Third Party Press

Spandau 1910 Kar.98

Icarus8383

Well-known member
I just wanted to share my new aquisition:

A Spandau 1910 Kar.98a all matching numbers.

If I remember correctly, they are quite rare. Does anybody have production numbers?

The "6.D.93." means "Magdeburgisches Dragoner Regiment Nr.6", correct?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1379.jpg
    IMG_1379.jpg
    287.1 KB · Views: 86
  • IMG_1380.jpg
    IMG_1380.jpg
    294.8 KB · Views: 75
  • IMG_1381.jpg
    IMG_1381.jpg
    296.2 KB · Views: 55
  • IMG_1382.jpg
    IMG_1382.jpg
    275.2 KB · Views: 50
  • IMG_1383.jpg
    IMG_1383.jpg
    278.9 KB · Views: 62
  • IMG_1384.jpg
    IMG_1384.jpg
    279.2 KB · Views: 46
  • IMG_1385.jpg
    IMG_1385.jpg
    275.9 KB · Views: 55
Your rifle is not only rare, but it is rather interesting and could explain a great deal about Spandau during 1910.

Spandau is the most difficult maker to locate for the 98a, considerably so, - I suspect Spandau made very few 98a carbines, and 1910 is especially elusive, I think because Spandau went back the G98 early in 1910. Your rifle could be a good clue, or rather good proof of this observation.

First, I think your rifle is actually an Erfurt made rifle; I say this because of the firing proof, which is Erfurt's style, second because the b-suffix does not compare well with Spandau/1910 G98 production, but does exactly match Erfurt/1910 production. To confirm my suspicion we would need to see a clear photograph of the right receiver acceptance.

Although it is known that Spandau did produce Kar.98a receivers in 1910, so far none have been observed made (assembled) by them, though there are two unidentified reports, one from the KCN and another an old internet report. So far no confirmed Spandau/1910 (Spandau made, as in having characteristics that carried over from Spandau/1909 production) had been positively identified, just receiver shots.

Lastly, Spandau made about the same number of Kar.98a in 1908 & 1909, about 12,000 each by serial observation, 1909 is far more commonly seen. 1910 as above, receiver shots except for yours, which cannot be confirmed as to maker. A peek at Spandau G98 production shows that there was a sharp decline in both 1908 & 1909, but starts to rise in 1910 and doubles(+) in 1911. This could suggest SPandau made its move back to G98 very early in 1910 and made very few carbines in 1910.

Your rifle could go a long way explaining what really occurred, but I do not think it is at all reasonable to think this 98a is a Spandau assembled rifle, especially at half way through the b-block. That is about double the production of 1908 or 1909 and almost no Spandau/1910's are known.

Anyway, interesting rifle!
 
Thank you. It is really fascinating how much information you have. :thumbsup:

It is funny: Now I have two Spandau receivers (the other one is the Spandau/MO 17/18) and none of them were assembled in Spandau.

I will take the rifle apart and will provide some more (and better detailed) photos (stamps on the right receiver attached already).
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1386.jpg
    IMG_1386.jpg
    300.3 KB · Views: 36
Here are some more photos...
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0974.jpg
    DSC_0974.jpg
    290.3 KB · Views: 20
  • DSC_0975.jpg
    DSC_0975.jpg
    284.5 KB · Views: 29
  • DSC_0976.jpg
    DSC_0976.jpg
    299.8 KB · Views: 25
  • DSC_0977.jpg
    DSC_0977.jpg
    289.5 KB · Views: 23
  • DSC_0978.jpg
    DSC_0978.jpg
    287.6 KB · Views: 19
  • DSC_0979.jpg
    DSC_0979.jpg
    295.6 KB · Views: 18
  • DSC_0980.jpg
    DSC_0980.jpg
    318 KB · Views: 19
  • DSC_0981.jpg
    DSC_0981.jpg
    295.7 KB · Views: 20
  • DSC_0982.jpg
    DSC_0982.jpg
    288.1 KB · Views: 18
  • DSC_0983.jpg
    DSC_0983.jpg
    289.7 KB · Views: 20
Some more...
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0984.jpg
    DSC_0984.jpg
    282.7 KB · Views: 12
  • DSC_0985.jpg
    DSC_0985.jpg
    290.1 KB · Views: 12
  • DSC_0986.jpg
    DSC_0986.jpg
    292.2 KB · Views: 13
  • DSC_0987.jpg
    DSC_0987.jpg
    294.2 KB · Views: 12
  • DSC_0988.jpg
    DSC_0988.jpg
    294.3 KB · Views: 12
  • DSC_0989.jpg
    DSC_0989.jpg
    303.4 KB · Views: 10
  • DSC_0990.jpg
    DSC_0990.jpg
    286.2 KB · Views: 11
  • DSC_0991.jpg
    DSC_0991.jpg
    291.8 KB · Views: 11
  • DSC_0992.jpg
    DSC_0992.jpg
    312.4 KB · Views: 13
  • DSC_0993.jpg
    DSC_0993.jpg
    291.2 KB · Views: 13
Last ones...
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0994.jpg
    DSC_0994.jpg
    288.3 KB · Views: 12
  • DSC_0995.jpg
    DSC_0995.jpg
    289.3 KB · Views: 12
  • DSC_0996.jpg
    DSC_0996.jpg
    283.9 KB · Views: 15
1910 Erfurt 2326 b (thorough m/m but RR useful here)

Attached find a Erfurt/1910 b-block, the closest to your rifle I could find a RR for. The latter two acceptance stamps match, these are the mating and testing acceptance and would reveal the actual assembler. While it is very true such patterns are anything but stable - great variety can be found on pre-war RR acceptance (it solidifies during the war) - this is a very good sign that Erfurt was the maker, when you add the fireproof style and near absence of Spandau/1910 observations. Certainly no confirmed Spandau/1910 has been identified.

What is a little disturbing to this analysis is that your rifle has C/P x3, for this analysis to be sound it would suggest that the receiver hardening be "Spandau" acceptance and the "Erfurt" C/P be used for mating and testing, that the three are the same it would suggest all three steps were accepted by the same inspector. The extra pictures you posted do support Erfurt manufacture, several inspector stamps are typical inspectors at Erfurt, the buttplate for instance, but it is a little annoying (for my theory) that the RR is the same across all three steps.

Maybe see if you can do a clear picture of the wrist acceptance, a little blurry, but it is typically the most stable of the inspection stamps. Probably not going to be breathtaking in revealing an answer, - for one I have precious few to compare it too, but worth seeing.

Thank you. It is really fascinating how much information you have. :thumbsup:
 

Attachments

  • pix037637620.jpg
    pix037637620.jpg
    72.6 KB · Views: 19
  • pix099586280.jpg
    pix099586280.jpg
    64.5 KB · Views: 22
  • pix128112871.jpg
    pix128112871.jpg
    73.8 KB · Views: 24
Beautiful example! Great info Paul, that's incredibly interesting. I never knew 98a receivers were assembled by arsenals other than what was marked on them.
 
There are many instances of such assembly, typically at the end of a production run, or at the beginning of a start-up. Receivers being critical parts and hard to make were always used if possible, when a facility stopped production you often see a few receivers diverted elsewhere (occurred more commonly in the National Socialist period); with the Imperial era they follow far fewer patterns and opinion often times has to take the place of facts... being acceptance being personalized in this period (how many Germans with a "P" or "S" in their last name? How prevalent were they as inspectors, probably several... the Republican period when numbers were adopted for inspectors makes such things easy to decipher, not so much 1871-1918) it is more difficult to identify the inspector with absolute certainty. In many cases other attributes can distinguish these build with less doubt. Wartime Erfurt builds often have a "E" across the receiver, similar to the "H" receivers, the Danzig and Suhl start up builds are commonly encountered also, the builds by Mauser with their trademark across the top, but these slippery pre-wars like this you have to assemble clues, like fireproofs, observation compariasions, acceptance, etc..

One example, who made this Kar.98a?

Beautiful example! Great info Paul, that's incredibly interesting. I never knew 98a receivers were assembled by arsenals other than what was marked on them.
 

Attachments

  • pix2080196468.jpg
    pix2080196468.jpg
    24.4 KB · Views: 25
  • pix2080196750.jpg
    pix2080196750.jpg
    24.4 KB · Views: 21
  • pix2080196828.jpg
    pix2080196828.jpg
    16.3 KB · Views: 19
Another, though fine details are absent, who do you imagine made this rifle? I think Erfurt due to rifles that fall into this pattern. But, in the end much of this is educated guesswork, not necessarily fact (though these days the distinction is pretty hazy among the media who think if they pontificate some opinion it magically turns into a fact... most "journalists" need to consult a dictionary and refresh their definition of fact vs. opinion), but as a specialist on this subject I am confident these are Erfurt made carbines.
 

Attachments

  • K98a%202.jpg
    K98a%202.jpg
    100.8 KB · Views: 22
It is very difficult to catch it. Especially because it is already dark here.

I would say, that it is Crown/S.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1388.jpg
    IMG_1388.jpg
    235.7 KB · Views: 23
  • IMG_1389.jpg
    IMG_1389.jpg
    236.6 KB · Views: 21
A baffler with no precedent

Try and unravel this carbine, Spandau is only known to have made 98a receivers 1908-1910, yet this one is dated 1914 and is a small ring Kar.98a receiver. Siderail not shown. By all evidence, fireproof, acceptance this is an Erfurt, yet many would stand by this as proof Spandau made the Kar.98a in 1914 (they didn't but who can explain the receiver, perhaps a leftover 1910 re-dated? Has the C/P hardening acceptance, but who knows..)

Anyway, the last exercise is just something to chew on, many other similar cases, though mostly between Danzig and Erfurt, not so much Spandau and Erfurt, - probably because Spandau had more important things to do as the foremost arsenal.
 

Attachments

  • fullsizeoutput_22b.jpg
    fullsizeoutput_22b.jpg
    276.1 KB · Views: 26
  • fullsizeoutput_21e.jpg
    fullsizeoutput_21e.jpg
    300.6 KB · Views: 22
  • fullsizeoutput_1f7.jpg
    fullsizeoutput_1f7.jpg
    285.5 KB · Views: 19
  • Receiver_Right.jpg
    Receiver_Right.jpg
    100.9 KB · Views: 19
  • fullsizeoutput_23d.jpg
    fullsizeoutput_23d.jpg
    226.9 KB · Views: 22
  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    256 KB · Views: 15
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    333.7 KB · Views: 18
Last edited:
Yes, probably C/S, but I am more concerned with the larger? What do you make of the larger acceptance stamp, the letter? Here is a Erfurt/1911 wrist for example.

The wrist acceptance is the most stable acceptance on any Imperial rifle, it can vary, though less so than under the cypher (which is the least reliable, revolving between a few inspectors with no real pattern), the wrist and lower buttstock tend to be more stable, even pre-war when nothing is very stable (I think pre-war the inspectors took a more hands on approach, probably due to training and saving money, - you need a pool of trained inspectors in case war when they will be dispersed and given more autonomy, plus the low tempo and cost savings using inspectors instead of more workers...)

It is very difficult to catch it. Especially because it is already dark here.

I would say, that it is Crown/S.
 

Attachments

  • pix190003504.jpg
    pix190003504.jpg
    47.3 KB · Views: 20
Yes, probably C/S, but I am more concerned with the larger? What do you make of the larger acceptance stamp, the letter? Here is a Erfurt/1911 wrist for example.

Yes, it is the same stamp. So it id indeed an Erfurt made rifle. The only secret now is why are there three identical acceptance stamps on the receiver. ;-)
 
It has me a little baffled, if the receiver inspector was C/P and he was at Spandau, one would think the assembly acceptance and test inspections done at Erfurt would be a different inspector? That the fireproof is Erfurt style the results of the assembly and testing acceptance would seem to indicate Erfurt did them...

Perhaps C/P moved to Erfurt when Spandau dropped the Kar.98a? As evidenced by the rifle I illustrated from the same block early in this thread. Danzig was the strongest maker of the 98a pre-war, they dominated production, but Erfurt's production didn't rise appreciably after 1910 (1910 was their highest pre-war year though), so why would they need another inspector. If we had better observations for pre-war production we might be able to see how active C/P was at Erfurt, but production was low and most observations are scanty, - idiot owners taking dozens of irrelevant pictures and few of importance.

Anyway, I think it is indisputable Erfurt had a hand in this rifles manufacture, where exactly it began may be open to question.

The only secret now is why are there three identical acceptance stamps on the receiver. ;-)
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top