Third Party Press

vz24 and a blank receiver g24t

E

erin_go_bragh

Member
Recently picked up the vz24 and was comparing it with the blank receiver 'g24t'.

I have always had questions (read concerns) with the g24t but I bought it back when I was still buying place holders. I have since decided that I don't have enough money to pay for anything that isn't 100% matching and correct (Oh well, live and learn).

I have always questioned the bolt. The firing proof on the bolt is inconsistent with other proofs I have seen on g24ts. Someone told me that this is the proof seen on blank receiver rifles but I haven't had the privileged of verifying that. There is also the lack of the '/' marking between the number and the suffix. The font matches the font on the receiver though... Input always appreciated.

Now, I just have to get a dou marked one to complete the set.

By the way, does anyone know what happened to the guy who ran the 'cagedlion.com' website?
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    234.3 KB · Views: 72
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    244.1 KB · Views: 71
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    238.2 KB · Views: 68
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    234.5 KB · Views: 66
  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    243 KB · Views: 102
  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    238.1 KB · Views: 66
  • 7.jpg
    7.jpg
    241.1 KB · Views: 61
  • 8.jpg
    8.jpg
    262.6 KB · Views: 102
  • a1.jpg
    a1.jpg
    267.5 KB · Views: 88
I know the guy who ran the cagedlion.com site- he's pretty much dropped off the face of the earth- I think he is just pursuing other interest? It happens.

Intersting G24T. Like you said, the proofing and serials looks odd, but I'm not really up to speed on all the variants. Hambone has a similar one, so perhaps he will post and help you out on it. 3371940 can help too....
 
Last edited:
I'm not too in love with the blank receiver G24(t). I have a slightly earlier one in the no letter block range I pulled out for comparison. It has smaller (Nazi) proof markings, both on the receiver ring and the bolt ball (larger receiver ring firing proof with small bolt ball firing proof was correct later). It shares the "4" of your serial number and has a different font in that digit. You didn't post photos of the right side of the receiver ring on yours, but mine has a pair of slightly different e/607 inspection markings in that position (i.e. I would expect there to be Nazi inspection markings on the right of the receiver ring). I don't like the fact that yours is missing the slash between the digits and the suffix on the bolt. Your bolt flat area has lost its original contour which is a bad sign. I also note that the handguard and the stock do not appear to be original to one another. With a bit of luck someone will have another "a" block for comparison. I also looked at Bone's b block. I will say that your bolt body is a collector renumber. I'm reserving my opinion on the rest of the rifle without better photos. An original would have had an externally numbered stock too.
 
Last edited:
I do not believe the blank receiver gun to be correct. The numbers and the firing proofs shown are extremely suspect, IMO. The bolt shank appears to have been ground on and the gun's metal looks to have a non original finish. I'll go further and suggest that it came in as a postwar rework with a ground crest and that import marks were removed from the barrel.
 
Last edited:
basile said:
I do not believe the blank receiver gun to be correct. The numbers and the firing proofs shown are extremely suspect, IMO. The bolt shank appears to have been ground on and the gun's metal looks to have a non original finish. I'll go further and suggest that it came in as a postwar rework with a ground crest and that import marks were removed from the barrel.
Click to expand...

We mostly agree. I considered the possibility of it being a reworked Czech postwar rifle (98k) with ground crest but it has the wrong siderail markings and is missing the milling markings that would be seen on such a receiver. Such a rifle would have required switching rear sight bases (if not the entire barrel). If you're suggesting it is an imported Vz-24 with all of its receiver ring markings removed then renumbered that would be possible. The bolt is absolutely bad but I'm not sure what the rest of the rifle is/was without a few more photos.
 
Last edited:
Pisgah said:
I'm not too in love with the blank receiver G24(t). I have a slightly earlier one in the no letter block range I pulled out for comparison. It has smaller (Nazi) proof markings, both on the receiver ring and the bolt ball (larger receiver ring firing proof with small bolt ball firing proof was correct later). It shares the "4" of your serial number and has a different font in that digit. You didn't post photos of the right side of the receiver ring on yours, but mine has a pair of slightly different e/607 inspection markings in that position (i.e. I would expect there to be Nazi inspection markings on the right of the receiver ring). I don't like the fact that yours is missing the slash between the digits and the suffix on the bolt. Your bolt flat area has lost its original contour which is a bad sign. I also note that the handguard and the stock do not appear to be original to one another. With a bit of luck someone will have another "a" block for comparison. I also looked at Bone's b block. I will say that your bolt body is a collector renumber. I'm reserving my opinion on the rest of the rifle without better photos. An original would have had an externally numbered stock too.
Click to expand...

I have additional photos that address areas of interest. The barrel, right side of the receiver, sight base, and stock.

As I had said, the bolt was always a concern for me but I never really questioned the rifle as a whole. The receiver is completely blank on the right side. I didn't really think much of this because it was consistent with modified vz24s that I had seen. Up until this rifle, I had no experience with early g24ts; and, if suspicions are correct, I still don't. The handguard is numbered in pencil and the barrel channel numbered to the gun with the suffix. There is no external stock number that I can see but it is Heer proofed on the side of the butt. I also noticed a long time ago that all of the firing proofs appear to be broken.

Thank you for the input.
 

Attachments

  • a1.JPG
    a1.JPG
    249.5 KB · Views: 67
  • a2.JPG
    a2.JPG
    251.1 KB · Views: 48
  • a3.JPG
    a3.JPG
    253 KB · Views: 40
  • a4.JPG
    a4.JPG
    270.9 KB · Views: 33
  • a5.jpg
    a5.jpg
    214.3 KB · Views: 39
  • a6.jpg
    a6.jpg
    211.5 KB · Views: 36
  • a7.JPG
    a7.JPG
    288.4 KB · Views: 36
  • a8.jpg
    a8.jpg
    299.9 KB · Views: 40
  • a9.jpg
    a9.jpg
    251.6 KB · Views: 33
  • a10.jpg
    a10.jpg
    258.1 KB · Views: 39
So, no inspection markings on the right of the receiver. Considering that my no block is earlier than your "a" block, and Ham's "b" block is later, I would expect yours to be consistent with both of these rifles (i.e. should have a pair of e/607's in that position). Same thing for the external serial numbering of the stock. Obviously it is an early G24(t) stock, but as my rifle is earlier and is externally numbered, I would expect yours to be also. I think your rifle was made by combining a scrubbed/renumbered Vz-24 barreled receiver with an internally renumbered early G24(t) stock and a scrubbed/renumbered straight bolt. I'm guessing you paid a real rifle price for it?
 
Pisgah said:
So, no inspection markings on the right of the receiver. Considering that my no block is earlier than your "a" block, and Ham's "b" block is later, I would expect yours to be consistent with both of these rifles (i.e. should have a pair of e/607's in that position). Same thing for the external serial numbering of the stock. Obviously it is an early G24(t) stock, but as my rifle is earlier and is externally numbered, I would expect yours to be also. I think your rifle was made by combining a scrubbed/renumbered Vz-24 barreled receiver with an internally renumbered early G24(t) stock and a scrubbed/renumbered straight bolt. I'm guessing you paid a real rifle price for it?
Click to expand...

No, I paid about 500 (still too much). The person I bought it from stated he got it off gunboards.
 
My honest opinion is the rifle is an imported VZ24 [perhaps former Yugo ] that was then faked to appear to be a blank receiver G24[t]. It is criminal.
 
Guys I’ve been a bit out of commission for 24 hours so I am only catching up to this now. I agree with all that Pisgah and Basile have written. In looking at the full length picture it also appears that the front sight base isn’t flush as one would expect with a factory made barrel. It looks recently done with a “lip” where the base meets the barrel. I also think that the BR is faked.

When I got into Czech stuff about 7 or 8 years ago I was warned that a guy in Florida was fabricating G 24t’s and this might be one of them. This is probably why a $2K + rifle was being sold for $500…..


 
3371940 said:
Guys I’ve been a bit out of commission for 24 hours so I am only catching up to this now. I agree with all that Pisgah and Basile have written. In looking at the full length picture it also appears that the front sight base isn’t flush as one would expect with a factory made barrel. It looks recently done with a “lip” where the base meets the barrel. I also think that the BR is faked.

When I got into Czech stuff about 7 or 8 years ago I was warned that a guy in Florida was fabricating G 24t’s and this might be one of them. This is probably why a $2K + rifle was being sold for $500…..


Click to expand...

As I said, it was/is one of those 'live and learn' situations. Even now, there isn't a whole lot of information on the 'contract guns' and when I bought this, I was working with even less information. Knowing what I know now, I'll try to sell it to a reenactor or something like that.

If possible, I would like to find photos of a blank receiver g24t so I have a benchmark for the future. I once passed up on a blank receiver Sauser k98 at a local auction because I thought it was a scrubbed rifle.
 
erin_go_bragh said:
If possible, I would like to find photos of a blank receiver g24t so I have a benchmark for the future. I once passed up on a blank receiver Sauser k98 at a local auction because I thought it was a scrubbed rifle.
Click to expand...

When I get a chance during daylight hours I'll take some photos and post them for you. My current example is matching but sanded (stock markings still visible). You don't see the early blank receiver G.24(t)'s very often.

I'm curious when they switched from blank receiver ring to dou markings. KCN had an article on them that had some basic serial number data but I didn't find it when I dug through my stack of old copies this evening. I was hoping to find out if any of the "a" block rifles were actually blank receiver or if that ended in the no letter block.
 
Your rifle is probably a rework or a upgrade, the piece probably started as romanian Vz.24 rifle, and was buttstocked with a G24(t) butt. the serial number and the fireproof looks like faked.
 
Just to confirm... the Romanian contract siderail is absolutely incorrect yes? Or is it possible that since the last Vz24s made at bystrica (1940?) were for Romania, that that siderail might have been present on early G24(t)s if leftover parts were used? Wouldn't those markings have been scrubbed before assembly into a G24(t) if they had been there at all?
 
When You had a slovak proofed rifle it would be correct, by the teribble eagle proof on bolt handle is clear this is a faked bolt, the serials are suspisious, i would compare the digits to real G24 rifle, as the codes dou were normally on G24(t) there would be no reason give there a full name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top