Third Party Press

G/43 input

The scope is also a reproduction. The seller states in his description that the mount is a repro and the scope is original, but they're both modern repros.
 
Oh, and I didn't even notice that the rain shield and eye cup are on backwards! Somebody was a little confused when they added their accessories.
 
I'm still learning, but what do you mean by the stock has been cleaned? Has it been "washed" or "sanded"? If it's sanded how or why did they skip around the waffenampts? The waffenampts and serial number looks pretty crisp to me. Thanks
 
This is always a great question. It is sometimes difficult to explain. If you have seen one come right out of the attic, it is a no brainer. I think you can do a search on the forum here and find a few good examples.

There are many variables that one must not forget also. The vast majority of the G/43's may have never made it much farther than a rail car out of the factory, or to a delivery point, and never really issued. Therefore, we find many examples that look like a dried out piece of playwood, that was made by "Bucky beaver"...with 70 years of dirt on it, and maybe some handling marks from grubby hands over the years. This is what all G/K43 collectors really want to see. granted, a lot of the g43 stocks were pretty well done to.

Now, lets say one made it into the field and was used. I am sure any soldier would not want to have a blonde, raw wood looking stock in the field (most g/k43 stocks were not stained). What did the soldier do to reduce this stock from being seen 100's of yards away (or just not being seen as the FNG)...did he put oil on it, dirt on it, grease...we may never really know.

Then we have the situation where a GI brings a rifle home, and it is so nasty looking (which many G43's are :thumbsup:), they want to make it pretty for hunting ( why most were brought back I would think). Anything can be seen here, sanding them to make them smooth is the #1 issue with a G/K43, then there is varnish, shellac or Poly applied to make them shiny. There can be any range of stock tinkering going on, sanding, buffing, cleaning with harsh chemicals, not so harsh chemical, steel wool, staining, bleaching....and it is almost endless.

It is the collector that has to determine that, by looking at the stock...crisp edges, darkness/dirt in the proofs, sheen to the stock, sanding marks..or lack of sanding marks etc. etc..

Hope this explain a bit better for you.
 
Very good explaination. On the example for this thread, what is up with that stock? It looks like a nice crisp one, especially the stamps in the wood. Someone mentioned it looked "cleaned", so I was wondering if this is an example to see some sort of sign (or rather what the clue was) that it was "cleaned" versus just a stock that never really went through a lot and maybe that is what we are looking at for this particular example?

I loved the explaination of how they get messy, thanks.
 
This is pretty hard to picture. In person exam is really needed.

Here are two pictures of stock proofs, both on "a" block ac44 rifles. One is completely untouched, out of the closet and the other had a very thin coat of shellac over it, carefully removed with alcohol swabs. Fortunately, neither stock had been sanded.

The one on the left is untouched.

My guess on the subject rifle for sale is that at one point (post war, war time??) somebody had lightly rubbed some some type of preservative on it every time they used it, especially when it got dirty/wet...be it the soldier or the GI using it for hunting. Impossible to really tell, just my guess from those pics. The rest of the rifle seems to fit that description too...used lightly and not abused.
 

Attachments

  • 001.jpg
    001.jpg
    283.7 KB · Views: 40
  • 002.jpg
    002.jpg
    302.6 KB · Views: 36
Okay, thanks.
Yeah, I couldn't tell anything had been done to the subject rifle's stock either. It's just when I saw the rifle and read where it had been cleaned, I just couldn't see what was being seen. The two pics you provided also look, to me, untouched as well. Both have the crisp stamps impressed into the wood. And both seem to have that look to them that to me would say that they appear totally orginal. I guess it's just time at looking at the wood and eventually getting the hang of it.
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top