First off as a “boomer”, I shouldn’t even post as apparently that is a disqualification for having a legitimate opinion.
Yes I found the boomer comments to be both irreverent to the subject at hand, and personally offensive.
Now on to the rifle. Whenever a rifle shows up that varies from accepted norms, it should be viewed with healthy skepticism. If and when more supporting evidence surfaces, that skepticism will evolve to acceptance by those with an open mind. I see this rifle in the same category as a modified Standard Modell that I posted in 2014. If differed from acceptable norms in various ways, most prominently in have a number matching K98k stock. In my original post I stated my belief that it was a postwar alteration despite stock numbering fronts having a correct appearance. For seven years I considered it a collection of parts, and kept it only for the SM barreled receiver. In March of this year Bruce posted an example he acquired, and information on another. With three examples in the same sn range, I think the consensus shifted to legitimate variation. I think something similar would need to occur to verify this rifle.
The current arguments attempting to justify this rifle seem curious to me. Paraphrasing, one seems to be, “there is so much wrong with this rifle no good faker would make those mistakes.” Based on that premise, I sold a legit SS rifle for less than $500 a few weeks ago, because no faker would add multiple skulls to a midway rifle, so it must be good.
The other side of this argument is all the markings other than the NS Eagle are consistent with legitimate Imperial reworks, therefore the NS marking must be legit. In my 32 years of working for a fortune 100 company, I soon found the most likely answer to an unusual problem, is the easiest one. In this case someone added a NS eagle to an otherwise legitimate Imperial rework, why? Easy answer, profit motive.
More practical considerations, as was already mentioned, the Gew.88 was obsolete by 1918. Many of these were given by Germany as aid to Turkey during the war. And ,speculation on my part, having been largely withdrawn from active duty units, these would have been among the first rifles destroyed to pacify the Allied Commission. While obsolete weapons were retained and rebuilt for police units these seem to be largely carbines, more suited to their use.
I do not claim to be an expert on Imperial era arms, and welcome any correction, two other aspects of this rifle cause me concern. The rear sling attachment point has been modified from the German detachable swivel type to a conventional attachment commonly seen on Gew 88s used post war by other countries. The NS Eagle, call it a proof, acceptance mark or depot mark is applied 90 degrees from the way most German stock markings, Imperial or NS are typically applied.
It would also be interesting to see the buttplate to see what if any Imperial reworks are indicated there.
To sum up this lengthy post. My opinion would closely parallels that of Chris, with the major difference (again I paraphrase) while he agrees with most aspects of the rifle, but not %100 sure of the legitimacy of the NS marking.
I agree with most aspects but not %100 sure of the bogus NS marking.
The imperial part of my brain was going "not 88/05"
