Look for opinions on a 33/40 bolt serial.

Looking for opinions on a 33/40 bolt serial.

Looking to get insight into serial numbering on a dot 1942 33/40 bolt. The receiver and barrel serials have no serial block indicated. The bolt handle seems to have "d" block below the serial.
Area around the serial appears to me to be buffed and polished. The work is Very well done and appears very old and the patina on bolt handle, though lighter than bolt body, seems consistent. While most of fonts appear to follow dot style, they seem smaller than examples I have found (see links below) and the number "4" is a different style.

- Maybe a "d" block with same serial just happened to be united with a no block rifle?
- Is this an oddity of production?
- Was buffing of the handles common?
- Did the fonts change in 1942 at dot?
- Could this bolt have been reused during production?
- Could this be a war time arsenal rework?
- Maybe a post war arsenal rework?

Help educate an Ignorant soul...

Links to 33/40 examples:
http://www.k98kforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=12880&d=1299285741
http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?1954-dot-1942-G.33-40&highlight=mountain

http://www.k98kforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=419&d=1267240672
http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?111-G33-40-3pc-stock-DOT-1941

http://www.k98kforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7791&d=1286259881
http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?1161-G33-40

If you have it in hand take it outside in the sunlight and take a look. IMO your smarter at this than you think. Although not the same serial as one I had I had the same suspicions as you. I still feel it had a renumbered bolt but to be fair, i had guys look at it and they seemed to think it ok.

Just looked at the 3 examples I have 2 42s and A & C block comparing it to yours. I dont see anything wrong with the one you have. When numbering these they are doing that on a rounded surface and some part of the letters or numbers are deeper than other parts. The finish is just from handling IMO. Nice example I think these aren't easy to come by either. I also paid quite a bit for the ones I have ,what did you have to pay?

The bolt is a renumber and wrong on many levels. The 5 is wrong and the 9 is an over stamp. I do not know if I have pics of this one in my database but the pictures you provided and the analysis is excellent. The 'd' shouldn't be there. The bolt is wrong for a no letter block dot 1942.

RADOMMAN said:

Just looked at the 3 examples I have 2 42s and A & C block comparing it to yours. I dont see anything wrong with the one you have. When numbering these they are doing that on a rounded surface and some part of the letters or numbers are deeper than other parts. The finish is just from handling IMO. Nice example I think these aren't easy to come by either. I also paid quite a bit for the ones I have ,what did you have to pay?

Click to expand...

Randomman,

1. Can you post pictures of your two bolt serial numbers? I am really interested in seeing examples of the numbers and block letter placements. I am still trying to get good pictures of what the font of the numeral "4" should look like. The examples seem to indicate dot used an open topped font for the number four on the bolt handle and not the closed type used on my bolt.

2. So the block letter on the bolt does not bother you? Please help with why that can be a legitimate use? I am trying to understand all angles and views. The original pictures sent of the bolt do not clearly show the "d" block. To me it appeared to be a nick or maybe a manufacturer's mark, as most blocks seem to be a the end of the serial number. I am not an expert at all on these markings, but I am getting learned-up real fast.

3. Interesting note on handling. I wonder how much handling would be needed to smooth out the metal finish?
Wouldn't the handling also round the edges of the serial numbers down? And why would that spot of the bolt be the target of handling and rubbing? From maybe the thumb or how it was carried by the soldier? It would appear to me that the knob on the end of the bolt would show the most wear from opening and closing the bolt and contact with the palm or gloved hand. The knob on the bolt shown has the same rough appearance as the front of the bolt handle.

4. Not discussing price just yet. Expensive lesson though.

3371940 said:

The bolt is a renumber and wrong on many levels. The 5 is wrong and the 9 is an over stamp. I do not know if I have pics of this one in my database but the pictures you provided and the analysis is excellent. The 'd' shouldn't be there. The bolt is wrong for a no letter block dot 1942.

Click to expand...

3371940,

I will try to get some better closeups of the serials. Day I took pictures on the back deck was overcast and hazy. OK...So bolt is wrong for a no letter block dot 1942 from the factory.

How about looking at it from a arsenal/depot rework perspective? Does that seem plausible? Does anyone have examples from that process?

History said:

If you have it in hand take it outside in the sunlight and take a look. IMO your smarter at this than you think. Although not the same serial as one I had I had the same suspicions as you. I still feel it had a renumbered bolt but to be fair, i had guys look at it and they seemed to think it ok.

Click to expand...

Can you post a picture of the bolt serial number? It would definitely add to the discussion.

rcmauser said:

3371940,

I will try to get some better closeups of the serials. Day I took pictures on the back deck was overcast and hazy. OK...So bolt is wrong for a no letter block dot 1942 from the factory.

How about looking at it from a arsenal/depot rework perspective? Does that seem plausible? Does anyone have examples from that process?

Click to expand...

Then why add the alpha? If you can get your $ back I suggest that you do so. Your pictures are clear enough. My earlier comments were rooted in the in the possibility that if you originally looked at blurry or dark pics the numbering might be considered ok. However, the set you have provided here is enough to stay away from this one. When I get access to my database tomorrow I will try to post some comparison pics.

No '4', but perhaps a clear pic would help; dot42 'b'

rcmauser said:

Can you post a picture of the bolt serial number? It would definitely add to the discussion.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't have any pictures and I can't remember the serial number.

Thank you Touhy and History.

Touhy - that serial does show the numeral zero as a match and the overall finish of the the bolt stem even and matching. Made me look at side view closer on the bolt. The zero appears higher than the surrounding metal. I could be getting into the weeds, but it appears that maybe the number was not messed with and the others were??

Here are the other pictures...

3371940 said:

Then why add the alpha? If you can get your $ back I suggest that you do so. Your pictures are clear enough. My earlier comments were rooted in the in the possibility that if you originally looked at blurry or dark pics the numbering might be considered ok. However, the set you have provided here is enough to stay away from this one. When I get access to my database tomorrow I will try to post some comparison pics.

Click to expand...

I agree... I was just wondering if the bolt was reused or part of a rework it may have had existing atificats on it. Just trying to cover all options and arguments on bolt. To me it is a Boinked bolt and appears to have been done a long time ago. I should have noticed it sooner, but alas I did not... The previous owner did not notice the red flags in over 18 years of possession. So I am not the only one getting learned up on 33/40 bolt dynamics...

The Gun is just a mis-matched, Boinked 33/40 example that I am stuck with. I still like it, as it is complete and has fairly nice finish....I will enjoy it as a range beater gun and $$ lesson...

A few random 33/40 pics for comparison. These are of bolts that I own and or have owned. Your daylight photos leave no doubt as to whether or not the bolt has been boinked.

Thanks to all for the input...

Sure wish Randomman would respond to help me understand why he thinks the numbers look good... I am interested to know his insights into this... It all helps...

3371940,
You may take whatever photos you want of the ones I posted (they are mine) and use them in your database, if they will help educate others...

Thanks for posting the bolt serials... That opened-top "4" clinches it! Someone spent some time working that bolt... They just were not too sharp on the significance of the meaning of the letter blocks...

I am still looking for a Real Honest all matching example.... The quest goes on...

rcmauser said:

3371940,

You may take what ever photos you want of the ones I posted (they are mine) and use them in your database, if they will help educate others...

Thanks for posting the bolt serials... That opened-top "4" clinches it! Someone spent some time working that bolt... They just were not too sharp on what the letter blocks meant...

I am still looking for a Real Honest all matching example.... The quest goes on...

Thanks to all for the input...

Sure wish Randomman would respond to help me understand why he thinks the numbers look good... I am interested to know his insights into this... It all helps...

Click to expand...

In fairness to radomman when I first looked at these on my phone at 6:30 am on Sunday morning I had a good, or at least not bad feeling. That was also before I examined the receiver as well. I later loaded them onto my ipad and blew them up and came to a different opinion.