The Behoerden Rg34: Photo Array

[pwcosol]

Much appreciate the additional photos, Peter. Looks like a pair...no, now that I see your third DRP Rg34, three aces to me...or rather FOUR DRP Kits...a winning hand! I have a first-pattern chain sans any markings as well, with my guess it being from Appel.

 

[Peter S]

DRP Ffm

This Rg34 also has the RGK with the fish hooks. Unfortunately one hook was broken along the way and it is missing its HKW.

 

[Peter S]

DRP Schw

A couple more pictures of this one from post #11

 

[Peter S]

ChdA W

My ChdA W marked Rg34 has the contents for a .22 caliber. The RGK is of the early style with the fish hooks.

 

[Slash]

You have a most excellent collection Peter ....

 

[Slash]

Thought there might be value in adding to the pwcosol information. I have identified three markings used by Gustav Appel in 1935. Without question there are also unmarked cans made by Appel in 1935 and probably 1934. The 1935 dates that I have recorded are as follows:

- G. APPEL 1935 (one line)

- G. APPEL > 1935 (two line)

- G. Appel > 1935 (two line - thin font)

- G. Appel > 1935 (two line)

Have placed these in the order (top to bottom) I feel they were applied or utilized. The small uppercase letters in one line being the first marking. Followed by the larger uppercase letters over 1935 in two lines. Which evolved into the upper and lowercase letters over 1935 marking. This style became the "standard" marking configuration for the next several years with only the date changing.

After reviewing Peter S' excellent photos of his DRP Schw kit, the post above regarding the different styles of G. Appel markings for 1935 clearly needs to be revised. See pic below of the G. Appel > 1935 in thin font marking. Very similar font as found on the all uppercase G. APPEL > 1935 but with a mixture of capital and small letters. I have placed this marking style as third in the above list (revised) before the "standard" marking which is nearly identical but in a thicker font. Also note the dot or period behind the Appel in this stamping. This is found on some but not all of the cans with this marking. The meaning is unknown.

I remember a discussion about the DRP Schw stamp. What was the final conclusion? Schweinfurt or Schwerin? Thanks Wolfgang

I believe the consensus was Schweinfurt.

 

[Frysk]

Would this be Hamburg?

 

[pwcosol]

Would this be Hamburg?

This would be my guess as well...

 

[Slash]

Hamburg is correct.

 

[sm.j]

I am new to this forum and found this topic when I was looking for information on the internet about an RG34 that I bought last weekend.
As much as I have been collecting RG34 for a while, this is my first DRP model I bought. On this one a extra bracket is attached to the interior, which appears to be factory-made or at least old. Does anyone have information about this? The letters under DRP are a bit unclear, but they look like KRH (Karlsruhe?) to me. Thanks in advance for your answers, and I'm glad to have found another nice forum where I can find new information about the RG34.

 

[Slash]

This is the third can that I have seen with this compartment or bracket. All of them have been early cans and two have been DRP property marked. I do not know the purpose nor have I seen any period documentation for the variant. These cans are very early and would date from the period of the two-piece hinged or "butterfly" chain hook/loops. It's only a theory but I have wondered if the slot or small compartment was not made to insert the hinged loop hooks and toggle into to keep it from catching or tangling onto the chain. The two-piece loops do tend to become loose and open up easily. Thought would be the chain was threaded and dropped into the large compartment and when the toggle/hook assembly reached the top it would be slipped into this slot. The chain would also be easy to remove by grasping the toggle to lift the entire component from the can. Could be a local depot or armory addition also. Regardless, a very interesting and scarce rg34. My thoughts only ......

 

[pwcosol]

This is the third can that I have seen with this compartment or bracket. . . It's only a theory but I have wondered if the slot or small compartment was not made to insert the hinged loop hooks and toggle into to keep it from catching or tangling onto the chain. ... Could be a local depot or armory addition also. Regardless, a very interesting and scarce rg34. My thoughts only ......

Excellent observation and conjecture, Slasher! We have seen it is not unusual to find either one or both RGK hooks damaged or broken from service usage... which could even extend to a frustrated user yanking too hard on a reluctant RGK while attempting to remove it from the behalter. First I have heard of this "extra" feature. Does the retainer appear to be soldered in place? Your thought of the retainer being used to secure the hooks at the top of the can for easy access has merit...

 

[sm.j]

Thank you,
That's an interesting thought, I'll test it soon with my early RGK. So this should actually be a 1934 production? (Never seen a date earlier than 1935 on the boxes)

 

[pwcosol]

Thank you,
That's an interesting thought, I'll test it soon with my early RGK. So this should actually be a 1934 production? (Never seen a date earlier than 1935 on the boxes)

I believe the consensus is kits were not contracted for or mass-produced prior to 1935. The year of adoption by the OKH was likely 1934. I think a solicitation for a universal small arms cleaning kit was issued for the German Heer, various manufacturers submitted examples for evaluation and the G. APPEL submission won. This resulted in many contracts being taken, which lead to additional factories (MUNDLOS, HAWIG, and Aktien Maschinenfabrik Kyffhauserhutte / Braunsweigische Bletchwarenfabrik producing kits as well (primarily for the OKH). Peter Schlesinger ("ftd") also manufactured a limited number of Rg34 but not for the OKH.