Turd Alert bcd 41

Loewe said:
I agree and a good evaluation, - I would add that the TG is an impossibility, Gustloff didn’t make any and all known "milled" used by Gustloff Weimar were made by Brehmer, Leipzig ("d" code, waffenamt e/221) the left acceptance should be in all cases e/221 over the "d" sub-contractor code (for the part), the right waffenamt should always be e/749, bcd inspector for the assembly (they used e/46 for a short range in 1939, some 337/39 will have e/221 - e/46 inspection, after that until 1945 they used only e/749).

While the stock has the right pattern, it is not comparable to an original rifle, the lower waffenamt on the RS should be smaller, different and the e/H is not exactly right. Also, there is some doubts to whether Gustloff Weimar made 98k stocks at all, they did make G/K43 stocks, possibly some 98k stocks, but no 100% clear example has surfaced to my satisfaction. Most are naturally covered in e/749 for the assembly was obviously done by Gustloff, but most have the obvious Menzel code (c) and waffenamt along the lower buttstock because most, if not all, were made by them.
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting these notes. You are correct about the stock markings, and I missed that the lowest marking on stock should be the small size and the fake is full size. Here are pictures comparing the fake and a real one (picture borrowed from a BCD 41 in Gunbroker 362638632):

SR Fake.jpgSR Real.jpg

I sold an original matching BCD 42 in the "g" block a while back that had no "C" subcontractor mark and two E/749s on the keel. The markings were well-worn, but the "9" is clear on both markings. Here is a link to pictures of it:

http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread...etting-What-is-it-worth-1942-Bcd-all-matching

Please let me know if you need other pictures of it.
 
Thanks D-K, your evaluation was just fine, as those that mentioned your effort confirmed, - it takes a long while to post such an evaluation, and many do not appreciate the effort involved. I have noted your keen observations in the past.

I do have records of that rifle from both the sale you bought it from and the sale you sold it, (you did a good job of cleaning it) so I have a lot of pictures of that rifle, but I do not have the BC, - did you perhaps have the BC recorded? No worries if not, I have collected a lot of material on Gustloff Werke, and it looks like it had a FN barrel, though the full code is covered by the stock in all the pictures I have of it...

D-K said:
Thank you for posting these notes. You are correct about the stock markings, and I missed that the lowest marking on stock should be the small size and the fake is full size. Here are pictures comparing the fake and a real one (picture borrowed from a BCD 41 in Gunbroker 362638632):

View attachment 66574View attachment 66575

I sold an original matching BCD 42 in the "g" block a while back that had no "C" subcontractor mark and two E/749s on the keel. The markings were well-worn, but the "9" is clear on both markings. Here is a link to pictures of it:

http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread...etting-What-is-it-worth-1942-Bcd-all-matching

Please let me know if you need other pictures of it.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks

I was just going to bid on this rifle, then I got a little bit curious as to why the mod. 98 stamp was not on the siderail. Everything I could find on the web indicated that bcd did not stamp this in 1940 or earlier and started in 1941. Then I found other's claiming it was a forgery and then found this thread. I really appreciate it. I guess I will stick to pawn shops and local gun shops.

Jon
 
What about this WZ29 rework? What's real and what's not?
 

Attachments

  • larry.jpg
    larry.jpg
    21.3 KB · Views: 30
  • larry2.jpg
    larry2.jpg
    21.3 KB · Views: 27
  • larry3.jpg
    larry3.jpg
    26 KB · Views: 24
  • larry4.jpg
    larry4.jpg
    21 KB · Views: 29
  • larry5.jpg
    larry5.jpg
    18.8 KB · Views: 29
  • larry6.jpg
    larry6.jpg
    23.4 KB · Views: 28
  • larry7.jpg
    larry7.jpg
    20.2 KB · Views: 32
I'll take a stab. Pictures two and three definitely look humped to me. I think the buttplate may be humped too because the "M" is a different font, and not below the serial number.

I'm not sure on the stock picture number 4, but it almost looks double stamped to me. I may be overthinking it, but the "960" on the receiver doesn't look right to me either.

Ok, let me know how bad I did.
 
RazorBurn said:
I'll take a stab. Pictures two and three definitely look humped to me. I think the buttplate may be humped too because the "M" is a different font, and not below the serial number.

I'm not sure on the stock picture number 4, but it almost looks double stamped to me. I may be overthinking it, but the "960" on the receiver doesn't look right to me either.

Ok, let me know how bad I did.
Click to expand...

I was wondering about the proof on the barrel also. Being a rework I guess its a tough call on fonts and suffix placement. I look forward to a knowledgeable expert to take a crack at it.
 
Reworked rifles are a whole different animal, and in the scheme of things can be easily faked or enhanced. Even comparing to other reworks from the same facility for fonts/workmanship is impossible, as no set dies were used at any facility it seems. This is one reason I value reworked rifles less than matching rifles no matter how cool or sexy they are. Some reworks are obviously good- in the case of this Radom it's hard to say whats been enhanced given the sellers background. The barrel marking is good though.
 
The good news for ihatetards is in a year or two he can put it back up on GB and most likely make money.:facepalm: God knows how many times this thing has been passed around.

Someday someone is going to be left "Holding the Bag" on this Rifle. :googlie


HDH.
 
Personally I don't feel any differently about this rifle than the horribly renumbered Tula “reworks” imported last year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top