SSDC dot 43?

[mrfarb]

to be 99.9% sure Id say no... But, there could be some odd ball recycled reciever dot used at Steyr so I never say never. But, it would certainly never be build up on an Army contract dot43/44 rifle. All you really need to do is study known originals ..

This is so far from correct. There are plenty of byf43 and bcd43 marked ARMY contract rifles built as double claws, why would you exclude the possibility of dot43? Do you have knowledge nobody else does? Were there no dot rifles in ARMY inventory in 1943? But I see, nobody has reported one to you so they must not exist. It’s entirely possible any manufacture of 98k who had inventory in Army depots in early 1943 could potentially exist as a double claw. There are documents supporting the transfer of ARMY inventory to the SS in 1943……and no mention is made of specific manufacturers.

 

[RyanE]

It’s entirely possible any manufacture of 98k who had inventory in Army depots in early 1943 could potentially exist as a double claw. There are documents supporting the transfer of ARMY inventory to the SS in 1943……and no mention is made of specific manufacturers.

And the fact the SS was receiving regular deliveries (thousands a month) of rifles/MPs/MGs from the Heereswaffenamt. Its a little odd they would send so many depot built rifles for conversion, but by that point (late 1944/early 1945) deliveries from the HWA may have been curtailed quite a bit. Rifle inventories were very low in late 1944.

 

[mdarnell19]

Yes, what Mike and Ryan said. Initially I thought this could be a first dot43 SS Double Claw. That is certainly possible.

 

[Absolut]

There are plenty of byf43 and bcd43 marked ARMY contract rifles built as double claws, why would you exclude the possibility of dot43? Do you have knowledge nobody else does? Were there no dot rifles in ARMY inventory in 1943? But I see, nobody has reported one to you so they must not exist. It’s entirely possible any manufacture of 98k who had inventory in Army depots in early 1943 could potentially exist as a double claw.

Theoretically you could be right, but shouldn't this then indicate it could be ANY receiver date from 1943? Like even ar43 .. or whatever you may imagine? Speaking from a more practical point of view, I'd assume that certain manufacturers delivered to certain storages, not ALL into that same single storage. And those that were sent to the SS, I assume they rather tell ONE storage to send the rifles to the SS than to ask all to send small quantities. Therefore IMHO it is likely we are to see certain codes, while we may never outrule weird combinations. So let us put it this way, bnz is the most common, bcd43 and byf43 are also known, anything aside those three should be looked at with high caution.

PS: checked my pictures .. that SS DC I had mentioned earlier for having a blank armorer receiver - of course the barrel shank is SSZZA4 marked, so a SS repair with a replacement receiver (and various EP small parts such as follower and ejector). And it still carries its original matching numbers scope. I'm working hard to make it mine one day, then I'll be posting it!

 

[mauser99]

Theoretically you could be right, but shouldn't this then indicate it could be ANY receiver date from 1943? Like even ar43 .. or whatever you may imagine? Speaking from a more practical point of view, I'd assume that certain manufacturers delivered to certain storages, not ALL into that same single storage. And those that were sent to the SS, I assume they rather tell ONE storage to send the rifles to the SS than to ask all to send small quantities. Therefore IMHO it is likely we are to see certain codes, while we may never outrule weird combinations. So let us put it this way, bnz is the most common, bcd43 and byf43 are also known, anything aside those three should be looked at with high caution.

PS: checked my pictures .. that SS DC I had mentioned earlier for having a blank armorer receiver - of course the barrel shank is SSZZA4 marked, so a SS repair with a replacement receiver (and various EP small parts such as follower and ejector). And it still carries its original matching numbers scope. I'm working hard to make it mine one day, then I'll be posting it!

Thanks... some real interesting things being said.. Absolut you have a very level head and I think your on the right track.. Once you try to agree something that is correct that really shouldnt be you open yourself up to a anything goes type of situation like field made and field modified rare uniforms ect.. I for one wouldnt spend my hard earned cash on a SS DC other than a straight up bnz SS contract or sszza4 depot build... I wouldnt trust an army used rifle for all the tea in china. As we see in this thread two guys fooled by a really poor example of a made up SS DC on a dot43 rifle. Im fully aware of the SS Czech connection and the source of the scopes and claw mounts. As I said I never say never when discussing things like this cause we'll never see every example ever made..

 

[mrfarb]

So you don’t trust the verified byf43 examples? I mean there are plenty of SSDC scopes with 5 digit serials with letter suffix. But you haven’t seen one so they don’t exist? Maybe I imagined them, let me check - nope, they do exist.

Regardless, there is a little confusion from what I believe. The new HWA arms drawn by the Waffen-SS were probably not sent and stored in SS depots in substantial amounts if at all, because they were expressly only intended for Waffen-SS use, so there was accountability in the end and were Army property after all was said and done.

The rifles used in SSDC production were drawn from SS depots. How did army guns get in SS depots in substantial numbers? These 17000 were sent to SS depots for work done at Steyr. But, Steyr was bombed in early 44 and I'm guessing this program must have ended then. So my guess is the 43 dated Army rifles used in SSDC production came from this batch, and imo could possibly include other manufacturers of Army accepted 43 date rifles supplied in this exchange.

 

[mdarnell19]

Thanks for the document MrFarb. Very interesting.

 

[Absolut]

So you don’t trust the verified byf43 examples? I mean there are plenty of SSDC scopes with 5 digit serials with letter suffix. But you haven’t seen one so they don’t exist? Maybe I imagined them, let me check - nope, they do exist.

You both are in somewhat extreme positions. He said he personally would never go for one which isn't bnz coded, and you are right in that there are ones which are not bnz coded. They will though always be tougher to verify and leave those that are not this experienced in doubt - for no reason, I agree. It therefore would be the safer option if you want to buy one to get one which is bnz coded, and this is what I understood he himself would prefer (especially when concerning how many were fooled by the original rifle in question in this thread). I on the opposite personally would actually love to get another sample which isn't bnz coded, but that is for already having bnz coded SS DC.

The rifles used in SSDC production were drawn from SS depots. How did army guns get in SS depots in substantial numbers? These 17000 were sent to SS depots for work done at Steyr. But, Steyr was bombed in early 44 and I'm guessing this program must have ended then. So my guess is the 43 dated Army rifles used in SSDC production came from this batch, and imo could possibly include other manufacturers of Army accepted 43 date rifles supplied in this exchange.

The SS DC documents do not speak on where they come from, only that they provide the guns. From looking at the number of guns we are seeing it seems to me that the "Army rifles" are extremely little, I bet for like every 20 SS DC sniper rifles you maybe could manage to find one different coded rifle, if not less. Then take another look at what the majority is - either SS contract, or even SS repaired guns. And remember they sent 500 K98k rifles per month to Waffenwerke Brünn I for sniper conversion. I really wonder where they shipped those from and how the few Army rifles got mixed in, since as I had said it wouldn't make much sense to send like in July 83 guns from this depot, 208 from that depot, 39 from another one and the remaining 170 from another one. IMHO it is actually quite likely they were originally shipped from where they were to be sent back, especially since documents clearly state the packaging [of the finished rifles] is to be sent back. And since original documents say the approval is done at the recipient - and lists SS-Hauptzeugamt Oranienburg a line below, it therefore would be possible they were shipped from there too.

I think most of the very hot discussion on dot coded SS DC rifles is because many know of the "Czech connection" on these sniper rifles. And this might lead some to the assumption for their SS DC build they should use a Czech made rifle, since it sounds logical to them. Then we have those that are a bit more informed and think they are right it is only bnz coded, so highly contra the "dot" coded SS DC sniper rifles. And finally then there is this forum here, where we know that the majority is to be found with bnz code, but there are very limited quantities with non bnz coded receivers, which are the toughest to verify, unless they come with their original matching scope.

PS: the bases were made of 20 x 8 mm flat steel St 60.11 per original documents. For whatever that may be helpful in identification..

 

[mrfarb]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding his comment, it’s true the “easy” way is to only buy bnz coded ones. Georg, the only other correction I would make is your statement about using “SS repaired guns”. I’m assuming you consider the SSZZA4 rifles repaired guns, they are in fact new guns assembled from spare parts, so it may just be your interpretation of that. I’ve never seen a depot “repaired” SS rifle used to build a double claw. And yes, I suspect the origin to be Oranienburg, it was considered the main SS depot due to its Berlin location, and close to the main SS-Zentralzeugamt offices who did the final acceptance of these.

 

[Absolut]

You are bringing up an interesting point in here that would not only refer to SS DC sniper rifles, but actually more to SS rifles in general. I need to admit, to my understanding a SSZZA4 marked rifle IMHO would indicate it was approved by the SS. And to me this means not necessarily exclusively made up based on new unused spare parts, but possibly also parts being re-used during this rebuild. Actually we had a discussion on my SSZZA4 service rifle some time ago which you called a depot build, but after pointing out the Gusen stamps on both bolt and receiver didn't get any more replies from you to my particular question whether depot build or SS contract rebuild. If you don't remember, here is the thread: https://www.k98kforum.com/threads/ss-contract-bnz43-with-sszza4-stamp-and-deathshead-k-stock.46014/

You are more knowledegeable on K98k service rifles than I am, how would one distinguish a SS repair from SS depot build rifle? And why are we supposed to outrule the possibility there was a SS repaired rifle being used for SS DC sniper build? We just agreed that theoretically any K98k code with a receiver date of 1943 or earlier could appear, then why outrule specifically SS repaired K98k rifles?

 

[mrfarb]

I have my own rules I go by. If a rifle is built from unused major components (barrel, receiver, bolt) I consider it a build. If any major components are recycled (receiver, bolt) meaning they have previously been assembled into a firearm and numbered, it’s a rebuild. For example, you could have a ww1 unused receiver that is built into a new rifle.

There are instances such as Luftwaffe depot builds where some of the very last were built with recycled receivers, or even the later dot44’s and Steyrs that had used receivers recycled, but are still considered new guns to us.

Your SSZZA4 is a build, unused components from Gusen assembled elsewhere into a new rifle. The bolt and receiver had not been numbered or pressure test proofed before.

 

[RyanE]

Regardless, there is a little confusion from what I believe. The new HWA arms drawn by the Waffen-SS were probably not sent and stored in SS depots in substantial amounts if at all, because they were expressly only intended for Waffen-SS use, so there was accountability in the end and were Army property after all was said and done.

The rifles used in SSDC production were drawn from SS depots. How did army guns get in SS depots in substantial numbers?

How do we square this with HWA delivery documents showing monthly rifle deliveries to the SS/Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine? I find it a little hard to believe they weren't shipping guns to the depots of each branch.

I think one possible explanation could be the SS didn't legally own the rifles, even though they were delivered to an SS-HZA, and thus the SS was not allowed to ship them off to Brünn for conversion. I think this has its own problems--how do you handle rifles shipped back to Oranienburg for repairs? Field units aren't segregating by SS/Army owned--but it could explain why most used were depot built guns. Might also explain why some of the early SS repairs have scrubbed receivers.

 

[mrfarb]

Are you talking about these documents?






If so, if I remember correctly the numbers in this document actually represent the SS contract (as we call it) that Steyr was making directly for the SS into the total number of weapons produced by industry. Think of it like an accounting for weapons made by the SS in order to keep the SS from hiding what they were doing from Speers office of Kriegsproduction.

I think the “+” note denotes the deduction of delivery of 12000 k98k for labor supplied in production. Perhaps the accounting department deducted some of what they owed the SS from this production? They were using army material for building them after all.

 

[RyanE]

Maybe. I swear I had one from the HWA (Wa J?) that showed a single monthly distribution broken down by service and the line for the SS was a fairly high number (~15000-20000). But I can't find it and I might be confusing one document for this one. It still seems unlikely to me that the SS wouldn't have received regular weapons deliveries to the SS depots.

I think the + is noting what is outlined in the other document (paragraph 2) above. The Luftwaffe/KM appears to have been entitled to a certain percentage of monthly rifle production, and the deal with the SS was that the rifles owed by the Army as payment for labor would be deducted from the total monthly production before the Luft/KM monthly allocations were calculated. The HWA shorted the other branches to pay off the SS.

 

[mrfarb]

Keep in mind only SS units under control of the army were allowed arms, and training units were expressly omitted from getting them. If the army simply deposited rifles in the SS depots they would lose that control. They did not lose that control. SS repair depots did process rifles for repair as noted in examples seen though, but the SS used army repair depots for Waffen-SS units so it must be rare.

It’s possible the Army supplied weapons were drawn at the Corps level? Think about ways to control the flow of arms to the SS and compare how the current military issues weapons, it’s not difficult to maintain control.

 

[Philip]

Very good and worthwhile discussion. It would have been nice to have had this level of interest say 30-40 years ago. Everyone says they collect because if the history (whatever that is supposed to mean) but really almost no one cares much about the history! I don’t doubt some friction between the W-SS and the HWA on arms allocations but it’s interesting in that the W-SS was also pulling maybe 10% or even a more by 1944 of the combat manpower and fighting requirements normally performed by the Army. In other words every arm supplied to the W-SS was another 50 meters of front not having to be covered by the Heer.

 

[Absolut]

Can only concur to that, one of the best threads we've had in the recent time. Not only successfully outed a faux sniper, but also lengthy and detailed discussion of SS rifles. But to get back on topic:

I have my own rules I go by. If a rifle is built from unused major components (barrel, receiver, bolt) I consider it a build. If any major components are recycled (receiver, bolt) meaning they have previously been assembled into a firearm and numbered, it’s a rebuild. For example, you could have a ww1 unused receiver that is built into a new rifle.

Good to know on this "rule". I concur it is a personal view on what to consider a rebuild and what is a depot build. I though sometimes think it will be impossible to determine it is excactly THIS or THAT. Your previous comment:

I’m assuming you consider the SSZZA4 rifles repaired guns, they are in fact new guns assembled from spare parts, so it may just be your interpretation of that.

in connection with the above sentence would indicate that NO SSZZA4 rifle was ever using a recycled bolt or receiver. Did you intend to say that?

 

[mrfarb]

in connection with the above sentence would indicate that NO SSZZA4 rifle was ever using a recycled bolt or receiver. Did you intend to say that?

No, there were rebuilds done at sszza4 facility (at this time we really don’t know exactly where it was, perhaps Kurmark). It was some type of repair depot but had to be well equipped to actually pull off new builds in the numbers we see. I’ll try to post some older threads showing them, hard to search with my phone.

 

[Absolut]

So then why did you say you would exclude SSZZA4 rebuild from being converted to SS DC sniper rifle? Or did you mean to say this is not likely in your opinion?

 

[mrfarb]

So then why did you say you would exclude SSZZA4 rebuild from being converted to SS DC sniper rifle? Or did you mean to say this is not likely in your opinion?

I said I have never seen an sszza4 rebuild used to make an SSDC, which makes sense to me - would you use a reworked rifle to make a sniper? It shouldn’t be hard for the depot to figure out reworked from new. I would expect them not to use reworked items for specialized platforms.

Now who test fired for accuracy before conversion, or did they not?