Third Party Press

Ss double claw for opinions.

OK

mauser99 said:
The serial # on the barrel is legit. These seem to flip flop from barrel to receiver and visa verse. That's not the issue.. Added horrible F.P. and serial # on the receiver that shouldn't be there and why its there has me ??? the rifle. I will have him clean out the paint and I will go back over with a look and look at the markings. The SSzza2 is certainly good enough to fool most.
Click to expand...

Wayne,

Thanks for putting the warnings out for this one. Nice work. It looks like another sniper made post war. I hope no one ends up paying a lot for this turd.

Brian
 
Hercules said:
Wayne,

Thanks for putting the warnings out for this one. Nice work. It looks like another sniper made post war. I hope no one ends up paying a lot for this turd.

Brian
Click to expand...

Well, my intention was for the seller and potential buyer to get rifle assessed by a bias committee that had no dog in it other than to give an honest opinion.
More eyes the better on items like this..

I have looked at it twice really close and thought it was ok at first till I really looked deep then compared it to known good examples.

This rifle IMHO still has some value to someone who wants one but doesn't want to pay the price for a real one.

My buddy the current owner hopefully bought it long enough ago he paid little for it and can still get out from under it and make a few bucks.

One more reason these forums are so important and the fact that guys contribute and post known good examples of rare stuff. There is a pretty good date base here and will hope most stay out of trouble if they want to learn...
 
OK

mauser99 said:
Well, my intention was for the seller and potential buyer to get rifle assessed by a bias committee that had no dog in it other than to give an honest opinion.
More eyes the better on items like this..

I have looked at it twice really close and thought it was ok at first till I really looked deep then compared it to known good examples.

This rifle IMHO still has some value to someone who wants one but doesn't want to pay the price for a real one.

My buddy the current owner hopefully bought it long enough ago he paid little for it and can still get out from under it and make a few bucks.

One more reason these forums are so important and the fact that guys contribute and post known good examples of rare stuff. There is a pretty good date base here and will hope most stay out of trouble if they want to learn...
Click to expand...

Yes I thought this was a good one to learn from.
 
Hello,

besides what others have already said or maybe I missed it the Dovetail cut outs are quite incorrect looks like they were cut to deep. way to much of the cut seen while the bases are installed.

later
vaughn
 
vaughn99 said:
Hello,

besides what others have already said or maybe I missed it the Dovetail cut outs are quite incorrect looks like they were cut to deep. way to much of the cut seen while the bases are installed.

later
vaughn
Click to expand...

thanks Vaughn. what's your thoughts on the dow scope and rings ? Post war ? The dow looks off and scope looks buffed.
 
mauser99 said:
thanks Vaughn. what's your thoughts on the dow scope and rings ? Post war ? The dow looks off and scope looks buffed.
Click to expand...

The Scope & Rings could be Period Original even thought it has no Rifle Number on Tube , need pics of back side of rear ring and Scope Ser# is most important to tell if Period Original or not . Best Regards
 
Dave Roberts said:
The Scope & Rings could be Period Original even thought it has no Rifle Number on Tube , need pics of back side of rear ring and Scope Ser# is most important to tell if Period Original or not . Best Regards
Click to expand...

there is one.. a be it a bit blurry. the e/63 looks good to me.. Looks consistent with all others Ive seen. Where is the scope serial # located ?
 
mauser99 said:
there is one.. a be it a bit blurry. the e/63 looks good to me.. Looks consistent with all others Ive seen. Where is the scope serial # located ?
Click to expand...

Should be on Back End Underside of Scope Tube and also on Backside of Rear Ring
Pic attached shows Scope Ser#A 850.
 

Attachments

  • img123.jpg
    img123.jpg
    298.9 KB · Views: 66
Last edited:
that's on the ring not on the scope. the rear ring in that spot is blank. The only marks I saw were e/63 on both. pictured.

This is the same angle and area you show in that book. its blank less e/63
 

Attachments

  • 017.jpg
    017.jpg
    189.3 KB · Views: 75
Last edited:
Possibility the Rings maybe repro . Robert made these Years back and they were near perfect reproduction . Could also be it was never Mounted to a Rifle , picked up at depot . To hard to tell from pics . Best Regards .
 
I also once made reproductions, without markings. And the WaA63 stamp can be bought, the Axxx stamp not.
 
Absolut said:
I also once made reproductions, without markings. And the WaA63 stamp can be bought, the Axxx stamp not.
Click to expand...

How long ago ? How many sets made ?.

Just about every stamp made and used by all branches of Armed Forces and other Government Agencies is reproduced now . It is very sad for collectors who want only original items . It could be compared to landing on Normandy Beach on D-Day trying to dodge this mine field of fakes one wrong move KABOOM!!!!!!! You've blown some big $$$$$$ . Best Regards
 
The base rifle is really nice (apart from the white paint) and someone will be lucky to own it but i dont know enough to comment on the mounts etc.If theyre wrong then thats too bad,Its sad when folks monkey around with original rifles.It happens here in the uk all too often.
 
updated photo.

I went back and took out the white paint.. I tried to get a photo with my camera. This is the best I could do. I looked at it with a loop and its definitely stamped not engraved. the barrel has a ch marking. not sure if that's the lot code or F/N barrel code.

click on the photo 3 times to supersize it.. it's not the best but, I tried.....
 

Attachments

  • 001.jpg
    001.jpg
    287.5 KB · Views: 87
  • 004.jpg
    004.jpg
    260.3 KB · Views: 55
  • 005.jpg
    005.jpg
    219.7 KB · Views: 53
Double Claw

It is actually a pretty good copy of one I think. The firing proof on the receiver looks like it was added post war. SSZZA2 is a little off, but better than the firing proof. The bases for the scope on the rifle look repro. Thanks for the other pics without the white stuff.

Brian
 
Hercules said:
It is actually a pretty good copy of one I think. The firing proof on the receiver looks like it was added post war. SSZZA2 is a little off, but better than the firing proof. The bases for the scope on the rifle look repro. Thanks for the other pics without the white stuff.

Brian
Click to expand...



Brian, if it wasn't for the added serial # and the odd proof I really wouldn't have second guesses this rifle at all.. Who ever made it did a good job but, added to much !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top