BNZ question.
- Thread starter jerrbear
- Start date
No one knows the exact purpose the rune represents. However it is almost certainly related to the operations at KL Gusen where SDP conducted some manufacturing operations, - they were originally not related to their normal 98k program, though it is clear rejected parts and some manufacturing of components (receivers) were undertaken on a small scale. These rifles were almost certainly for the SS, though probably not for front line units, - probably to supply their KL system.
The rune itself is probably a form of acceptance, or accountability to differentiate the rifles from normal production. Normal production went through military inspection, normal acceptance patterns exist for their regular production. These SS contract rifles come in a couple variations, they can be broken into several sub-groups that are probably a result of the time frame they were assembled. (barrel codes and marking patterns differentiate these rifles)
Very possibly these SS contract rifles were sent to the main SDP plant for fireproofing and or final testing, though that is not known for sure either. What is known is specific to the period after August 1944 when the main works were bombed (and Radom was lost) and SDP small arms manufacture and assembly were dispersed. At that time rifle component manufacture was moved to Gusen and assembly to Mölln and all rifle production was removed from Steyr proper.
I have written an extensive article on SDP though I have had to delay publication for the time being as it is over 20 pages and will have to work on getting it to a manageable (and readable) size.
The rune itself is probably a form of acceptance, or accountability to differentiate the rifles from normal production. Normal production went through military inspection, normal acceptance patterns exist for their regular production. These SS contract rifles come in a couple variations, they can be broken into several sub-groups that are probably a result of the time frame they were assembled. (barrel codes and marking patterns differentiate these rifles)
Very possibly these SS contract rifles were sent to the main SDP plant for fireproofing and or final testing, though that is not known for sure either. What is known is specific to the period after August 1944 when the main works were bombed (and Radom was lost) and SDP small arms manufacture and assembly were dispersed. At that time rifle component manufacture was moved to Gusen and assembly to Mölln and all rifle production was removed from Steyr proper.
I have written an extensive article on SDP though I have had to delay publication for the time being as it is over 20 pages and will have to work on getting it to a manageable (and readable) size.
Last edited:
There is no way to tell... however I believe the SS contracts were "built" in KL Gusen, and normal production at Steyr, with final testing done at Steyr - things to consider:
1. The manufacture of rifles start with fireproofing and end with testing, if they were made separately then it means KL Gusen would have had to have all the capabilities to fireproof actions (equipment and proofing ammunition). I do not know if that is the case, but they probably did as if they didn't the rifles would have had to go back and forth and that is not practical. Odds are they had the means to fireproof and the rifles were sent to Steyr for final testing only. I can't see extensive testing possible at KL Gusen, that would be problematic having complete rifles and large stores of ammo at a concentration camp.
2. Had testing been done, or practical, at KL Gusen, then after August 1944 they would have moved components and assembly to Gusen instead of moving assembly and testing to a newly built facility at Mölln, - they chose to instead keep them separate. It is also said "all" rifle assembly moved to Mölln late in 1944, this is probably why the SR stop, - by then the SS controlled all elements of the economy, - both Göring and Speer were marginalized; there was no longer a reason to manufacture for the SS independently.
3. SDP was a commercial concern, fully government owned but operated under Rheinmetall (also government owned) and theoretically for profit (a meaningless concept in 1944 Germany). The military inspected their production on site but all procedures were done by company employees. It isn't like German soldiers were inspecting rifles, - so testing and dealing with commercial production would not have been a large burden, they would have to keep them separate (SR and SS contract rifles exhibit low standards and my bet is they didn't meet Army standards) and the rune might have served that purpose to a degree.
Bottom line is I think rifles were probably all tested at Steyr but in the early stages, up to the August 1944 events, rifles were assembled at separate locations. The only direct evidence of this is company reported production numbers and the disparity in production ranges in “normal” (Army) observations, which suggests many more rifles were made than delivered to the military and Speers post war comments stating he was opposed to KL rifle assembly due to his inability to control the resources involved and disposition of the rifles (which implies they were made in the KL system and went to non-Army users- the SS front line units would have been given quality rifles from Army sources, not the low quality rifles made outside of Army inspection.)
I cover this in my article, my thoughts, but the truth of it is there is little direct evidence before August 1944 and what we do know of KL Gusen's early operations come from holocaust researchers, the best from German holocaust authors (in German) and they are vague and often unreliable as they usually have an agenda (they usually have a conclusion they want to "prove", rather than looking for information to form a conclusion...)
1. The manufacture of rifles start with fireproofing and end with testing, if they were made separately then it means KL Gusen would have had to have all the capabilities to fireproof actions (equipment and proofing ammunition). I do not know if that is the case, but they probably did as if they didn't the rifles would have had to go back and forth and that is not practical. Odds are they had the means to fireproof and the rifles were sent to Steyr for final testing only. I can't see extensive testing possible at KL Gusen, that would be problematic having complete rifles and large stores of ammo at a concentration camp.
2. Had testing been done, or practical, at KL Gusen, then after August 1944 they would have moved components and assembly to Gusen instead of moving assembly and testing to a newly built facility at Mölln, - they chose to instead keep them separate. It is also said "all" rifle assembly moved to Mölln late in 1944, this is probably why the SR stop, - by then the SS controlled all elements of the economy, - both Göring and Speer were marginalized; there was no longer a reason to manufacture for the SS independently.
3. SDP was a commercial concern, fully government owned but operated under Rheinmetall (also government owned) and theoretically for profit (a meaningless concept in 1944 Germany). The military inspected their production on site but all procedures were done by company employees. It isn't like German soldiers were inspecting rifles, - so testing and dealing with commercial production would not have been a large burden, they would have to keep them separate (SR and SS contract rifles exhibit low standards and my bet is they didn't meet Army standards) and the rune might have served that purpose to a degree.
Bottom line is I think rifles were probably all tested at Steyr but in the early stages, up to the August 1944 events, rifles were assembled at separate locations. The only direct evidence of this is company reported production numbers and the disparity in production ranges in “normal” (Army) observations, which suggests many more rifles were made than delivered to the military and Speers post war comments stating he was opposed to KL rifle assembly due to his inability to control the resources involved and disposition of the rifles (which implies they were made in the KL system and went to non-Army users- the SS front line units would have been given quality rifles from Army sources, not the low quality rifles made outside of Army inspection.)
I cover this in my article, my thoughts, but the truth of it is there is little direct evidence before August 1944 and what we do know of KL Gusen's early operations come from holocaust researchers, the best from German holocaust authors (in German) and they are vague and often unreliable as they usually have an agenda (they usually have a conclusion they want to "prove", rather than looking for information to form a conclusion...)
31pickemup
Well-known member
Pictures
I'm waiting to see some pictures! Did you find it in someones closet?
I'm waiting to see some pictures! Did you find it in someones closet?
You did well. Not to be too technical, but the large font bnz43 single rune guns are few and far between. Here's a study on them I'm working on based on barrel code/features, I'll add yours to it.
http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?308-SS-Contract-and-Single-Rune-serial-study
http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?308-SS-Contract-and-Single-Rune-serial-study
grimlin13
Senior Member
Very nice rifle and a heck of a deal. I`d love to find a K98 in that good of a shape and matching for that price.They had a price of $400 on it but I got it for $350
ak bnz/1 is pretty late-mid ranges 1943 (k-m range) for Army production. This doesn't mean the rifle was made then (BC can vary widely on this variation and there are 1944 range barrels on bnz/43 SR receivers, as Ryan implied), but your rifles pattern fits other original rifles in a broad serial range (BC range- af, ai, ak, bb in nearby bnz/43 SR, NS bands, serial TG only, and this receiver type is known in this range).
I would second Ryan's request for more pictures, - specifically the markings on the underside of the bolt stem and on the right side of the receiver below the wood. This receiver type (limited observations obviously) are believed to be Gusen receivers, - they lack Radom markings and identifiers so far as my observations show the receiver and this trend continues into 1944. Also I would be curious if you have a V/7 anywhere on the receiver, bridge, underside, or on the RR are possible, it is sometimes weakly struck.
As others have commented, this variation is heavily altered, many fraudulent rifles exist, they add great confusion to my research and I have had to exclude many rifles due to uncertainty - the rc's are nearly worthless to include in a database designed for accurate research, the few rifles that are like yours, authentic, are very important to our research. If you can take the time to show us these angles it would be very helpful.
I would second Ryan's request for more pictures, - specifically the markings on the underside of the bolt stem and on the right side of the receiver below the wood. This receiver type (limited observations obviously) are believed to be Gusen receivers, - they lack Radom markings and identifiers so far as my observations show the receiver and this trend continues into 1944. Also I would be curious if you have a V/7 anywhere on the receiver, bridge, underside, or on the RR are possible, it is sometimes weakly struck.
As others have commented, this variation is heavily altered, many fraudulent rifles exist, they add great confusion to my research and I have had to exclude many rifles due to uncertainty - the rc's are nearly worthless to include in a database designed for accurate research, the few rifles that are like yours, authentic, are very important to our research. If you can take the time to show us these angles it would be very helpful.
I will see what I can do for more pics. I am very hesitant however to take the gun out of the stock to check the bottom as I don't want to mar up the screws. There is a Nazi eagle stamp that is the same on the receiver on the bolt stem but see no other markings. There is 2 WA77 stamps below the rear sight. There is a S on the heal of the stock and a very small Eagle 623 on the grip near the trigger guard. I will try to post pics of these areas when I can.
I understand completely, whatever you are comfortable with. Potentially it is a very valuable rifle.
Thanks for the bolt help, this varies widely and every recording is helpful. Just to clarify, you see no markings whatsoever on the right side of the receiver and bridge (the entire right side of the receiver is completely blank - no markings?)
Thanks for the bolt help, this varies widely and every recording is helpful. Just to clarify, you see no markings whatsoever on the right side of the receiver and bridge (the entire right side of the receiver is completely blank - no markings?)
