Third Party Press

Kar98AZ - 1912 Danzig

Tones

Member
Hi Team,

Please see attached pics of nearly all markings for my bolt mm Kar.98A. I was looking to try and understand some of it's history.

Things to note:

- Everything matching except front action screw and bolt - which matches itself though)
- Evidence of black painted finish on some parts
- Stock appears lightly sanded and refinished as stampings remain dark and fairly glossy + light colour on wood

Regards,

Tones.

IMG_1938 (Large).JPGIMG_1937 (Large).JPGIMG_1934 (Large).JPGIMG_1933 (Large).JPGIMG_1932 (Large).JPGIMG_1931 (Large).JPGIMG_1931 (Large).JPGIMG_1930 (Large).JPGIMG_1929 (Large).JPGIMG_1928 (Large).JPGIMG_1927 (Large).JPGIMG_1926 (Large).JPGIMG_1925 (Large).JPGIMG_1924 (Large).JPGIMG_1923 (Large).jpgIMG_1922 (Large).JPGIMG_1921 (Large).JPGIMG_1921 (Large).JPGIMG_1916 (Large).JPGIMG_1915 (Large).JPGIMG_1914 (Large).JPGIMG_1912 (Large).jpg
 
Last edited:
Is there any markings on the top tang of the buttplate? It is possible it is, but there is a good chance a rifle this early would have a unit.

Danzig/1912 is not a rare maker, but a relative few were made (45-50,000) compared to during the war. A rifle like this would have been in a cavalry unit (several different types), artillery, or support troops (communications, supply, etc.). A significant number from this maker-date are cavalry issue, but unless the buttplate is marked, there is no way to tell who it was issued to.
 
I'll have a better look at the buttplate tonight and take any relevant photos, thanks.

With respect to the condition:

- Is there any reason for the painted parts? Is it a post Imperial rework? - I have Storz' book but haven't yet gone through it for 'depot marks'

- Can the stock finish be confirmed as non-original? If so, is it recommended to restore to original finish? Can the original oil finish mixture be confirmed?

Regards,

Tones.
 
Painted parts - under no circumstance, that I am aware of, did the Germans paint parts. The only exception being stocks and whitewash, though I am not sure to what extent this was common in WWI. I use to be a big collector of period images and offhand I can't recall seeing whitewashed rifles in a period picture (including winter scenes). Import rifles do show up with painted parts, typically from backward countries, but sometimes importers do it also, - like with many Spanish imports (not sure if the Spaniards did it or the importer, but it is common. I suspect the importer did this, not the Spaniards.) I do not think Storz is a very good book for something like this, the book is excellent dealing with documents and archives the author had access too, including rifles in institutions he had access to, but the book is shockingly poor dealing with actual rifles because he didn't ask for or rely on collectors for any observations. Several variations are not even mentioned and next to nothing for the last stages of the war and early interwar period.

Tampering with stocks - this is almost always a bad idea. I almost never give advise on practices for this reason, - naturally any course would depend on knowing what was done to it and i can't tell from these pictures if it has been coated with anything. Looks like perhaps light sanding, but it has sharp edges and clear markings, I would take the Hippocratic Oath here and do no harm..



I'll have a better look at the buttplate tonight and take any relevant photos, thanks.

With respect to the condition:

- Is there any reason for the painted parts? Is it a post Imperial rework? - I have Storz' book but haven't yet gone through it for 'depot marks'

- Can the stock finish be confirmed as non-original? If so, is it recommended to restore to original finish? Can the original oil finish mixture be confirmed?

Regards,

Tones.
 
By the way, this is a Kar.98a, not an Kar.98AZ. No such thing as a Kar.98AZ, a designation that was used for a trails rifle. Storz does good work here, correcting a myth long perpetrated on the hobby by John Walter and others.
 
By the way, this is a Kar.98a, not an Kar.98AZ. No such thing as a Kar.98AZ, a designation that was used for a trails rifle. Storz does good work here, correcting a myth long perpetrated on the hobby by John Walter and others.

Thanks for the correction on this, I've never quite understood - is the Kar.98A and Kar.98B the earlier carbines with 'spoon-handle' bolts?
 
This topic is covered several times on the forum, but in brief, the kar.98AZ was one of a number of trial rifles that led to the Kar.98 long "rifle", earlier there had been a short lived "short" Kar.98 which are rare today. Storz did not discover this fact and most experienced collectors already knew the Kar.98AZ designation was incorrect; MauserBill was as busy as a one legged man in a a$$ kicking contest correcting this myth 15 years before Storz book was printed. But many others also tried to explain this discrepancy in nomenclature, but it is hard to create change when several books copied each other with this error (authors tend to rely on other authors or researchers work and it is easy for a error to become set in, Storz book has helped a great deal in correcting this problem, so has time, as many of the earlier books are not read or relied upon anymore).

The Germans of the time simply called this rifle a Kar.98 or Karabiner, as the siderail designation suggest, service manuals and tactical doctrine manuals all use the word Karabiner, not kar.98a or Kar.98AZ, but officially in the early 1920's a distinction had to be made when the Germans introduced the Kar.98b, so the Kar.98 became the Kar.98a, and since collectors must also deal with the same distinctions (between Kar.98 short, Kar.98a, Kar.98b and Kar.98k) we use Kar.98a to distinguish the carbine from the others.

The Kar.98b is basically a Gewehr98 with a side sling arrangement and bent bolt, same length and general appearance. It was designed for mounted soldiers and men that carried/needed a rifle but needed their hands free, cavalry (originally its designation was rifle for riders or cavalry or something like that), support troops etc. The kar.98k was developed from this rifle in a round about way (generally, it was a convoluted process and the true origin probably was an independent development from Mauser's Standard Modell/Mauser Banner, but the actual-early Army experiments worked from a shortened Kar.98b which lost steam due to funding problems, 1930 was a REALLY bad time for starting a rifle program anywhere, but especially in Germany...), but all of these rifles are generally the same basic design, although the Kar.98a is small ring while the others are large ring and several parts are not interchangeable.

BTW, this Danzig/1912 shows no sign of interwar service, it probably was taken in WWI and brought to a "Allied" country, Australia perhaps, some nice German rifles made it to Australia after all the wars they got dragged into by England, - Boer War, WWI and probably WWII, at one time there were a lot of fine rifles in Australia, this might have been one, but I suppose the draconian laws have changed their availability recently. Anyway, I doubt this rifle saw service in post-1918 Germany.
 
As far as I'm aware (from what I was told), the rifle is now currently third hand in Australia.

I am the third, the collector I bought it off was second (who owned it for ~30yrs) and the original that the collector bought it off was the first (who owned it the remainder).

The original Australian owner could explain the bolt mismatch due to when selecting them, the rifles were in one pile and the bolts were in another. I don't know where this took place.

Should this thread be moved to Imperial?
 
Last edited:
I moved it, it really should be here, though most people interested in the interwar period also follow the Imperial era. (not necessarily the other way around)
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top