Late War Sauer Commercial

[Hambone]

I could buy that on most other examples but, this one shows the same exact numbering as "in house" JPS k98s. The font, even the rake and the spacing of the numbers in exact.

Then you're agreeing with what I stated, which was that everything is consistent with a JPS finished bcd 4 receiver except the lack of e/37 inspections and the bolt numbering. Note that the same "U" on the right of the receiver is stamped on the underside of the bolt. Was this done on the same assy. line as those, IMHO, no. Was it finished by a "custom shop" for JPS or an assy. point or distribution type facility within the JPS assy. facilities? Probably.

 

[mrfarb]

To me the bolt numbering is consistent with standard JPS production.

 

[Pisgah]

Almost like a standard JPS that was rejected or failed final inspection and perhaps went down some sort of salvage pathway.

 

[Hambone]

To me the bolt numbering is consistent with standard JPS production.

At first glance, yes, seriphed and hand stamped unevenly, but look at the size of the font on the bolt stem. That's what I've seen on reworks/repairs, not e/37 finished bcd 4 regular production JPS. "Slant" or "rake" and uneven spacing is what one individual did on one rifle at one time on one day, and that changes from rifle to rifle. That's the nature of handstamping. The key is the dies used. As stated, the dies look like JPS seriphed dies as on the e/37 bcd 4 production, BUT not the bolt die, which is far larger IMHO.

Almost like a standard JPS that was rejected or failed final inspection and perhaps went down some sort of salvage pathway.

This is what I think as well. What was that pathway? Was it outsourced to another shop or assembly area within the JPS assembly region to get this stuff away from the main assembly line? All manner of austerity measures were being taken and Volkssturm were being armed with all manner of weapons, whatever they could get their hands on. Why reroute salvage and additional, non-main line, K98ks back through to be inspected? I don't think this a custom shop or "commercial", simply a reject or assembly at a JPS related/affiliated/nearby facility other than the main assembly line.

To differentiate, I deem these true "commercials" with commercial inspections/proofs and high polish, etc., to be for political / nonmilitary entities or people. I think the subject rifle is more along the lines of a depot built as it relates to the "end user". Please read this post closely before disagreeing as there are nuances here which lend themselves to misinterpretation.

 

[Hambone]

Farb, the subject rifle bolt on the left vs. JPS late '44.:

 

[mauser99]

Then you're agreeing with what I stated, which was that everything is consistent with a JPS finished bcd 4 receiver except the lack of e/37 inspections and the bolt numbering. Note that the same "U" on the right of the receiver is stamped on the underside of the bolt. Was this done on the same assy. line as those, IMHO, no. Was it finished by a "custom shop" for JPS or an assy. point or distribution type facility within the JPS assy. facilities? Probably.

if that's what you were referring to than yes. As noted most all depot/ even rebarreled rifles the font differs greatly. This rifle was no doubt numbered by the same hands as standard ce44/bcd4 production.. The clues are all there. When was the e/37 added before or after test firing ? If its before why does it not have it ? Was it added the same time the e/H was added to the stock ? Possibly so ? Im sure its going to be one of those things we don't have the answer to yet, Or will ever have.

Kinda reminds me of Radommans weird possibly Y block JPS long side rail.. no one could figure that one out either.

 

[Hambone]

if that's what you were referring to than yes. As noted most all depot/ even rebarreled rifles the font differs greatly. This rifle was no doubt numbered by the same hands as standard ce44/bcd4 production.. The clues are all there. When was the e/37 added before or after test firing ? If its before why does it not have it ? Was it added the same time the e/H was added to the stock ? Possibly so ? Im sure its going to be one of those things we don't have the answer to yet, Or will ever have.

That's what my post said. And as I also said, everything is consistent EXCEPT for the lack of e/37 inspections AND the bolt font. Where I disagree is your assertion that the bolt was numbered by the "same hands" or the same dies as used in late JPS production. While both are seriphed and both are hand stamped, the size and details of the font are obviously different. I've probably owned three or four e/37 bcd 4s and seen many more and I've never seen one with that size bolt font, which is quite obviously larger. So no, IMHO it was not done on the same line as the e/37 bcd 4 rifles.

Looking at the pics provided in post nr.25, right above yours, do you think the font is the same in the pic of a late '44 JPS and the subject rifle? Because, if the bolt numbers are different, it wouldn't seem logical that it was done on the same line as the late bcd 4 / e/37 rifles. Would they have a special die box for just these rifle bolts from these uninspected rifles for a different contract? That makes very little sense, is confusing and inefficient.

 

[RyanE]

Compared with an x block. I don't know, the fonts look virtually identical to me...

 

[Hambone]

Compared with an x block. I don't know, the fonts look virtually identical to me...

You're right. But they don't look like that other JPS I depicted, which is an "o". The x block doesn't look like that "o" either, they are distinctly different IMHO. So whatever this is, we can put it closer to, or in the X production range as opposed to the O. So it's in the regular production run and not final inspected? So the only variable now from regular production is the lack of an e/37.

 

[Pisgah]

I am working from memory, but didn't MO stop trying to fix problem rifles somewhere during 1944 and simply started putting them aside in order to concentrate on putting out as many rifles as possible? Seems like I remember this from somewhere and also seems like I remember reading that the French captured the defective rifles along with the factory, then fixed the issues and kept the rifles, supposedly accounting for the existence of French marked rifles prior to the svwMB c block. I am wondering if Sauer didn't set their problem rifles aside also, then possibly shipped them to a separate facility or some kind of parallel pathway for repair. This could account for the similarity of the rifles with U's and diamonds to standard production ce's.

 

[Hambone]

My first thought based upon the distinctive bolt font, was that the subject rifle started life as a bcd 4 receiver through normal JPS and flunked, for bolt reasons or similar, and the components ended up going a different place or route, per MO type process of dealing with rejects you stated. That bolt font is not the same as an O block JPS, but it is on an X, so it's late. It went through that line but never was final inspected.

So, the Farb "separate commercial contract" theory (as opposed to reject finished by another or near facility) on a normal line or at least substantially completed and diverted to another part of the facility for finishing and shipment seems to be the best theory of what it is.

 

[Loewe]

A rifle with some similarities... 1944 bcd ser. 361

This rifle has some similarities, the rejected nature of the receiver and bolt, no final acceptance, but it is SBO (serialing barrel only), which would place it in a range after the "k" block which all seem to have SRO, and all rifles after are SBO. This rifle also has a JPS barrel, lot "ch", which is typically found on late 43 or early 44 production rifles.

Bands are the same; the TG-FP group is also the same, which as many know, that while the FP should be serialed till the end of JPS production, the TG stops much earlier, around the h-i blocks.

I tend to agree with Eric, these rifles have something in common with JPS, obviously, but not normal production, perhaps some latewar expedient to reuse previously rejected components, - the serialing pattern on Rob's b/r is not normal for any ce/44 obviously, perhaps the expedient nature (using rejected components) of the assembly made them serial both the barrel & receiver. I wouldn't call this rifle a commercial rifle though, it lacking commercial proofs means it isn't commercial made (it has military proofing, just lacking normal characteristics doesn't make it commercial and Thüringen had a commercial proof house, if they wanted to commercially proof it they could have).

Anyway, 361 was on auction a couple times in 2007 & 2008, I will post a few auction pictures for collectors to compare. There might be others, I haven't had time to thoroughly go through these oddballs and trend them all.


While the auction text is worthless, or nearly so, I will post it all the same because it gives some descriptions of value:

Description for Item # 93044452


This k98 has 3 little oddities i found intersting, 1))) the band retaing spring has a very odd mark of which i have never seen before (clearly pictured PIC 13), 2)))the front band is both numbered on the left and right, same matching numbers but the number on right looks older and matches the rear band font perfectly as well as rest of rifle (see pic 13), 3))) the barrel has a sort of ""(chisel X) mark"", the barrel mark and the second matching number on band lead me to believe this had some sort of arsenal or minor field repair... Either way it is very interesting, (please dont confuse the mark on the barrel with a russian capture "X" as that would be totally wrong)... all metal is properly marked and is easily identified as being correct and "unaltered original condition" as well as original finish..., there are no scrub marks no grind marks, no pinged marks etc.etc.etc ... I believe this rifle to be a no suffix early 1944 BCD4 assembled at Sauer. The high luster Blue finish is all original... This JP Sauer finish is unique with a very dark almost commercial looking high luster finish, many prefer JP Sauer rifles for this very reason. This BCD 4 mauser k98 is a non import, she has excellent wood, metal and bore...the bore is bright, shiny with super strong sharp defined rifling... muzzle is nice and tight.... has the original thick german sight hood...this K98 is all matching numbers including the original handguard, stock bands, bolt, triggerguard, action and lock screws...(((the lower buttstock, buttplate and bayo lug are all original to themselves and are a 1945 unnumbered dou45 stock with a eagle on right butt purely for restoration purposes)))... basically the rifle is all matching original minus the 1945 unnumbered buttstock...the stock matches the original handguard nicely, and all wood is excellent, with no laminate seperations or cracks as well as never sanded...overall a very attractive rifle in excellent shape, with a excellent bore, wood and metal, non import and 100% ready for the field range and or collection....Cert funds personal check (hold) OR VISA MCARD accpeted at 3%...FAX ffl for super fast delvery, or mail is fine also...

 

[Hambone]

Loewe, I agree with that. The b/r serialing is indeed odd, not customary for a rifle with those features of the bcd 4 / e/37 I'm familiar with, with serialing more as shown. I don't think it a "commercial" either. A reject or completion somewhere else, particularly if the bolt serialing is not standard for whenever that thing was finished. Rifle 361 as you depicted looks to be the same, or quite nearly so, as the OP rifle.

 

[gergnotwen]

Any indication the bolt could have been made by FN?

 

[mauser99]

yes, the MI is indication of F/N manufacture. Its usually on the lug. Not next to it. But, f/n just the same. The other bolt used is the Astrawerke bolt.

 

[Bigdibbs88]

This is an interesting thread im glad this kicked up some debate.

No indication of FN manufacture. Of interest however, there is a ghost of a sauer-esque fireproof on the rear of the bolt handle. A few other pics in addition....heavily tooled rear sight.....also cant tell if the rough spot was caused by corrosion or some sort of metal defect? Looks like cleaned corrosion, but I think I see file marks and dont know anyone has cleaned it.....if they did they left untouched air rust right above it....

 

[jbmauser]

Wow, that rear sight bed is pretty rough.

Interesting rifle and thread.

Edit:

I thought I'd add a pic of the MI mark on my byf 42 k block just for comparison. Not marked on the lug like most.

 

[CanadianAR]

Definitely an interesting rifle.

Jeremy my byf42 ii block FN bolt is marked the same, behind the lug, but an earlier one is on the lug.

 

[maxximmumm]

following on from my last post, are we able to say with reasonable confidence that all ser no. known are below 1000, have no suffix and there are no markings anywhere on the rifle including the stock normally associated with the branch of the armed service (which mainstream 98k usually display) ?

 

[Pisgah]

following on from my last post, are we able to say with reasonable confidence that all ser no. known are below 1000, have no suffix and there are no markings anywhere on the rifle including the stock normally associated with the branch of the armed service (which mainstream 98k usually display) ?

The branch of service marking on the stock wasn't always there after about 1941. MO went to Eagle over 135 and never had the branch of service marking again. Other than MO, the other manufacturers pretty much did not mark the right stock markings in 1943. After 1943 Steyr, Sauer, and Bruenn used the eagle/H. Bruenn II continued to not mark their stocks externally (except for a few minor markings). One more thing is that through approximately 1941 you could find Eagle/L and Eagle/M markings but after that no more. That suggests to me that after that point the Eagle/H likely didn't necessarily mean that the rifle was headed to the Heer. Basically what I'm saying is that I doubt if the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe were cut off from receiving new rifles after that point, meaning that the Eagle/H marking must have taken on some other meaning in the inspection process.