Gew98 Deathhead with Reichswehr mounts

[Slowburn]

Finally getting around to posting this one. I bought this rifle about a decade ago when I was looking hard for my first dhd rifle. I’m not a sniper collector, so the bases caused concern, but I bought it anyways.

Mostly matching except for some small parts. Pretty early SS conversion from Feb ‘37 and it didn’t go through a second update. Has shrapnel damage to the stock and handguard and shrapnel is still embedded in the stock. Original Gew barrel. The O on the receiver is also on the buttplate and stock internal. I also have this same O on the receiver of another dhd that I think is an Oct ‘36 conversion.

I think the bolt gives the answers to its authenticity or not. The handle appears to be well crafted and commercial is design. It’s unmarked except for the serial number. The font matches perfectly with the barrel/receiver and I’ve compared them all with calipers, so I find it likely that all three we’re stamped at the same location and time. Relief for the bolt handle was done, but not for the knob.

Obviously, a dhd conversion with Reichswehr mounts should cause skepticism, so all opinions welcome, I’m interested what you guys think.

 

[Slowburn]

More pictures. Looks like I’ll have to resize the rest.

 

[Slowburn]

More pics

 

[Slowburn]

Stock internal Serial, I had to crop it funny to get it to load. There’s no external serial on the keel.

 

[biggymu]

That’s an interesting and rare rifle for sure. I’ve seen the “O” marks on other examples. I have never seen the obviously original lazy S DH on the stock before. The bolt root and ball shape resembles a Swedish carbine or 1903. The wear is beautifully consistent. There is no way to know for sure but I like it. The “RC” has been seen on many original WW1 snipers.
Very cool.

 

[Absolut]

Hey Jeremy, very happy to see the pictures here too! Super cool rifle, must be one of very little ever made. Maybe @Amberg can give his opinion whether the receiver started its life as original Reichswehr sniper receiver too. Noted the rear base is quite offset to the drilled hole.

 

[Slowburn]

Hey Georg, I’m glad you asked about this rifle. It made me finally pull it out of the safe and take pictures of it.

You’re correct Biggymu, the wear is very consistent except for the front sight which I think was replaced later. It looks like someone replaced the sight blade and tried to remove the bases. Unfortunately they marked up the base screws a bit and removed the lever.

I’ve seen the infinity dhd on the wrist before, but I think it was on earlier conversions too. I think I had seen the O on an SSR as well.

 

[Dave Roberts]

I recall this rifle very well , when I first saw it was very very skeptical about the authenticity of it being an original .
Then the more I looked at the rifle my skepticism started to fade and one photo in particular made me rethink my original opinion .
The photo is this photo below . I think it is highly unlikely that someone making this would have any idea that they would need to modify the receiver . Most if not all would have modified the rear ring stem to get proper clearance for the ring stem to seat in the rear base correctly . I agree with others that it would be near impossible to verify its originality , unless other examples were to surface or better yet a Period Photo showing such rifle in use by a SS Sniper .

This is the Receiver Modification I am referring too . In fact this modification was just brought to the attention of forum members a few years back now and I believe it was Amberg or Georg who posted a photo showing this receiver modification .

 

[Slowburn]

Thanks guys, I appreciate the knowledge and responses. I know dhd’s, but not snipers.

I find it interesting that it’s a Feb ‘37 conversion, saw service, but didn’t go through an SS2 upgrade.

 

[biggymu]

It’s missing the latch to lock the rear foot also.
Does anyone have even a guess on the “O” mark? I can’t remember where else I’ve seen it but almost sure it was SS

 

[Slowburn]

A picture of a Gew98 or Gew98m with Reichswehr mounts that another member posted a few years ago. It’s hard to tell detail, but it seems to have a similar cutout for the bolt handle as mine does. This one may also have a regular bolt cutout too, but again, it’s hard to make out the detail. Cool picture either way.

 

[RyanE]

It’s missing the latch to lock the rear foot also.
Does anyone have even a guess on the “O” mark? I can’t remember where else I’ve seen it but almost sure it was SS

The Luftwaffe's BAL manual shows an O stamp used to indicate material (weapons and munitions) considered "questionable". The BAL was basically a copy of the HWA, and it is not unreasonable to guess the O was used in the same manner by the Heer. U was for rejected items (see very late cyq P38s for a possible example).

Old, questionable rifles are probably what the Heer would have (very grudgingly) handed over when forced to do so. An obsolete sniper setup would also be a good candidate to dump on the SS.

Awesome rifle by the way, Slowburn!

 

[Slowburn]

That’s interesting Ryan. Also, my understanding was that the crown over RC meant a rejected or a send for repair part. I thought it to be odd on a sniper rifle, but I don’t really follow early markings.

 

[Slowburn]

I have 2 rifles with this O mark. This one that’s a Feb ‘37 conversion and the other is Oct ‘36 conversion. These are both pretty early conversions. Another I know of is a SSR, but I don’t think I ever saw the conversion date for it. Perhaps an early occurrence?

 

[Absolut]

I find it interesting that it’s a Feb ‘37 conversion, saw service, but didn’t go through an SS2 upgrade.

Now that you mention this .. this is quite logical. Being a sniper rifle it would have a bent down bolt handle from factory. Therefore no need to go to depot again. And since done (individually?) when first set up, the bent down handle would not correspond to the later method.

 

[Absolut]

Does anyone have even a guess on the “O” mark? I can’t remember where else I’ve seen it but almost sure it was SS

Many of the early SS conversions have letters on them, FS, HW, etc. Maybe the O is something similar? For what I remember there were ideas these letters correspond to Suhl gunsmiths (like Hermann Weihrauch). Would there be one who would fit to O as initial?

Edit: @Loewe is there any way you can identify the maker and the year of the receiver from this rifle based on the acceptance stamps?

 

[tonino7]

That’s interesting Ryan. Also, my understanding was that the crown over RC meant a rejected or a send for repair part. I thought it to be odd on a sniper rifle, but I don’t really follow early markings.

The crown over RC is a WW1 marking and it's not for rejected/repaired parts but , if I well remember , it just means that that part passed an extra check from the head of the inspection office.

 

[biggymu]

Now that you mention this .. this is quite logical. Being a sniper rifle it would have a bent down bolt handle from factory. Therefore no need to go to depot again. And since done (individually?) when first set up, the bent down handle would not correspond to the later method.

The handle on this bolt isn’t simply bent down. I don’t believe the ball is even from a Gew 98. ( it’s pear shaped). It looks like the original was removed and a different handle welded in place.
I am not implying this wasn’t done in the period, simply an observation. Looks like a custom made piece. There is no stamp that I can see on the rear of the bend, which was the convention at the time. Interesting piece to discuss.

 

[RyanE]

That’s interesting Ryan. Also, my understanding was that the crown over RC meant a rejected or a send for repair part. I thought it to be odd on a sniper rifle, but I don’t really follow early markings.

Crown/RC just means the part is technically out of spec, but military inspectors approved it's use in production. Very common on wartime made stuff.

 

[Absolut]

The handle on this bolt isn’t simply bent down. I don’t believe the ball is even from a Gew 98. ( it’s pear shaped). It looks like the original was removed and a different handle welded in place.
I am not implying this wasn’t done in the period, simply an observation. Looks like a custom made piece. There is no stamp that I can see on the rear of the bend, which was the convention at the time. Interesting piece to discuss.

Maybe I used the wrong terminology. What I had wanted to say was to clear the scope you need a bolt handle that clears the scope. So no straight bolt. This IMHO would verify for this rifle that the bolt it has was done when it was converted (or rebuild) into K98k length. As a result to this the rifle doesn’t only lack the second Deaths Head (no need to convert bolt handle to bent down), but also the shape of the bolt handle doesn‘t resemble the standard K98k pattern, because it was done on a very individual level.
So with a bolt handle like this and an early commercial proof I would indeed expect it to only have one DH on the barrel shank. The absence of the bolt handle cutout on the stock adds to this atop.