style stocks long after Amberg and Spandau began using the new style. There would be no sense in wartime especially to not use something because it was an earlier design, and it would only take precious time and money to rework existing stocks.
 
Last edited:
chrisftk said:
Reworking finished stocks makes zero sense. This wasn't done elsewhere as the new features were implemented, so it is very doubtful it would have occurred with DWM.


Connor, I appreciate the comments, though I'd suggest reading up a bit on this subject rather than inserting anecdotal examples drawn from your understanding of how manufacturing works today in the USA (and in an economy that the government has not exercised wartime control of)

Subcontractors were absolutely used extensively in German rifle and other small arms production during and before WW1. The practice continued into WW2 (and is well documented)

I'll use an extreme example: An MG 08/15, is a potpourri of different trademarks from various subcontractors responsible for certain components. If you check the one I posted a few years ago you can get a good idea for how outsourced component production could be . Back to rifles, it varies case to case, but the lead firm would have made some parts and subcontracted others. In some cases, there was even assignment of responsibility between firms (The Consortium is a good example with CGH making receivers and bolts, VCS making stocks and JPS barrels) Final assembly was the responsibility of the lead firm regardless of how outsourced components were.

Further, locations like Dresden and Hannover were strictly assembly operations funneling salvaged and third party parts into complete rifles.

On Gewehr 98s many parts including stocks, cocking pieces, triggerguards, bayonet lugs and even receivers were sourced from third parties (S&H, Pieper etc..) Some have a trademark on the parts (easy ID), others we can tell only by acceptance being deviant from the standard trends.

The bottom line is that subcontracted parts were indisputably used and a good look through the reference section would provide a deep dive with plenty of visual evidence. We don't have all the answers as to what, where and who (and probably never will) but we certainly know more than we did 10-15 years ago.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t consider my examples anecdotal as I studied on these exact processes and materials for quite some time. I know much hasn’t changed since the start of the 1900s. Sure advancements in technology have been made since then, but the core remains the same.

I’m familiar with the Suhl consortium. I would consider them an isolated example as they were more or less an experiment of subcontractors. Those factories were very close to each other, so it makes sense they sent each other parts. Each item they supplied takes very specific machines to make. Otherwise they would’ve had to ship parts out to the bigger arsenals. I know they outsourced a good number of parts, but it was typically when they didn’t have the means to produce said part.

To say they had a stockpile of stocks, and then say they subcontracted the work out doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. I could see them doing this if they ran out of wood, but to have stockpiles of stocks and then subcontract the work out just doesn’t add up.
 
Very interesting and informative thread. While I'm a little late to the party, I wanted to express my sentiment for Sam's rifle. Awesome DWM example, so thank you for sharing. I'm a big fan of the stock, and can even appreciate that old repair and it's subtle professionalism. The untouched metal is a classic look also. :)
 
OzzMan said:
To say they had a stockpile of stocks, and then say they subcontracted the work out doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. I could see them doing this if they ran out of wood, but to have stockpiles of stocks and then subcontract the work out just doesn’t add up.
Click to expand...
I think you are misreading. We are talking about stocks procured from a subcontractor. Nothing was ever said of employing subcontract laborers at a factory.

The demonstrated lack of reading and comprehension here is damaging your arguments. (which are anecdotal- and sometimes convoluted) Your rather odd dismissal of the role played by subcontracted parts counters a few decades of observation and trends by people who have been studying these rifles a long time.

There is a lot to learn in this section. Study the references, read good sources (Storz for one) and substantiate your arguments. People will take you more seriously. Unless your goal is just to troll threads; in which case there's probably more productive uses of your time.
 
I wouldn't consider comparing Connor to a troll Chris for just asking some interesting questions. To be honest he has learned quite alot in the last two years. For how much he has studied, and learned so far is quite remarkable. Now, I do know Paul mentioned the abundance of earlier stock sets DWM must have had in their inventory back in like 2014. With the lack of the finger grooves until late. But the Storz book does give an interesting detail. And I quote: "Frequently, stocks can be found that have grip cut outs, but no Kolbenauge. Evidently, it took a certain time for the necessary tools or components to be made available. There were also differences between factories in the implementation of decrees."

I also found out that some of the delivers of the beech wood by the wood suppliers. Were so raw they were still green. Wood to be used for stock sets took two, to three months of additional drying time. Also, there were reports from the field. Stocks that had rifle assemblies in them, were not functioning properly. This was due to the wood swelling. Is it possible DWM may have had a large stockpile of stock sets, because they were still kiln drying? Possibly, I think so. I also consider not having the machines available to do this new process of manufacturing as another explanation. I don't think these grooves were cut by just a factory worker measuring, and cutting with a regular tool. To help speed up the process. I'm seeing a complex table of measuring gauges, wheel assemblies, and a special track system for the stock to ride in to do the process.

The Implementation of decrees, now that is interesting from Storz. I know what that means in the electrical code world. When a new code book comes out say the now 2020 code. I now have to work off the new code book now, and what has been added to it. But, my state is still on the 2008 code book. I still go by the now new 2020 code book. But, if companies can get by using the old book and it's perfectly legal. They will use that system as long as they can. Companies of old, and new regardless of war time or not don't like change. Especially if it worked fine before. Adding German doctrine, and thinking on top of that. I could not imagine! Personally, I would rather run a marathon hung over from the previous night. Then deal with that kind of system any day of the week.

Guys in studying these rifles for over 10 years the amount of lost data, and info is so lacking. Believe me I have tried to find it. Such as more details on the 1912 Danzig Gewehr 98 receivers. Trust me when the answer comes you will all know lol! I have also tried to buy factory sale logs, research notes, and factory letters to help us all. Unfortunately they went for big money, and I did not win them in the end. But, until the real answer and why comes forward. We are still going by an observation or a theory. Maybe someday we will find it.
 
Anyway, teleology aside, it's nice to narrow down the ranges for the transitional period. I'm reminded of this '17 DWM, an h block that has the late features: https://www.k98kforum.com/threads/well-used-gewehr-98-1917-dwm-advice.51813/
Sam's q block looks rather late for the early features, hopefully more examples can narrow this further, and if we're really lucky collectors here with photography skills will acquire and document them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top