S/243 1937 vs BYF43

[Illen]

Hi,

Been posting photos of various rifles over the years for a second opinion from you guys, which have saved me from some "traps" and made me continue my search for a rifle to start my collection with. I've now been eying two rifles for some time.

They are both said to be matching numbers and I still need some more photos to verify that. Nevertheless, if we ASSUME they are both matching numbers. Which rifle would you put your money on? Taking into consideration collectability, condition, quality, you name it.. It would be very helpful and a good guidance for me. And also of course, if you see something that raises an eyebrow, please let me know.


Meanwhile I'll try to get hold of some more photos.

 

[Illen]

More..

 

[Illen]

The BYF43

 

[Illen]

More BYF43

 

[Illen]

More BYF

 

[mauser202]

I like the byf better. Although the 243 looks nice, the stock looks sanded and coated with something IMO.

 

[AN-94]

The stock on the S/243 has been sanded, the side acceptance proofs are totally gone from what the pictures show, the bolt cutout shows rounded edges as well as the sling slot, and the keel markings are weak. I would personally pass on it, the sanded stock instantly ruins it for me. The byf 43 looks promising, the only confusing me on it is the numbering of the bayonet lug which was dropped in 1942 and is absent on my byf 43 e block. What's the WaA on the bayonet lug?

 

[Philip]

I agree with the others that the byf appears to be the better of the two. I really like pre war 98ks even pre 42 98ks and I give them a lot of slack but the stock kills this one for me.

 

[Illen]

Thank you all for your inputs! I'm quite new in the game and still learning how to determine whether or not the stock has been sanded. I'm trying to get a better photo of the WaA of the bayonet lug from the seller. Nevertheless he did not know why the bayonet lug is numbered on this one. Could it be an early production BYF43 and the numbering on the bayonet lug was not completely phased out yet?


I'd agree with Philip, I'm honestly more fond of the pre-war K98s and prefer walnut stocks. I've been searching for one quite extensively Europe and you don't see K98s in this condition very often. If you'd assume the numbering on the bayonet lug is correct for this rifle, what would be a fair price for this rifle in your opinion?

 

[Philip]

If you are in Europe I can not venture a price range there but from experience there in years past I know that rifles like the byf 43 condition wise are tough to find anymore. In the US I think that the byf 43 would sell in the $2000-$3000 range. I’d sell it in minutes at a good show for $2000 and big dealers would move it at $3000 I believe with little problem but maybe slightly more time.

 

[Illen]

The stock on the S/243 has been sanded, the side acceptance proofs are totally gone from what the pictures show, the bolt cutout shows rounded edges as well as the sling slot, and the keel markings are weak. I would personally pass on it, the sanded stock instantly ruins it for me. The byf 43 looks promising, the only confusing me on it is the numbering of the bayonet lug which was dropped in 1942 and is absent on my byf 43 e block. What's the WaA on the bayonet lug?

Here are some more photos of the Waa on the bayonet lug, not a very clear stamp but the number is 135 accoring to the seller.

 

[bruce98k]

The stock on the S/243 is a replacement stock. There may be a depot mark somewhere but not visible in photos.

 

[Illen]

The stock on the S/243 is a replacement stock. There may be a depot mark somewhere but not visible in photos

How do you see it’s a replacement stock?

 

[bruce98k]

There are no visible side inspection stamps and the large takedown disk was not a feature until 1939.
I believe its an armorers replacement stock. In addition, that letter block should be walnut and not laminate.
There were limited releases of laminate stocks on Berlin Borsigwalde rifles very late in the 1937 production year.

 

[Illen]

I'm back studying the BYF as a potential first K98k.. As AN-94 previously stated, the bayonet lug should be un-numbered, so I'm trying to think of any reasonable explanations why it is...

As far as I can see, the rifle is matching thoughout, everything look authentic and correct (except the bayonet lug).

If we would assume the rifle once upon a time was matching numbers with an un-numbered bayonet lug, wouldn't it be unlikely that someone had a bayonet lug with the same number as the rest of the rifle laying around and exchanged them to make the rifle completely matching? This would not make sense, since leaving the un-numbered bayonet lug on would be the appropriate action.

Could someone have taken an un-numbered lug, used dies with the correct font and faked it? Perhaps not very likely either, as someone putting that much effort in making fakes probably knows what to fake and not to fake..

Or could it simply be that the rifle left the factory like that? I have no sane answer why suddenly this rifle (and potentially more) left the factory with numbered bayonet lugs the year after they stopped numbering them.


I would appreciate if someone could shine some light on this matter as I cannot wrap my head around it. Is this an obvious red flag and I should stay away from it?

Best regards

 

[whcoyote]

I am suspicious of the barrel crown on the byf/43. Although the bore is quite nice, the crown looks to be re-cut or perhaps dressed. For an 81 year-old rifle, the total absence of any ding mark is suspicious. Also, the radius profile (don’t know the correct term) is too flat, tool marks too fresh and ID/OD edges too sharp.
Just my opinion.

 

[Illen]

Thank you for your inputs! I do agree that the rifle is in quite nice condition, however I still think the rifle shows some wear. Compared to other BYFs recently posted that looks like they just left the factory.

The crown is something I’ll have to look into, yet I’m also trying to find a reasonable explanation for the numbered bayonet lug… Any idea?

Sincerely,
Illen

 

[whcoyote]

The receiver code on this rifle is byf/43, which shows it was Manufactured at Mauser Oberndorf in 1943. The bayonet lug on this rifle, if matching, should be blank - no WaA and no serial number. Regardless of what scenario you may formulate, it is at least mismatched, at most it is humped.
Take the action out of the stock. There should be the serial number of the rifle stamped inside the stock barrel channel and inside top of the hand guard. If there are two sets of numbers stamped inside, RUN! If there is only one serial number stamped inside, and it matches, lay a metal ruler edge down against the wood squarely across the numbers. Try to slide a piece of paper under the straight edge. If you can, RUN! If not, then you have a stock with a humped bayo lug. What is the stock date code?
The recoil lug seems to have a WaA stamp on it. It, too should be blank. More red flags.
If it were offered to me as “all matching, I would pass.
It is one thing to have a mismatched stock - quite another to have a humped one.
All that said, there is the possibility of an anomaly. Yours is a e-block rifle. There were about 198,400 rifles made prior to it in 1943. Chances of an anomaly are pretty small.