My Single Shot VK-98

[Gunrunner]

Here is my single shot VK-98 that walked into a local show in the mid '80s and I was able to get it and take it home, as it will need a new home soon I want to have it reviewed as it is not your "typical VK-98".

Chuck

 

[Gunrunner]

More Pictures

 

[Wright]

Im sorry brother I cant sugar coat it this whole thing is bad

 

[mrfarb]

I agree with Wright, complete fabrication. Someone made it based on photos of one as it’s close but no cigar. Would make a good wall hanger over the fireplace where people couldn’t take it down and examine it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[swjXE]

It'd be a fun toy if one could buy it cheap enough!
Wright is absolutely right!

 

[Aaron]

I know a guy whos been looking for a reproduction of one of these things, if you don't want the thing I'm sure some reenactor or someone who wants a representative piece would still be interested in this as well.

 

[mauser99]

interesting as the stock looks like possibly pine not solid beech.. Someone spent a lot of time on this one though...

 

[jack944]

Yep

interesting as the stock looks like possibly pine not solid beech.. Someone spent a lot of time on this one though...

Yes they did....they were several of these floating in the 80's at OCGA shows. Not much info on them so it was a lot easier.

 

[swjXE]

interesting as the stock looks like possibly pine not solid beech.. Someone spent a lot of time on this one though...

That's a good call on the wood. An original would be beech, and this one looks like it could be pine or douglas fir.

 

[SVW1945]

It could be pine. Doug Fur would be darker or orange looking.

 

[mrfarb]

I realize nobody has pointed out what makes this fake, I’ll do that.

1 - Receiver should be bnz44(rare) or bnz45 marked.
2 - Front sight is made incorrectly. Originals are a band with a block between them at the top, then welded. If you know what originals look like it’s easy to spot.
3 - Stock is the wrong wood type, should be Beech. Also missing small details of originals
4 - Bolt is a disaster. Should be either factory bent or straight, not bent with a tire iron and late round gas hole type
5 - Barrel shows obvious weld where the rear sight set screw goes. The originals used reject or partially finished barrels
6 - Finish is clearly not original phosphate, grinding obvious on side rail
7 - serial incorrect font and range for this stock type
8 - no firing proof, should have one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[swjXE]

Thanks Farb, that pretty much covers it all. Wow, I had no idea there was a bnz 44 marked VK 98. Very cool!

 

[heavy_mech]

..I had no idea there was a bnz 44 marked VK 98.

Seriously rejected receivers that didn't get built out?

 

[mrfarb]

The US Army has a museum somewhere with a bnz44 marked example that is legit, I’d have to dig up where I saw it. I think the Ranger museum or something like that. I’m sure others exist if 1 does. Here’s an old auction photo of a bolt mismatch one that looks real.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flynaked]

With the amount of ss contract leftovers that turn up throughout 1945 it makes sense, I’d be surprised if we don’t see more in the future.

 

[swjXE]

Thanks a million Farb, never expected to see a photo. It's great that they didn't even think it was worthy of the bnz stamp.
This is absolutely "bitchin"! Oops, I'm not sure anyone uses that term anymore.