K98k Converted from Karab. 98b/Gew. 98?

[Ricedrizzle]

Just received this in a trade with a fellow on gunboards…what do we think this is? There’s very little I can confidently say about it besides the fact that it’s an early 1925 Simson & Suhl Karab. 98b, marked Gew. 98, that was captured by the Russians. Trader/Seller thinks it’s a depot rework, and I’m inclined to agree but my knowledge about this oddball is limited. I also couldn’t find much online. Any help would be appreciated. (the rifle isn’t this glossy in person, it’s the lighting)

Edit: Just disassembled the rifle. Barrel has proper Weimar proofs. No import marks anywhere.

*Posted over in the Weimar section, but figured this rifle fit in both...

 

[Loewe]

It looks promising... but the huge elephant in the room is the barrel.... it looks factory but shortened but it lack additional fireproofing above the stock with is more than unusual. For a German barrel shortening there needs to have a new f/p, - due to new barrel or shortening, - first thing is confirming this as the factory barrel, second who done it (shortened the barrel or replaced, the latter not likely) clues are probably under the stock.

 

[Absolut]

The step in the barrel just ahead the front barrel band makes me think that the barrel might had been turned down or even extended? I'd check this area in great detail, especially from the inside if you see there had been something joined. Also it appears the front sight has been sleeved on too. Check the muzzle whether there are traces left that would confirm this.

@Loewe at least according to current standards the shortening of a barrel does NOT require a new firing proof if it "just" is shortening - only if this includes a change in diameter too (so if you cut down a barrel you do not need a new firing proof; if you though thread the barrel you do need one). I need to admit that I'd need to check the laws from back then whether they are the same in this context, but I do think so. Additionally though one would need to do a detail check on what was included with the shortening, because for example already small milling for fitting of front sight (base) and/or rear sight (base) could result in the requirement for a reproof.

 

[Ricedrizzle]

Thank you for the replies. Here is a picture of the firing proofs under the stock.

As for the barrel, I’m not seeing anything in the bore that would indicate an extension. @Absolut, how can I check if the front size is sleeved on? I’m not seeing such indications at the muzzle, although the line after the front sight is similar in depth to the “spirals” you see.

Also, unrelated, but the bolt sear gets hung up a bit on the rear action screw. I can’t find others having this issue though—is it the wrong action screw?

 

[Cyrano4747]

Man, I don't care what anyone says about RCs. I will always love the fact that we have them just because of how they have given us a window into some of the real oddball edge cases like this. The raw number of guns that the Soviets scooped up is staggering, and even getting a tiny fraction of a cross section has been invaluable.

 

[Ricedrizzle]

Man, I don't care what anyone says about RCs. I will always love the fact that we have them just because of how they have given us a window into some of the real oddball edge cases like this. The raw number of guns that the Soviets scooped up is staggering, and even getting a tiny fraction of a cross section has been invaluable.

What makes this an oddball RC to me is the total lack of import marking. From my understanding, that’s fairly uncommon?

 

[Stan]

The step in the barrel just ahead the front barrel band makes me think that the barrel might had been turned down or even extended? I'd check this area in great detail, especially from the inside if you see there had been something joined. Also it appears the front sight has been sleeved on too. Check the muzzle whether there are traces left that would confirm this.

@Loewe at least according to current standards the shortening of a barrel does NOT require a new firing proof if it "just" is shortening - only if this includes a change in diameter too (so if you cut down a barrel you do not need a new firing proof; if you though thread the barrel you do need one). I need to admit that I'd need to check the laws from back then whether they are the same in this context, but I do think so. Additionally though one would need to do a detail check on what was included with the shortening, because for example already small milling for fitting of front sight (base) and/or rear sight (base) could result in the requirement for a reproof.

Yes, the barrel was cut and turned down. The circular cuts seem to have been from a poor setting of the tool bit or some other issue at that point. We don't see many of these period cut-down barrels to get a good picture, but there was one, an Amberg 1917 Gew. 98M, posted here some time back that also didn't get a new firing proof. It had the barrel turned down to K98k profile and got a K98k front sight base. The OP rifle seems to have reused the original sight base, which is different. The sloppy machining of the barrel looks off for German done work, but maybe it was deemed acceptable?

 

[Absolut]

As for the barrel, I’m not seeing anything in the bore that would indicate an extension. @Absolut, how can I check if the front size is sleeved on? I’m not seeing such indications at the muzzle, although the line after the front sight is similar in depth to the “spirals” you see.

Well, your barrel has two anomalities:


Versus sample picture of how it should look like (took any image I had at hand). Note the full rear sight base sitting ON the barrel and not being same diameter of barrel, also note angle in barrel step:

 

[Stan]

Well, your barrel has two anomalities:
View attachment 389034

Versus sample picture of how it should look like (took any image I had at hand). Note the full rear sight base sitting ON the barrel and not being same diameter of barrel, also note angle in barrel step:
View attachment 389036

Some of the difference may be from them reusing the original Kar98b/Gew. 98 front sight base which is flush with the barrel at that point. The latter K98k style sat atop the barrel as you show. The step at the upper band is also cut different than one would expect. Still, I'm thinking this may not have been German done, but not too much more to go on. It just looks too sloppy for German work!

 

[runner]

I also have a RC 98b that was converted to K98k specifications and retained its original barrel. Mine shows similarities to the OP rifle.h

The barrel did not get a new fire proof, but the original Weimar proof is present.
Obvious milling marks where the barrel was turned down to K98k profile.
Muzzle of barrel was turned down to attach original front sight flush with the barrel.

I was fortunate to find an original 98b stock that had also been converted to K98k specs.

 

[Ricedrizzle]

I also have a RC 98b that was converted to K98k specifications and retained its original barrel. Mine shows similarities to the OP rifle.h

The barrel did not get a new fire proof, but the original Weimar proof is present.
Obvious milling marks where the barrel was turned down to K98k profile.
Muzzle of barrel was turned down to attach original front sight flush with the barrel.

I was fortunate to find an original 98b stock that had also been converted to K98k specs.

Do you have more pictures of the barrel, specifically towards the muzzle? Thank you

 

[runner]

yes,

 

[Cyrano4747]

What makes this an oddball RC to me is the total lack of import marking. From my understanding, that’s fairly uncommon?

It's not impossible, but frankly I would be skeptical and examine every part of the rifle very, very carefully. The first waves of RCs that came in in the late 90s and early 00s could have some incredibly unobtrusive import marks. Very small font, very lightly struck, and very tastefully located in out of the way areas under the barrel. I saw one years ago where they had actually removed the stock and put the mark under where the bay lug rides. The ATF cracked down on all of this pretty heavily ca. 2006 or so as I recall. That, plus a lot of the bigger companies just being cheap skates, is what leads to the big, ugly dot matrix billboard style marks.

Here's the import mark on one of my RCs. Note that it's shallow enough that it actually didn't impress properly so you can't read the full part of some of the letters. It also wasn't too uncommon to see people take a punch tool and lightly hit the edges of the marks to make them even less apparent.

Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd go over your rifle with a fine toothed comb while it's totally disassembled.

Most of the truly non-import marked RC's I'm aware of are Vietnam bringbacks, and those tend to be in much rougher shape.

 

[Ricedrizzle]

yes,

Here’s what I have to compare. We have the exact same front sight assembly it appears, with the line beginning at the front sight post. Your “step” is a tad further back it appears, though. We do have the same milling marks, although yours appears rougher.

 

[Ricedrizzle]

I

It's not impossible, but frankly I would be skeptical and examine every part of the rifle very, very carefully. The first waves of RCs that came in in the late 90s and early 00s could have some incredibly unobtrusive import marks. Very small font, very lightly struck, and very tastefully located in out of the way areas under the barrel. I saw one years ago where they had actually removed the stock and put the mark under where the bay lug rides. The ATF cracked down on all of this pretty heavily ca. 2006 or so as I recall. That, plus a lot of the bigger companies just being cheap skates, is what leads to the big, ugly dot matrix billboard style marks.

Here's the import mark on one of my RCs. Note that it's shallow enough that it actually didn't impress properly so you can't read the full part of some of the letters. It also wasn't too uncommon to see people take a punch tool and lightly hit the edges of the marks to make them even less apparent.

Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd go over your rifle with a fine toothed comb while it's totally disassembled.

Most of the truly non-import marked RC's I'm aware of are Vietnam bringbacks, and those tend to be in much rougher shape.

I did a full tear down last night and looked for every marking possible. There were no import marks anywhere. I’m leaning towards an importer forgetting to mark this one, since I’ve seen reports of that on RCs.

 

[Stan]

Has the stock been replaced or sanded and refinished? I can't see any trace of the Russian applied s/n on the left side of the stock from the photo showing that location. Also, is this bolt fully matching to itself? The body, safety and gas shield all seem to match at least. Not common on an RC!

 

[Loewe]

The step in the barrel just ahead the front barrel band makes me think that the barrel might had been turned down or even extended? I'd check this area in great detail, especially from the inside if you see there had been something joined. Also it appears the front sight has been sleeved on too. Check the muzzle whether there are traces left that would confirm this.

@Loewe at least according to current standards the shortening of a barrel does NOT require a new firing proof if it "just" is shortening - only if this includes a change in diameter too (so if you cut down a barrel you do not need a new firing proof; if you though thread the barrel you do need one). I need to admit that I'd need to check the laws from back then whether they are the same in this context, but I do think so. Additionally though one would need to do a detail check on what was included with the shortening, because for example already small milling for fitting of front sight (base) and/or rear sight (base) could result in the requirement for a reproof.

Thanks for the insight, - I was speaking from observations and I have never seen a shortening where some form of responsibility isn't made (some sort of sign for the alteration being being made) but you are surely more informed on official German practices and "German done" shortenings are rather rare.

Imo, this is the original barrel but I have doubts it was German performed (done-shortened), though I have never seen an rc shortened either. While I do not know I still think this is one of the neatest rc's I have seen and probably the only one I might have considered keeping for more than shooter or barn-truck gun.

 

[Loewe]

I

I did a full tear down last night and looked for every marking possible. There were no import marks anywhere. I’m leaning towards an importer forgetting to mark this one, since I’ve seen reports of that on RCs.

Thanks for the pictures, probably one of the most interesting rc's I have seen!

 

[runner]

Thanks for the insight, - I was speaking from observations and I have never seen a shortening where some form of responsibility isn't made (some sort of sign for the alteration being being made) but you are surely more informed on official German practices and "German done" shortenings are rather rare.

Imo, this is the original barrel but I have doubts it was German performed (done-shortened), though I have never seen an rc shortened either. While I do not know I still think this is one of the neatest rc's I have seen and probably the only one I might have considered keeping for more than shooter or barn-truck gun.

Paul,
I was hoping you would chime In. Would you be of the same impression with my rifle, that the modification was not German done. (I think you have the data on mine, including barrel markings in your trends work)

My thoughts, maybe wishful thinking, is the two are German mods, perhaps very early when only two firms we’re making K98ks, and the German military was rapidly expanding. The fact that both rifles are RCs I think supports these being German done. We know the Russians “captured“ Gew98s, 98Ms, Kar 98b long rifles, as their parts routinely turn up on RC K98ks.
But I have never seen or heard of an intact Gew98 style rifle being a RC.
It appears the Russians scrapped non standard length mausers as they did non-essential parts like cleaning rods and lock screws during their refurb process. To me this is evidence, not proof, that these rifles were in their present form when the Russians acquired them.

The question remains who did the modifications. My wishful thinking theory, in 1934 and 35 when only Mauser and Sauer were making K98ks, some government/military organization was put to work modifying long rifles. But I have nothing to support this theory.

 

[biggymu]

Well, your barrel has two anomalities:
View attachment 389034

Versus sample picture of how it should look like (took any image I had at hand). Note the full rear sight base sitting ON the barrel and not being same diameter of barrel, also note angle in barrel step:
View attachment 389036

The front sight base on the OP’s rifle is the reused original Gew98 base. these are more of a cap than a sleeve ( flush with barrel surface)