Early 1874 Danzig Gewehr 1871 with oddities

[yeeyee123]

Got a pretty beat Danzig Gew 71 in and had some questions about it and also just wanted to share it as I didn’t see a reference for an 1874 dated danzig on the forum yet. Wurttemburg (nope just early style of prussian) acceptance on the barrel. All matching minus the missing cleaning rod with 2 unit marks, 47.R.E.1.68 on the top of the buttplate and R.A.R.51.1.R.44. (Stamped Upside down) on the heel of the stock. It was RTI African import level of dirty, I had emptied the cardboard I was cleaning it on 3 times prior to these photos and I still wasn’t done cleaning off the gunk and powder residue. Stock looks beat up but not sanded to my eye. The placement of serials seem weird on some parts like the bands and that kind of plays into some of my questions/confusions.

1. This gun has no suffix, rather it has two punch marks where a suffix would usually be and has some unusual serial number locations on more than a few parts. (either evidence of depot work or some weird early production Danzig serial scheme, "+" marks also show up as a "suffix" on other early Danzigs apparently)

2. On the underside of the barrel there is a stern/star just like what I’ve seen on the receiver side of 1898 sterngewehrs and a very apparent œwg mark despite this obviously being a Danzig marked gun. (still no clue on this one)

3. Bolt handle is bent and was done with professionalism, no weird creases, flat marks or indicators of a bad drop. I have the tooling and thermal paste needed to straighten it without compromising the temper on the rest of the bolt but on the off chance this was done by some armorer or police force I wanted opinions on the bolt before proceding with anything that drastic. (Likely a depot job, possibly to cater the rifle more to the artillery where it was last issued)

4. Lastly a genuine question, the rear sight ladder, how does it disassemble? Are the two pins limiting the travel of the slider just blind pinned? The ladder is really quite Difficult to move and gritty so I’d like to get inside it but I’m not going to bother taking it apart if those are friction fit blind pins. (Chris answered that for me, sadly not easily disassembled further)

Many thanks and I hope the pictures are welcomed if nothing else

 

[yeeyee123]

Photos part 2

 

[yeeyee123]

Photos part 3 (plus my VCS Kar 71)

 

[Loewe]

Yeeyee, Such a rare rifle is always welcome! I added it to Craig Browns study with a link to this thread.

I really can't answer your questions beyond what is obvious, it has seen a lot of work in the late 19th and early 20th century, but it's survival is remarkable all the same as only two dozen have been observed out if many thousands made (Storz reports a z-block!); most of the deviations are comparable to typical ordnance work seen on the Modell98 variations and I saw nothing to suggest otherwise)

 

[chrisftk]

That's a nice find!

Your rifle has been reworked- the bands should be numbered in this way if factory:


The location of the SNs on your bands is pretty normal for depot renumbering, from what I can tell. You may want to look closely at the buttplate and see if there is any facility number under the corrosion. There may or may not be, but it would be interesting to check. The punch marks do show up on some depot work (I've observed it on a wide array of rifles from various time periods).

Nothing Württemberg about that barrel though.. that's original Danzig.

I wouldn't take the rear sight down further-- there should be a little tightness to the leaf when sliding and if it's stiff maybe try to work some oil down into it to loosen it slightly.

 

[yeeyee123]

That's a nice find!

Your rifle has been reworked- the bands should be numbered in this way if factory:
View attachment 405858View attachment 405859

The location of the SNs on your bands is pretty normal for depot renumbering, from what I can tell. You may want to look closely at the buttplate and see if there is any facility number under the corrosion. There may or may not be, but it would be interesting to check. The punch marks do show up on some depot work (I've observed it on a wide array of rifles from various time periods).

Nothing Württemberg about that barrel though.. that's original Danzig.

I wouldn't take the rear sight down further-- there should be a little tightness to the leaf when sliding and if it's stiff maybe try to work some oil down into it to loosen it slightly.

Copy that on the sight, just wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing something obvious. I gave it a more detailed scrub and no depot numbers on the buttplate but the unit marks and serial show better now. I also thought it was württemberg because of the crown over W acceptance on the barrel, but this isn’t exactly my wheelhouse. What makes a Würrtemberg accepted gun with these 71’s out of curiosity then?

Anyways while I removed the buttplate to scrub more, I broke the gun down again and there are some repetitive proofs and numbers. On the barrel and receiver there are mirrored 1’s, 50’s, Crown over C’s and a pretty large crown proof with no underscribed letter. That crown C proof is everywhere, buttplate, trigger spring, bolt parts, trigger guard and barrel to name a few. The bands do have imperial proofs but no old serials in usual places and no evidence of removal of old serials. Additionally the sling swivel screws are also completely unserialized on both the middle band and the trigger guard.

many thanks as always

 

[Loewe]

OEWG-Steyr

Looks like Steyr played a role here, the sparse comparisons that can be made to acceptance patterns (typically Modell98/88 RR acceptance offer clues in this regard), but RR for this variation and limited available observation for this early Danzig production are not revealing here, the RR acceptance follow no discernible consistency other than 3 acceptance stamps followed by 6, which suggests this is either a original barrel or accountability was not needed replacing a barrel... but on this is pure conjecture (obviously... without CB and out of my specialization we will have to await further well illustrated examples or hope some one here can guess better (not a difficult challenge)

 

[yeeyee123]

OEWG-Steyr

Looks like Steyr played a role here, the sparse comparisons that can be made to acceptance patterns (typically Modell98/88 RR acceptance offer clues in this regard), but RR for this variation and limited available observation for this early Danzig production are not revealing here, the RR acceptance follow no discernible consistency other than 3 acceptance stamps followed by 6, which suggests this is either a original barrel or accountability was not needed replacing a barrel... but on this is pure conjecture (obviously... without CB and out of my specialization we will have to await further well illustrated examples or hope some one here can guess better (not a difficult challenge)

I had Initially figured that Danzig might have sub-contracted barrel manufacture out in early production as the œwg stamp is present on this danzig made gun yet absent on all the inhouse steyr made 1871's in PrayingMantis's picture reference index. I've seen a couple suhl maker marks stamped on ig 71's that were built by government arsenals so I figured subcontracting happened, but I haven't seen that œwg stamp on other barrels.

 

[Loewe]

Yes, but so few have been discovered and or recorded in detail, - this detail is rarely show on auctions and rare enough on collector posts... I would not discount the possibilities as Steyr was a major player on par with Loewe and WMO and had peers in the rest of Europe, they had many dealings with German arms contracts (and barrels were one of their main products until 1942 - though this looks like a proof not a maker mark so the context is probably different)

 

[AndyB]

The unit on buttplate could be Reserve Feld Artillerie Regiment nr.51, even not R cursive font. Steyr sold a large number of reserve parts to Germany of G1871, but that is not extra documented, only the complete rifles.

 

[Cyrano4747]

Yes, but so few have been discovered and or recorded in detail, - this detail is rarely show on auctions and rare enough on collector posts... I would not discount the possibilities as Steyr was a major player on par with Loewe and WMO and had peers in the rest of Europe, they had many dealings with German arms contracts (and barrels were one of their main products until 1942 - though this looks like a proof not a maker mark so the context is probably different)

Frankly I'd argue that WMO was only a major player in terms of design. As much as I love that factory, they don't even begin to compare to the industrial importance of LL&Co. Keep in mind, Loewe's main line in the 1870s wasn't making guns, it was making the tooling to make guns. IIRC a big part of why they didn't participate in the 71/84 is that they were contracted to make the tooling etc. for the government arsenals. I'd have to check my notes to be sure, but I'm also pretty sure that's also why their contribution to the Gew88 was relatively small.

WMO gets more important as the factory expands, but even then most of their production was for the foreign market until . . . what, the Gew98? We don't have great prodcution totals by factor for the 98 but Storz has WMO's daily production right around the 1k/day that the major government arsenals (minus Amberg) and DWM hit.

Basically as I see it WMO was one factory of many - small at the beginning, big at the end - that had the notable distinction of having some really, really good designers and engineers employed there that influenced the German arms industry far more than their actual production did.

 

[Loewe]

Banking conglomerates owned Loewe and Loewe owned WMO among many others. Loewe's absence in rifle contracts were due to antisemitism (which Germany was comparatively benign compared to most of Europe). Loewe-DWM owned much of FN also and had strong & good relations within the US and English corporations (in the Berlin suburbs a joint US-German research facility was operated with Loewe, in short "eventually" Loewe-DWM was WMO. OEWG was one of the few exceptions, largely due to Steyr-JW excellence across a wide spectrum of fields (OEWG was far more than a rifle maker, so too Loewe)

***of course what i posted was generally condensing decades of actions and achievements (Loewe & OWG/Steyr) beyond 1871, and when this rifle was made your reply is accurate, though I would argue that some (most) of the best engineers and designers worked for Loewe and that was in large measure why they excelled at nearly everything they started, Isidor Loewe was one of the most extraordinary organizers and managers -THE collector of talent- of the late 19th century, and his only real rivals in this were American counterparts who (Pratt & Whitney) who he was on great terms with and hosted them when they visited Europe... I suspect no German and few European corporate leader received the press Isidor received in the US.

 

[Cyrano4747]

Banking conglomerates owned Loewe and Loewe owned WMO among many others. Loewe's absence in rifle contracts were due to antisemitism (which Germany was comparatively benign compared to most of Europe).

I think it's a bit much to say that LL&CO was owned by banking conglomerates. They were a joint stock company in the period we're talking about here (1870s-80s) and had a bunch of different investors. Banks were of course a good chunk of it, as the initial financing of the company was a mix of debt and what we would today call venture capital, but there were also a good number of wealthy individuals. The chair of the board through 1886, for example, was Gustav Schoepplenberg, a tobacco magnate. You also see a lot of lawyers, prominent members of the Berlin Merchants Association, and a fair few wealthy members of the Berlin Jewish community (investing on their own behalf separate from any ties to financial institutions). Loewe was extremely well connected in Berlin society by the time LL&Co really got off the ground, due in no small part to the time he spent in Ferdinand Lasalle's salon.

I've also never seen any indication that his firms were absent in rifle contracts due to antisemitism as opposed to the simple fact that he didn't own any rifle factories at that point. His initial focus was entirely on sewing machines. He took a industrial tour of New England in 1870 when the firm was getting set up. They likely visited other places but we only have records of two: The Hartford Colt factory and the Pratt & Whitney factory. The things they were focused on there were the training programs for workers and the specifics of how they made very small parts. Basically they were looking at applying Colt's advances in making interchangeable small pistol parts to sewing machines. They used the success of their sewing machine sales to pivot to machine tools and by 1873 were contracted by the Army to make the fiddliest and hardest to produce parts of the m71: the extractor and the rear sight assembly. By 1875 they were making small parts for artillery pieces, and by that time their army orders were worth five times their sewing machine and other non-military production.

It's worth nothing that at this point Loewe actually did receive political flak for producing goods for the German military, however unlike the later Ahlwardt anti-Semetic angle it was purely political. At that point he was also active in German politcs, and some Conservitive MPs groused becuase of his Liberal allignment. A quote from Albrecht von Roon, Prussian Minister of War in 1873 in Zogbaum: "The politician Loewe who forms part of the opposition to the Conservatives has to expect that thep roducts of the industrialist Loewe will be sharply scrutinised and he had better deliver excellent goods at low prices."

From there things just sprawled as Loewe tried to divsersify away from Army contracts because of the danger that 5/6ths of his company's income could vanish if another source was found for small parts. First into tooling (the Mauser Brothers bought machines to fufill the Serbian contract from LL&Co), later into ammunition adjacent products like brass cases. I don't have a solid source on this, but given the general pattern of how they operated, I suspect that this is what led to them investing in powder factories a few years later.

Regardless, I did a lot of digging on the antisemetic angle of Loewe's life a few years back because of some allegations I saw on one of the big, popular Youtube channels that the restructuring inth DWM was in part to obscrue the Jewish ownerhsip of LL&Co consortioum following Ahlwardt's attacks. I've never uncovered much to point at anything other than the typical upper crust Prussian social discrimination against Jews. He might not have been invited to dinner, and the nobility sure as hell wouldn't want their daughters marrying into his family, but on the whole the Prussian military establishment seems to have been utterly disinterested in the confessional status of the people they bought guns, parts, and ammo from. It isn't too much to say that the Prussian military establishment is what made LL&Co - via a crap ton of orders in the 1870s that allowed them to expand as rapidly as they did - and that's not exactly what one would expect if they were freezing him out of contracts due to anti-Semitism.

Interestingly ,the one place that I DID find some potential whiff of it was in Spain. I haven't fully untangled this furball yet, but it looks like some prominent members of the Spanish court might have objected to Loewe on the basis of his being Jewish and pressured the military to dump his contract fo the m93. This is part of why Oberndorf snagged a small contract for them late in the run. That said, I caution that this is only a "maybe" for me right now. I'm far from an expert in Spanish 19th century politics so I don't know the landscape well, and I've also caught whiffs that the commetns about his being a Jew might have been a pretext, a lever for people to pull on in a larger fight over whether Spain should be pursuing cozier relations with France or Germany. Apparnetly there was a lot of bad blood over the selection of a German rifle at all, as opposed to a contract for French weapons that would have been political useful for that faction.

The two big areas I'm pulling this from are 1) Zogbaum's recent biography of Loewe, Ludwig Loewe: The Forgotten Pioneer Industrialist of Imperial Berlin (highly recommended, probably the best English language book on Loewe and it touches a lot on the formation of the company) and 2) the 1930 Ludw. Loewe & Co Actiengesellschaft Berlin 60 Jahre Edelarbeit 1869-1929. The latter is a 60 anniversary celebratory history of the company. A bit harder to come by but not impossible if you have access to interlibrary loan or are willing to hunt around on the likes of Abebooks. That last one is a bit poignent as it was put out by the rump company that remaind post-WW1 right before the Nazis swooped in.

 

[yeeyee123]

I’ve got 0 insight on the topic of who were the biggest baddest manufacturers at the time but I found a couple of those rifles i remembered seeing, they were hiding in plain sight in the reference thread.

Two 1878 Ambergs with suhl made barrels. If amberg still needed supplemental barrels from other factories in 1878 I can’t imagine it being unheard of in 1874 Danzig production.

Amberg 1878 42938

Gewehr 71 Amberg 1878 42938 Been suffering from a pretty long dry spell, but it finally broke this past weekend. Picked up an all matching Gewehr 71, made in Amberg and issued to the Bavarian 14th Regiment. Found it at a major outdoors store very underpriced, and after buying it a manager came...

www.k98kforum.com

Gewehr 71 1878 Amberg 43409

About a month after getting my first Gew 71, the nice 1878 Amberg marked to the 14th Bavarian Regiment, I find another. Not quite as nice, but still nice and since its 13 weapon numbers away from the first, I had to have it. Luckily no one else on Gun Broker was interested. Only about 500...

www.k98kforum.com

 

[Loewe]

I am unfamiliar with the new book however I have the anniversary book among others that discuss Loewe and the creation of DWM; to suggest antisemitism didn't play a major role in Loewe's early history (and the formation of DWM) is quite frankly mindboggling... Ludwig Loewe was a Liberal (traditional Liberal not the modern attribution to modern economic fascists...) politician and it is a fact a number of Jewish bankers backed the start-up of the firm (John Wall shared a study in this regard and our relationship was based upon of shared interests in Loewe and DWM creation, which was directly connected to the G88 rifle scandal, which was led by anti-Semites....)

Anyway, no need to take my word for this subject , I know the facts and have extensive files on every aspect of the subject and 20+ years experience collecting period articles and conversations with John Wall among others (there are P08 and DWM collectors that are quite experienced on the subject, some of which shared documents).

** as for German anti-Semitism, I clearly stated Germany was one of the more tolerant western states for Jews, assimilation was quite common (not until Versailles did it begin to rise in Germany - Germany had its version of WOKE mobs in the 1890's). As for banking syndicates or conglomerates, this is a fact covered in some detail in a couple sources (Chandler etc...) and Loewe's acquisitions and massive expansion into other industrial fields would have been impossible without backing by bank syndicate (which were common in Germany... they competed with one another for firms like Loewe, who had several ventures with American firms... like Niles and many others (Oliven report speaks of Loewe's international ventures being backed by banking syndicates... this is just an obvious fact when the scale and scope of Loewe is understood, in 1892 rifles were a minor aspect of the corporation)

 

[Loewe]

I’ve got 0 insight on the topic of who were the biggest baddest manufacturers at the time but I found a couple of those rifles i remembered seeing, they were hiding in plain sight in the reference thread.

Two 1878 Ambergs with suhl made barrels. If amberg still needed supplemental barrels from other factories in 1878 I can’t imagine it being unheard of in 1874 Danzig production.

Amberg 1878 42938

Gewehr 71 Amberg 1878 42938 Been suffering from a pretty long dry spell, but it finally broke this past weekend. Picked up an all matching Gewehr 71, made in Amberg and issued to the Bavarian 14th Regiment. Found it at a major outdoors store very underpriced, and after buying it a manager came...

www.k98kforum.com

Gewehr 71 1878 Amberg 43409

About a month after getting my first Gew 71, the nice 1878 Amberg marked to the 14th Bavarian Regiment, I find another. Not quite as nice, but still nice and since its 13 weapon numbers away from the first, I had to have it. Luckily no one else on Gun Broker was interested. Only about 500...

www.k98kforum.com

Loewe and OWG were two of the largest and both (Loewe especially) were far more than rifle makers, - for Loewe spinning rifles off to a new subsidiary was a rational (prudent) expedient, had this distraction grew the Kaiser 1903 visit (and declared support) might have not occurred... OWG held a similar role in A-H (it was far more than a rifle maker by 1939...

I agree that this is possible, had it been a commercial maker (Suhl) it would be more likely but Danzig less so, but 1874 I think it is far from impossible (this is why the research threads exist,- theories can become probabilities with trends research and they can evolve into facts!

Regarding

 

[Loewe]

12 years old but an article that may serve as an introduction for yeeyee

 

[Loewe]

Too large apparently, for yeeyee or anyone with a Loewe fascination, pm me with a email address and I will send my 2011/12 L.Loewe pdf article I wrote,

 

[Cyrano4747]

I am unfamiliar with the new book however I have the anniversary book among others that discuss Loewe and the creation of DWM; to suggest antisemitism didn't play a major role in Loewe's early history (and the formation of DWM) is quite frankly mindboggling... Ludwig Loewe was a Liberal (traditional Liberal not the modern attribution to modern economic fascists...) politician and it is a fact a number of Jewish bankers backed the start-up of the firm (John Wall shared a study in this regard and our relationship was based upon of shared interests in Loewe and DWM creation, which was directly connected to the G88 rifle scandal, which was led by anti-Semites....)

Anyway, no need to take my word for this subject , I know the facts and have extensive files on every aspect of the subject and 20+ years experience collecting period articles and conversations with John Wall among others (there are P08 and DWM collectors that are quite experienced on the subject, some of which shared documents).

** as for German anti-Semitism, I clearly stated Germany was one of the more tolerant western states for Jews, assimilation was quite common (not until Versailles did it begin to rise in Germany - Germany had its version of WOKE mobs in the 1890's). As for banking syndicates or conglomerates, this is a fact covered in some detail in a couple sources (Chandler etc...) and Loewe's acquisitions and massive expansion into other industrial fields would have been impossible without backing by bank syndicate (which were common in Germany... they competed with one another for firms like Loewe, who had several ventures with American firms... like Niles and many others (Oliven report speaks of Loewe's international ventures being backed by banking syndicates... this is just an obvious fact when the scale and scope of Loewe is understood, in 1892 rifles were a minor aspect of the corporation)

I'm not saying that antisemitism wasn't an issue that Loewe had to negotiate - he was, after all, a Jew involved in politics and Prussian high society - but I've never seen solid documentary evidence of it having been a driving factor in business decisions. I'll PM you my email, I'd love to get a copy of that Wall study. I chased any connections between the Judenflinte scandal and the incorporation of DWM and never found a direct link between the two, just the business rationale for restructuring.

edit: to be clear, I'm saying I've never seen evidence of a causal relationship between Ahlwardt and the incorporation of DWM. The claim I saw elsewhere, and which I was chasing, was that DWM was incorporated to obscure the Jewish ownership specifically because of the fallout of the Ahlwardt affair. That is what I've never found anything solid to rest such a strong claim on.

edit 2: I've got a copy of the Gerald Oliven documents and I don't consider the claim that is made there about the split-off being as a result of Ahlwardt to be a definitive one. There isn't much in the way of supporting evidence in there, and the collection as a whole while very interesting is mildly problematic in terms of using it as a source, mostly due to the time and the context that it was written in. If you're talking about the claim that I think you're referencing, it's one that I feel really needs stronger supporting evidence, and that's something I've never been able to dig up.

edit 3: <snip> Probably not the place to get into the weeds with the Oliven collection. I'm happy to discuss if you want to, though.


As an aside, I'm getting the feeling that you're somehow offended or annoyed. I want to emphasize that I wasn't trying to correct or needle at anything. My apologies if I've overstepped, I'm used to approaching this subject in a more academic setting.

Too large apparently, for yeeyee or anyone with a Loewe fascination, pm me with a email address and I will send my 2011/12 L.Loewe pdf article I wrote,

I'd also love a copy of this if you're willing to share. I'll PM my address

 

[yeeyee123]

Too large apparently, for yeeyee or anyone with a Loewe fascination, pm me with a email address and I will send my 2011/12 L.Loewe pdf article I wrote,

Sure I’d love a copy, German isn’t my main area of collecting so more reading can’t hurt. By the way what’s the acceptance cypher on this rifle if not Wurttemburg? I thought the crown over W signified wurt use. Thanks!