Ersatz SG 98/05 (EB44)

[37th Div Ohio]

Howdy All,

Here is a SoS find.

Based on Carters nomenclature, this is an Ersatz SG98/05 or EB44. It has some original feldgrau paint and is in the correct metal ersatz scabbard, that was copied over from the leather 98/05 scabbard. These were produced to supplement 98/05 production. Overall length at 480mm long with a slimmer blade width compared to an EB41. Acceptance is a crown over V with no other markings.

 

[pwcosol]

Exceedingly nice example. With the narrower blade and lack of swell at the front end, is this the one referred to as a "parallel-blade" example? I had one long ago but it went to a good friend.

 

[37th Div Ohio]

Exceedingly nice example. With the narrower blade and lack of swell at the front end, is this the one referred to as a "parallel-blade" example? I had one long ago but it went to a good friend.

Thank you! Yes, I believe this is what some folks would call a “parallel blade”compared to the EB41 that has the distinct 98/05 butcher blade shape.

 

[PrayingMantis]

This is an awesome bayonet, i love the ersatz varieties that mimic the 98/05, but the straight blade is so interesting to see.

 

[SVW1945]

Nice SOS Find.

 

[AndyB]

A ASG88/98 bayonet for 2 version of main rifles used, with shape of blade typically as S98/05, i assume its a 37xmm long, the proof on spine handle is possible as V which could be a Suhl area production and 1915 date.

 

[37th Div Ohio]

A ASG88/98 bayonet for 2 version of main rifles used, with shape of blade typically as S98/05, i assume its a 375mm long, the proof on spine handle is possible as V which could be a Suhl area production and 1915 date.

As stated, it is an overall length of 480mm and Carter states these observed at 479mm on the one he used for reference. The EB43 he states is 472mm in overall length.

 

[AndyB]

When You compare a normal S98/05 with this You will see the handle here is shorter, because of 2 variation of rifles, what says Carter on EB designation is only for collector, pure fantasy designation, it was never used by germans. The measurement by Carter was done on real samples, so they could be too shortened blades etc. a S98/05 blade should measure 370-2mm when i am correct.

 

[37th Div Ohio]

When You compare a normal S98/05 with this You will see the handle here is shorter, because of 2 variation of rifles, what says Carter on EB designation is only for collector, pure fantasy designation, it was never used by germans. The measurement by Carter was done on real samples, so they could be too shortened blades etc. a S98/05 blade should measure 375mm when i am correct.

I’m am not comparing these directly to a SG98/05 as they are not one. No one here is talking about these not going on both the Gew88 and the Gew98, that is not new information when it comes to Ersatz bayonets. The handle length has nothing to do with this. I’m providing information based on a source (Carter). The EB44 has an overall length of 479mm based on Carter, with a blade length of 360mm as seen in the picture. I am showing this particular bayonet as an EB44 based on written information compared to other ersatz bayonets in the Ersatz SG98/05 class of bayonets.

Yes, 100% EB with number designations is a collector reference, as this is how we differentiate between the vast variations of Ersatz bayonets in the collector world and it is not “fantasy” when published as collector references. I am not stating that this is a German military designation. I was very clear to whom I was referencing.

These blades are no way shortened. They are not the same as 98/05s and are as is from the factory minus the part of them being issued and used in a war… I would prefer you to provide references for your claims, so we all can understand where you are coming from, as I am here to learn, not argue unsupported information.

Please post pictures of “unshortened” variations that have a blade length of 375mm and any other sources that will help us understand these better.

 

[AndyB]

"These were produced to supplement 98/05 production. Overall length at 480mm long with a slimmer blade width compared to an EB41."
Only answered to Your mentioned opinion that a supplement for S98/05 should have a lenght of blade as S98/05, the comparing of full lenght of various bayonets has no value, because a Gew98 bayonet have a 132mm handle lenght but Gew88 bayonet has only 120mm handle lenght. All my 5 S98/05 bayonets have a blade lenght of 370-372mm.
Unfortunally i dont have similar ASG88/98 to compare with. So Your piece could be corect lenght, anyway should be compared only blade in that comparation not the complete lenghts. By sharpening is always situation that a part of tip was removed. Thats all.

 

[37th Div Ohio]

"These were produced to supplement 98/05 production. Overall length at 480mm long with a slimmer blade width compared to an EB41."
Only answere to Your mentioned opinion that a supplement for S98/05 should have a lenght of blade as S98/05, the comparing of full lenght of various bayonets has no value, because a Gew98 bayonet have a 132mm handle lenght but Gew88 bayonet has only 120mm handle lenght. All my 5 S98/05 bayonets have a blade lenght of 370-374mm.
Unfortunally i dont have similar ASG88/98 to compare with. So Your piece could be corect lenght, anyway should be compared only blade in that comparation not the complete lenghts. By sharpening is always situation that a part of tip was removed. Thats all.

Now to quote Mery’s German Ersatz Bayonets book “This family of bayonet (referring to EB41-44) was evidently made to compensate for a shortage of regular issue S.98/05 for use by infantry and engineers, which helps explain their length , at 358-362mm…”

Again these are two different types of bayonets. For you to say that an EB should be the same as a SG98/05 exactly, is unfounded by any source I’ve seen to include examples I have in my collection of both types. Plus I highly doubt the German military was that concerned with the EB family of bayonets being literally the exact same blade length of a SG98/05. Especially since these bayonets were rushed into production to aid the war effort in 1915.

Again, please use examples and/or sources to back up your claims.

 

[bert.f]

Hello.
For comparison purposes,
scan from a Carter's book

 

[AndyB]

Thanks for adding the table, the piece presented here looks more like a EB46/47 then when to nomenclatury on side is correct, and yes all this reported bayonets by Carter have a 360mm blade plus minus.
Should be measured the thickness of blade.
Here reports it as EB43, so there are differences probably in version of Carter prints and other as it was determined.

https://stewartsmilitaryantiques.com/german-wwi-ersatz-bayonet-eb43.31723.archive.htm

 

[37th Div Ohio]

Hello.
For comparison purposes,
scan from a Carter's book

I have not seen that in Carters book and my version is the 1976 version along with Mery’s 2019 version page on EB45-46. Both corroborate the 45-46 have the “Belgian” style fuller, have shorter blades and the 46 in particular has the ring off.

 

[37th Div Ohio]

Hello.
For comparison purposes,
scan from a Carter's book

Bert,

What version do you have?

 

[AndyB]

I would think evidently Carter numbered it in both version of book different.
The version wout the barell ring is certainly not for Gew88, only for Gew98 pictured in Mery.
I would believe the determination of modell variety by width or lenght of fuller is not so important, more important would be to have dimension of the blade thickness.
What is Your starting width by crosspiece and most widest part at tip? and thickness of blade on ricasso is 4,5 or 5,1mm?

 

[37th Div Ohio]

It’s not the width necessarily as the square cut of the fuller. See the picture on Mery’s book comparing the Belgian bayonet to the 45-46

 

[bert.f]

The scan comes from the book "German Bayonets ,The Models 98/02 and 98/05"

 

[37th Div Ohio]

The scan comes from the book "German Bayonets ,The Models 98/02 and 98/05"

Bert, thank you! I forgot this section was in that book. Referencing it now.

Wonder what changed from 76 to 84 for Carter to reference these differently. I need to snag the Carter volume 3 on ersatz bayonets made around 2002 to see if that references these the same as the 84 publication. Information is the same just variations on the EB nomenclature.

 

[AndyB]

With Your presented book of Carter 76 it looks with the long false upper tip edge, more as EB43 piece. Strange that Carter determined it in various books different.