Early SSZZA4-237 1939 #631

[Mike2994]

Purchased this a bit ago and figured it would be of interest here. Rifle is an early SSZZA4 rework, the only SS replacement part I can find is the barrel (Steyr 1939). Kind of unusual the SSZZA4 proof is on the left side of the barrel rather than the right just over the wood line.

The rifle is matching except for the gas shield (Steyr) and safety (unnumbered added by me). The matching stock was heavily sanded and refinished to the point of the recoil lug protruding from the side of the stock and all proofs being gone. Along with this someone decided to add a splice of wood into the side of the stock post war. So the rifle is pictured in an S/42 armorers stock.

Pics:

 

[Mike2994]

Original stock:

 

[a j s]

A interesting piece,love the S/42 stock.

 

[Peter S]

That stock is killer

 

[biggymu]

The original stock (next to last photo) when viewing the pictures top to bottom is so out of place it’s like finding a quarter pounder in a girls shorts. Yow.
I have seen the SSZZA4 on that side with many of the acid etched series.

 

[RyanE]

I think this is probably a fairly late rework. The ZZA4 didn't even come into use (it seems) until late 1943 at the earliest. The acceptance didn't move to that side of the barrel until later on.

It also uses the smaller font you see on the earlier ones.

 

[Mike2994]

I think this is probably a fairly late rework. The ZZA4 didn't even come into use (it seems) until late 1943 at the earliest. The acceptance didn't move to that side of the barrel until later on.

It also uses the smaller font you see on the earlier ones.

Thank you for the info Ryan! I figured it was just an early one that happened to get stamped on the opposite side.

I have not seen many late reworks, it seems like most of the ones done later were complete builds from parts. Is my observation accurate?

 

[RyanE]

Thank you for the info Ryan! I figured it was just an early one that happened to get stamped on the opposite side.

I have not seen many late reworks, it seems like most of the ones done later were complete builds from parts. Is my observation accurate?

Yes, most ZZA4 guns are the depot builds, but you do see reworks of damaged guns like this one too.

 

[mdarnell19]

Nice rifle Mike.

 

[swjXE]

Does it bother anyone that this stamp doesn't match any of the sszza4 stamps in Volume llb, pg. 750 ?

 

[Mike2994]

Does it bother anyone that this stamp doesn't match any of the sszza4 stamps in Volume llb, pg. 750 ?

Part of the discrepancy that you are seeing is that the stamp was not hit well. The font is 100% SSZZA4 lettering IMO. Along with that the barrel is numbered in 100% SS font (note the mistake of stamping ‘5’ instead of ‘6’), the trigger was replaced with the original serial # being crossed out (not photographed as I was too lazy to take the rifle down again), and all other parts retaining their original BLM factory numbering.

Not that it is pertinent but this rifle was purchased from an auction house who had no knowledge that this was an SS rifle. Normal SSZZA4 (or sanded matching rifle) price was not paid…

 

[heavy_mech]

Some type of barrel damage? Bulged? Or maybe bent?

 

[Mike2994]

Some type of barrel damage? Bulged? Or maybe bent?

More than likely IMO, either that or the barrel was just shot out.

 

[heavy_mech]

More than likely IMO, either that or the barrel was just shot out.

I thought about that too, but the bolt parts all look remarkably unworn.

 

[Stephan98k]

Some type of barrel damage? Bulged? Or maybe bent?

More than likely IMO, either that or the barrel was just shot out.

I thought about that too, but the bolt parts all look remarkably unworn.

I like your discussions and how you analyze all things, your questions also in other posts are very helpful. I have been reading some older threads over the last days and wanted to mention that again.

You can't rule out a damaged barrel, maybe it was bulged but I think it's very unlikely that the barrel was shot out.

On the subject of bulged barrels, I think it was early 1943 (Please don't pin me on the exact date, I would have to search through my documents) when an instruction for the unit armorers was published. Since many barrels were bulged, these should not generally be considered defective and shouldn't be replaced. These K98k should be zeroed in and if the shooting results were still somewhat acceptable, nothing should be changed.

This BLM has the Sn. 631e and like some other manufacturers they have used Ruhrstahl barrels and these barrels often caused a lot of problems. In the "e" block and the surrounding blocks you can find a lot K98k with rejected Ruhrstahl barrels. The probability is high that this could have been the reason.

Regards,
Stephan