Third Party Press

Waffenstadt suhl 1935 dsm "sold.bd"

mauser99

Senior Member
This one had me @ hello.. 1935 dated w.s.s. dsm34 SOLD.BD. marked disc. This is the second I can rememeber seeing. I went back in my records to see if it was the same rifle sold @ amoskeag in 2010. It was not.. serial on this one in the 8k range the other # 10112. Both marked SOLD.BD. oddly enough? Might be part of the same purchace ? Seems plausable as these group and ss rifles turn up is specific ranges. If I remember correctly Sold BD stands for ?? Soldaten Bund ? can quite remember.

I went searching waffenstadt suhl and was surprized to see the town had its own facebook page ! It looks like a nice place. The photo is of the town present day.

added: I added a few more photos.. whats odd. is the rifle is dated 35 and its showing later features ? High extractor and milled lower band. These tend not to show up till 37 ? Maybe Jim can sort this out ?
 

Attachments

  • pix912139023.jpg
    pix912139023.jpg
    61.2 KB · Views: 66
  • pix098115365.jpg
    pix098115365.jpg
    68.2 KB · Views: 46
  • pix156637406.jpg
    pix156637406.jpg
    89.3 KB · Views: 62
  • pix648030702.jpg
    pix648030702.jpg
    51.2 KB · Views: 59
  • pix657821610.jpg
    pix657821610.jpg
    64.7 KB · Views: 48
  • pix845130811.jpg
    pix845130811.jpg
    47.1 KB · Views: 57
  • 29776_129809130379517_6408093_n.jpg
    29776_129809130379517_6408093_n.jpg
    101.8 KB · Views: 50
  • pix623241140.jpg
    pix623241140.jpg
    51.1 KB · Views: 48
  • pix829565198.jpg
    pix829565198.jpg
    107.5 KB · Views: 47
  • pix771299643.jpg
    pix771299643.jpg
    39.9 KB · Views: 45
  • pix726015782.jpg
    pix726015782.jpg
    41.2 KB · Views: 52
Last edited:
yep !

well thats what happens when you get older and the brain fills up.. I searched the posts earlier and found my post noting the sale of one at auction a few years ago. I was hoping it wasnt the same one. So this puts the range of 35 spot on and the formation of the SoldatenBund. Im assuming they purchased a fair amount of dsm's at some point. Maybe right from BSW and W.S.S. both in the suhl area. Maybe that group was also from the suhl area ?
 
up-date

after doing some digging I found this.. Sold Bd founded in 1936 disbanded in 38 and obsorbed into the NS-RKB National Solicalist-ReichsKriegerbund which after that point was the only sanctioned army veterans group. The navy kept their own and thats the markings on B-I-O's dsm.

this is the pin worn by SOLD BD which differs slightly from the standard vets pin..
 

Attachments

  • 11)%20RS-RKB%20WW1%20Veterans%20Breast%20Badge.jpg
    11)%20RS-RKB%20WW1%20Veterans%20Breast%20Badge.jpg
    19.1 KB · Views: 31
Great gun great find.

Reciever was likely roll marked with existing dies after DSM 36 changes implemented at this assembler or could have been reworked after marking. Either way, this maker made very few guns after the change to DSM36
The Last Waffenstadt Suhl's omitt date mark.

Soldatenbund organization was nation wide and included functions of our USO and Veterans Organization. They were a part of the German Red Cross.

I think it likley guns so marked were made available in rest areas for recreational shooting. I Had one German Veteran tell me they were able to use the trainers on R&R this way.


Attached photo on left is an armband for a high ranking official in the Soldatenbund.


.armbands.JPG
 
thanks

this is what always keeps me guessing.. Early Geco and these ws.s. dsm's I feel Are the same maker. Or assembler. They are the only two that have the same markings less the Logo itself.
The 1934 & 35 markings ect.. I was confused and even looked in speeds book to see when mauser made the change to the M36 type rifle that this rifle clearly is. You're theory is the only one that makes sense. I have only ever seen one w.s.s. dsm34 with no date. It was years ago on an online auction. The guy was selling 3 and he had a 34,35 and no date rifle. Ws.s. made dsm's into the 5 didgit range 11,000 I think ? SO this one being 8K range might be the start of the dsm36 rifles. The high extractor and open loading area and milled lower band were a dead givaway.
To note. this is the first non-mauser made dsm I have seen with a milled lower band. The rifle to me looks as though its never been played with. So I can only assume its orig. to the rifle.
 
Suhl Consortium

While Sauer's role in the production of the Waffenstadt Suhl (and those early GECO's with identical features) remains controversial, Bruce and Farb's new book provides significant clues and identifys other firms envolved with 98K production same time frame. (Look at J.P. Sauer chapter).

Interestingly enough, some of the same makers in that (98K) collaboration also noted to have contributed components for these trainers (Haenel for certain - stocks).

The information there is helping considerably with sorting this out. While Sauer may not have been the assembler, clearly they made these receivers and were the lead firm in the consortium by nature of size and resources. Whether Sauer was the assembler or whether other products by them same time frame were all serialed, assembled at other location or there, remains a mystery.

However, anyone familiar with processes who looks at those products, (including shotguns marked J.P. Sauer and GECO) and compares metal finish, the classic typical plumb colored blue on some parts, wood type and stain, finish, serial fonts etc, cannot fail to realize this was the same production processes.

It's like sitting two Volkswagens made on same line side by side, only one has had all trademarks and logo removed and "Ford" applied. It's still a Volkswagen.

This is a focus of further research with many thanks to Bruce and Farb for providing routes to take in that via their awsome research work.

While significant others dispute it, I remain convinced that these and the early GECO were produced with at least receivers made by J.P. Sauer and that firm taking the lead.

By late 35 when DSM36 changes implemented, most (nearly all) the smaller firms such as Haenel had ceased producing DSM34 with their own logo and likely contributors in the consortium.

Same thing appears to have occurred down the road in Zella Mehlis on the Green Heart Thuringen Consortium.

A goal is to get to Suhl and Z-M for further research but plenty to do from here in the meantime.
 
Btw

Yes I too have noted 98K type rear band on these late and other than some of the later Mauser's the only makes I have observed that did. That not conclusive though.

And often lost bands on some have been replaced with 98K bands, but that is usually obvious.

I agree yours is from original assembly.
 
further notes

Another thing I noticed was on the second series Geco dsm. If you look at the way the logo was applied its the same exact way JGA applied their logo. So is their a connection there as well ?
Geco was a large company and also a dealer or commercial arms. They made an early trainer of their own design and a competitive series of target rifles. Do you think they may of just purchased dsm's from other companies and had their logo applied ? Its the only theory that makes sense to me. I have examined both variants with the waffenstadt suhl and JGA side by side and they appear identicle less the logo.
 
GECO a real can of worms

There are no less than 4 different variations of GECO receivers.

We know the company had their own production facility for firearms.

I strongly believe Sauer and Suhl consortium made many models of firearms with the GECO trademark for them (such as many American Firms did for Sears and Wards).

Alot of work to do here with close comparison of dimensional differences, tool marks, subtle markings underneath, etc.

The style logo, serial ranges, quality of workmanship all clues to look at.

Not just the JGA logo but the Erma Logo size location similiar and some of the very late GECO variation appear to have been scrubbed and that lined out background type logo re-applied. JGA continued to assemble DSM's if not make components past the introduction of Eagle N proofs. Am not ruling them out, but not aware of Anschutz making other models for GECO. Erma not sure. A possibility that those last GECO's were built on receivers from or by another make such as ERMA or JGA bears further investigation.

Attached if photo from file of JGA Eagle N DSM 36 with the logo you refer to.

Don't have a good file picture of the late GECO that I refer to but here is the variation I refer to.
 

Attachments

  • jgadsm1.jpg
    jgadsm1.jpg
    151.3 KB · Views: 42
  • gecodsm.jpg
    gecodsm.jpg
    112.4 KB · Views: 42
GECO Receiver Variations

Photo's courtesy of Bob and Brad Simpson

The first style is early and all examined by me have the Sauer Logo under trigger receiver bottom.
Also they will be encountered with the date 1934 applied identical to Waffenstadt Suhl. But not all interspersed in range.

The lined out background type appear to me to have been applied to receivers that were scrubbed of original markings.

Theory that style logo change was to accommodate obscuring other previous roll marking.

Not conclusive, just a possibility to investigate. They are for sure later variations.
 

Attachments

  • 1stgeco.jpg
    1stgeco.jpg
    68.2 KB · Views: 26
  • 2ndgeco.jpg
    2ndgeco.jpg
    123.6 KB · Views: 28
  • 34d4thgeco.jpg
    34d4thgeco.jpg
    91.7 KB · Views: 31
The Erma Receiver mentioned above

File Photo of the one I believe is a possible candidate to have been scrubbed for use building the late GECO variation.

While the one in the photo is DSM34 later variation with same logo noted.
 

Attachments

  • erma.jpg
    erma.jpg
    28.6 KB · Views: 31
jga/geco

thats a late geco. A five didgit serial with no letter prefix. Its the first ive seen.. Ive seen the b & h prefix type but not a five didgit serial type. I see they excist.

This is a good topic for discusssion. One thats impossible to prove but, I think the evidence is there just by comarison.
 
Last edited:
thats a late geco. A five didgit serial with no letter prefix. Its the first ive seen.. Ive seen the b & h prefix type but not a five didgit serial type. I see they excist.

This is a good topic for discusssion. One thats impossible to prove but, I think the evidence is there just by comarison.

YUP

By nature of the fact that when I started my research there were no or inaccurate references, I have always let the guns do the talking, then go look for documents or period photographs that substantiate observations.

The guns don't lie, they just often present more questions than they do answers.

That has always been my approach to unraveling these mysteries and always will be.
 
geco scrubs

I have not seen the middle variant. Its kind of a transition between the old and the lined version. The logo on the left you can see where it obscured some other logo.. The only logo of that size and shape is the Menz logo.. So I assume this was a leftover menz reciever..
 

Attachments

  • 34d4thgeco.jpg
    34d4thgeco.jpg
    91.7 KB · Views: 16
Menz definately another good Candidate

To have either furnished receivers, or built them for GECO as they dropped out of production with their logo early. Also not sure I have seen a DSM36 receiver by them but that does not rule them out.

Quality and finish also support that theory BUT...........

Be careful about assumptions, that has snakebit me and continues to.

Don't let obeservations and contrary opinions deter you from exploring possibilites, just don't run with assumptions until they can be substantiated.

I think given time and dissassembly, comparision of markings, slight machining variations and marks, measurement with precision measuring devices this can be sorted out.

Takes time.

Also requires access to alot of guns.

Only place that possible is Simpson LTD. And much obliged for the free access Bob has granted me over the years.

That is why several visits for further research are my first priority on pulling some things together.

Likely, will only be able to lay out the evidence let interested students whom may have additional information present further substantiation or disprove and in the end we will still have different takes on the evidence.

Great thing about this forum. Expedites disscussion and presentation of conflicting facts information and opinions.

I often state "opinions" and theories in an attempt to bring forth other information.
 
Last edited:
opinions

I for one like to get actual meaningfull topics started and get questions answered. I think thats whats sets us apart from other forums. I never even thought of this third type logo as being a cover for excisting logos underneath. Plus I had never seen the second type larger Geco logo. I only grazed over Bobs book at the last sos and really didnt have enough time with it have anything soak in. Speeds book is only an over view of the other makers and gives little insite. One thing is for sure the people who really knew are probably dead and the documents long gone. So all we really have is each other and the theories we have come up with. You as far as im concerned are one of the leaders of the german trainer collector community and you;re insite and study time is second to none. Im a noob but, I have come up with some observation of my own that hold water. The more eyes and minds on this topic the better. Im also glad to see Brad S. posting here now as well.. I hope you're dsm book is a smashing sucess ! :thumbsup:
 
Thanks and

No not necessarily a leader as I am only building on the head start I got from some of the first guys to try and figure alot of this out.

It's gonna take all seriously interested parties and significant investigation and research to come up with some things conclusive and in most cases to just lay out the evidence for other students to draw their own conclusions.

I will always remember what Bob Jensen once said to me, "On Third Reich Weapons there are no xperts, only persons who have applied themselves to learning as much as they can."

Anyway

Going to great pains to clearly state what are opinions and theories and hope I readily admit when I find out I am wrong.

Where the facts speak for themselves such as in the orginal documents that Jon Speed so generously shares, it boils down still to interpretation and that often results in contrasting views.

I'm with you. The more eyes, the more serious students, the better with regard to unraveling it.
 
mauser the main supplier ?

well, another topic I discussed with Bob s. was the thought that mauser was the main supplier of all the small parts.. As with the k98 mauser the prime manufacture was able to mass produce certain parts and sell them off to others. This may be the case. Also the apearance of the milled lower band a mauser only feature pretty much could be a clue to the fact that they supplied at least the small parts in mass quantity to all the other assemblers of the dsm34/36. Barrel and receiver makers could of been narrowed down to only two or three. As dsm34 production as a whole is very small by manufacturing standards. Im sure mauser was paid a royalty on every dsm34 made by others like in the case of the k98. So it was to their benifit that as many were made as possible.
 
Mauser with Regard to suppling components

There is no indication in Jon Speeds documents that Mauser supplied other makers with parts although that does not rule it out, think it unlikely. Further the parts in inventory records at various points would not support those numbers beyond what Mauser actually produced as complete guns.

No RW or Ch51 etc marks ever observed on other makers.

There is evidence that tool room examples were sold to the government and there has to have been movement of drawings and guages. Nothing solid there either in those documents yet. Jon can correct me if I am wrong.

I believe that it was a priority perhaps even ahead of weapons production (33/34 time frame only) to get as many trainers out there as possible due to economy of practice with them and as Weapons Production was still under wraps. Any clandestine plans to actually mobilize were years down the road.

Don't know what Bob told you on that occasion but we generally believe and I think are congruent that the goal was to harness the production capacity of all German makers to achieve max output trainers in 34 and 35. That is contrary to Mauser being a prime supplier and the parts on close observation and measurement do not support that theory.

I personally believe that in 1933-34 there was some sort of directive, economic incentive, provided by the NAZI regime to entice all the firearms makers to produce them. Even if only inferred preference to forthcoming contracts for 98K and other weapons systems that did occur when raps came off in 35 and 36. Furhter the governments new rules on private ownership of firearms, emphasis and central control of marksmanship training, commercial vs. totally government sales in the 34 and 35 time frame made this a lucrative market, and as contracts for weapons such as 98K were still pending, it was game on to produce trainers. That's where some market was at that point. 98K and other weapons did not "ramp up" until 1936. You don't make it if you can't sell it. There was a strong demand for .22 trainers that met the goals of the Regime that held all the chips.

Another point we are not congruent on is Mauser being paid. Jon may again correct me if I am wrong but there is nothing to support that they were compensated. We know it was their design and naturally they were courting future more lucrative weapons contracts. That alone may have been enough incentive to hand off to the central government the necessary drawings, guages etc for other firms to manufacture. The DSM while profitable perhaps was not the goose that was gonna lay Golden Egg in the eyes of potential markets Mauser could forsee with Hitler coming to power.

So we are definately contrary on that point.

I should also say that prior to gaining access to Jon's documents and his input and help, I held the same theory that is was logical Mauser supplied components. After years of using micrometers and magnifying glasses on pieces and with the added insight of Mauser sales and production records, I have seen no evidence to support that theory. Took alot of convincing in my case to arrive at that point.

Am confident I will hear from Jon if I missed something there.

Other opinions?
 
Last edited:

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top