SS Double Claw observation that hasn't been discussed

[mrfarb]

In a day and age it seems everything has been discussed ad nauseum, I was speaking to Dave Roberts about SS double claw rifles and had an interesting observation I've never considered:

Why are most SS double claw rings Waffenamt accepted?

These double claw rifles were manufactured exclusively for the SS, and were built using mostly SS contract (no waffenamt acceptance) and SSZZA4 rifles (again no acceptance). Very few bnz43/bnz42 and possibly dou43 were used, but there are rifles from SS depots that were supplied to the SS in exchange for labor provided to Steyr in the manufacture of Heer contract rifles. There was a big rub with the SS over the SS contract rifles lack of waffenamt oversight, which was expressed in documents we've seen. But SS contract rifles were made outside of Waffenamt inspection.

Possibility - the Army planned to make use of them at some point? Doubtful, the Army was looking to standardize to the LSR rifle in the future. Perhaps in a stopgap measure? Possible I guess.

 

[biggymu]

That is weird. e/63 right? Mine has it also. Hiding in plain sight all these years.

 

[RyanE]

The SS M.41 that Ian got to look at seems to have a WaA accepted barrel. It would be interesting to take a closer look at others.

The rings were manufactured in-house by Bruun, so maybe it was simply bureaucratic inertia. The parts were being made on the line the WaA controlled so the WaA team inspected them. The SS had Bruun make some SS M42 SMGs without authorization which I think caused some friction with the HWA, so maybe there was some agreement to keep the SS from repeating that.

Inspecting the install of the glass may have been considered the responsibility of the SS. Bruun didn't assemble snipers for the Army, so perhaps that work was done in an area (commercial work, maybe) that wasn't under the supervision of the WaA. Or the Army just didn't care.

 

[Dave Roberts]

The SS M.41 that Ian got to look at seems to have a WaA accepted barrel. It would be interesting to take a closer look at others.

The rings were manufactured in-house by Bruun, so maybe it was simply bureaucratic inertia. The parts were being made on the line the WaA controlled so the WaA team inspected them. The SS had Bruun make some SS M42 SMGs without authorization which I think caused some friction with the HWA, so maybe there was some agreement to keep the SS from repeating that.

Inspecting the install of the glass may have been considered the responsibility of the SS. Bruun didn't assemble snipers for the Army, so perhaps that work was done in an area (commercial work, maybe) that wasn't under the supervision of the WaA. Or the Army just didn't care.

Just thought I should also mention as Mike may have forgotten or did not believe it was relevant to mention that the 1st SSDC/earliest Rings have no e/63 proof marks they also have no Scope Serial number on them , the scope serial can be seen on the scope tube .

 

[Absolut]

Why are most SS double claw rings Waffenamt accepted?

Quoting from a period document (translated) and maybe important in this context:

According to the agreement with Optikotechna, the riflescopes are to be delivered ready-made, with the holders mounted. The only thing that would be required on the telescopes would therefore be to fit the holder ends (feet), on which a small machining allowance is left for this purpose.

It is therefore clear that the rings were already on the scopes when they were delivered to Waffenwerke Brünn, which were ("only") supposed to manufacture the bases, fit them to the (to be supplied) rifles and finally reblue the whole rifle. Theoretically therefore the acceptance stamp could already had been applied at Optikotechna, but since scopes usually do not carry any type of acceptance stamps I'd rather doubt they did it. It may had been a part of the process to fit the claws to the bases.

 

[mrfarb]

This is the issue - inspection of 5000 some odd sets (which means 10,000 individual pieces) of double claw bases is not inconsequential work - these inspectors were paid by the German government- even if the action was perfunctory as Ryan surmises, this puts the effort and expense of these inspections on the Heereswaffenamt. Waffenamt inspection of SS contract rifle components was skipped - why not these bases?

I know bases were pre assembled, but how clear is it that Optikotechna actually made the rings? I’m not sure that’s a final conclusion, existing documents are all from prior to work starting. It’s possible - if you look at “early” serial numbered examples (by scope serial) the first run of rings are not inspected, and some appear to have different locking claws, etc - almost like mixed commercial components.

The main reason that makes sense to me is that the army possibly anticipated or considered using the double claw mounting system. Total conjecture, and something we know didn’t happen.

 

[Absolut]

I’m not sure that’s a final conclusion, existing documents are all from prior to work starting.

Yes, you are correct on that, however, note that at least this is something one should therefore consider more likely. Because otherwise everyone has to consider everything to be off unless there will be post documentation where it is stated elsehow.

Another reason as to why I believe this is (at least for the early ones) the case: the "serials" are located on the rings for the DC mount. Note with the scopes for the LSR the serial is located on the tube. As a manufacturer of scopes I would put the serial somewhere if they were to leave the factory.

 

[mrfarb]

Yes, you are correct on that, however, note that at least this is something one should therefore consider more likely. Because otherwise everyone has to consider everything to be off unless there will be post documentation where it is stated elsehow.

Another reason as to why I believe this is (at least for the early ones) the case: the "serials" are located on the rings for the DC mount. Note with the scopes for the LSR the serial is located on the tube. As a manufacturer of scopes I would put the serial somewhere if they were to leave the factory.

Good points for sure.

 

[RyanE]

It’s possible - if you look at “early” serial numbered examples (by scope serial) the first run of rings are not inspected, and some appear to have different locking claws, etc - almost like mixed commercial components.

This would make perfect sense. The initial rings were left over commercial components (either from Bruun or from Optikotechnica) and once those were used up, Bruun had to make new ones.

The new ones were inspected by the WaA, either through some agreement of the SS and HWA or simple inertia.