Third Party Press

bnz 43 single rune

mrfarb

No War Eagles For You!
Staff member
Testing out a few new photo settings so I pulled out this bnz43 single rune to take pics of (don't think I ever did). This is a pretty cool rifle- the bolt is from a G29(ö)! Everything else is typical bnz43 single rune- Radom receiver, Steyr barrel, unnumbered small parts. The stock has been stripped but not sanded as you can see the E/623 proof at the wrist clearly.

attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • side.jpg
    side.jpg
    79.4 KB · Views: 1,336
  • bands.jpg
    bands.jpg
    83.7 KB · Views: 245
  • DSC_0041.jpg
    DSC_0041.jpg
    107.6 KB · Views: 1,341
  • DSC_0044.jpg
    DSC_0044.jpg
    111.2 KB · Views: 1,349
  • DSC_0046.jpg
    DSC_0046.jpg
    100.5 KB · Views: 1,334
  • DSC_0047.jpg
    DSC_0047.jpg
    80.9 KB · Views: 232
  • DSC_0048.jpg
    DSC_0048.jpg
    80.6 KB · Views: 340
  • DSC_0050.jpg
    DSC_0050.jpg
    107.7 KB · Views: 297
  • DSC_0053.jpg
    DSC_0053.jpg
    104.8 KB · Views: 277
  • DSC_0058.jpg
    DSC_0058.jpg
    122.3 KB · Views: 236
  • DSC_0059.jpg
    DSC_0059.jpg
    105 KB · Views: 213
  • DSC_0062.jpg
    DSC_0062.jpg
    69.3 KB · Views: 209
  • DSC_0065.jpg
    DSC_0065.jpg
    74.4 KB · Views: 204
  • DSC_0068.jpg
    DSC_0068.jpg
    83.5 KB · Views: 236
  • DSC_0072.jpg
    DSC_0072.jpg
    62.7 KB · Views: 243
Last edited:
She's a beauty. Thats a fantastic example. Very crisp. When you see a speciman like that, you can visualize the workers putting it together.

Thanks for posting pics.
 
Very interesting bolt. I have not seen reclaimed parts on factory guns this early. Is this an oddball or is this characterisitic of rune rifles?

Have you been able to date this one? I assume this was assembled sometime later in '43?
 
Yes, late 43 at least. As to reclaimed parts, I don't think this bolt was reclaimed, I think it was never used.
 
ss contract and single runes

well, I guess I'll make the question into another question. I have seen a few of these latley and wonder this. The ss contract and the single runes are very similar rifles. They share alot of the same traits. I assume they were assembled in the same place?? I also noticed some are numbered on the barrel and some on the receiver and some both?? Maybe I just cant keep them all straight in my head. I held an ss contract that could of been a single rune if it were stamped with the rune marking. I know Herr Farby keeps a tight handle on all this stuff and I'm sure he can answer my question of a question...By the way Farb I like the new photo layout !!:thumbsup:
 
There is a pattern the developers if you follow bnz in general, and the time line for army production and SS contract/single rune follows the exact same time line (by dating SS contract and single rune guns with barrel codes).

It does appear there is no difference between SS contract and single rune production. I'm pretty sure they are the exact same gun/variation actually.

So- late 43 serial was on receiver for bnz in single rune AND army production. In early 44 (seemingly after the huge bombings in Feb and April) the serial moves to the barrel on single rune AND army production. Lots of other similarities between army and single rune production (firing proofs, etc). Early single runes have serial on trigger guard and unnumbered bands and floor plate. 44 date single runes have serial on floor plate and bands with unnumbered trigger guard (like army contract). It's all pretty easy to follow if you look at enough of these guns, no real mystery to them.

Some points I have noted to date-:

1 -Very few Steyr produced (over sized markings) receivers marked bnz43 with a single rune. They do exist though, and are legit, just rare. Most are Radom small bnz43 like the one I posted.
2- I've yet to see a Radom receiver (E/77) gun built as a single rune without the rune, I mean no SS contract bnz4 Radom receiver guns. They may exist, but I just haven't seen one yet.
3- I've yet to see an authentic Steyr produced (over sized markings) receiver marked with bnz44 and a single rune. (Well, I saw 1 and it has double rune markings that look legit, I can't figure that one out, but it's a q block).

All speculation at this point as I haven't collected enough data to prove anything.
 
I gotta get me one of those :facepalm:

I believe a board member has a large font bnz43 ss cont. SN 5689....might make for an interesting comparison...

great pics too!
 
Last edited:
It does appear there is no difference between SS contract and single rune production. I'm pretty sure they are the exact same gun/variation actually.

So- late 43 serial was on receiver for bnz in single rune AND army production. In early 44 (seemingly after the huge bombings in Feb and April) the serial moves to the barrel on single rune AND army production. Lots of other similarities between army and single rune production (firing proofs, etc). Early single runes have serial on trigger guard and unnumbered bands and floor plate. 44 date single runes have serial on floor plate and bands with unnumbered trigger guard (like army contract). It's all pretty easy to follow if you look at enough of these guns, no real mystery to them.

I'm actually interested to see this in writing. Not too long ago, at a local show, I was talking with a fellow collector about an SS contract piece. We were talking about the old two production line scenario (where the SS guns were produced in a separate line or even a specific run). The way the numbering changes isn't consistent with that theory. We pondered if rune rifles and SS contract pieces were "rejected" from standard production so then sold to the SS. The lack of the final acceptance proof would lend to this theory; and, now knowing that the SS production is concurrent with Army production may also indicate that they were simply not to Army standards?
 
I'm actually interested to see this in writing. Not too long ago, at a local show, I was talking with a fellow collector about an SS contract piece. We were talking about the old two production line scenario (where the SS guns were produced in a separate line or even a specific run). The way the numbering changes isn't consistent with that theory. We pondered if rune rifles and SS contract pieces were "rejected" from standard production so then sold to the SS. The lack of the final acceptance proof would lend to this theory; and, now knowing that the SS production is concurrent with Army production may also indicate that they were simply not to Army standards?

Don't get too carried away and take this as gospel as these are just observations meant to start some conversation.

One data point- none of bnz production from about February to December of 44 had a final acceptance proof on top- not Army or "SS" production. So, throw the whole final acceptance theory out. Second, I don't think these single rune guns were factory seconds so to speak, but rather built from good quality parts same as Army contract guns were. Well, at least later ones- some real early bnz43 single rune rifles lack firing proofs!

I think the real answer lies in comparing Army contract and SS contract rifles from the same time period (ie by barrel codes). It will take a lot of work and examples to do this, but you may be able to show they were perhaps all made in the same location? I don't think that would surprise me. Or, it may be that certain aspects were, such as test fire proofing. It makes for good conversation, but without serious study it's all acedemic.
 
yes all in fun

This is just alot of us thinking out loud. There is you're example and two others right now on a certain auction site I wont mention. Then another I saw over the weekend.. I wish I had jotted down some info on it. 4 didgit no letter block un-numbered bands with numbered t.g. and floorplate. No stock proofs or receiver proof. Heavily chattered receiver and triggerguard loop. The owner was aware somewhat of it's origin but not 100%. I hope at some point to be able to snag it. { also I thought these rifles all fall into a couple serial ranges with "no" alpha suffix} ???

Well, in a short time of digging I found 4 legit single runes and recorded the serials.. 6432,7087,7325,7331. one rifle is a turd built up on a legit barreled receiver. It falls in the range and features are kinda correct.. less the bad parts that give it away..
 
Last edited:
Yeah, there is a really bad one on Gunbroker right now I think and it's bid up over 1,000 bucks already.
 
bnz's

these are some borrowed pic's from public sites. Showing some of these single runes for comparison only..{no harm was brought to these rifles} Sorry one is not a single rune. it's an ss contract similar to the one I looked at. chattered receiver with no e/77 proof or any proof for that matter. Another thing that sorts these out is the major difference in the firing proofs. A batch of them observed with the worn out proof that shows up alot on the army contract..
 

Attachments

  • CIMG3366.jpg
    CIMG3366.jpg
    85.9 KB · Views: 95
  • pix004175691.jpg
    pix004175691.jpg
    58.3 KB · Views: 122
  • pix849126736.jpg
    pix849126736.jpg
    46.7 KB · Views: 113
  • pix217966801.jpg
    pix217966801.jpg
    42.4 KB · Views: 106
  • pix249401826.jpg
    pix249401826.jpg
    41.8 KB · Views: 98
  • pix649779093.jpg
    pix649779093.jpg
    40.1 KB · Views: 109
  • pix388557146.jpg
    pix388557146.jpg
    37.8 KB · Views: 98
  • pix952880414.jpg
    pix952880414.jpg
    55.4 KB · Views: 122
Last edited:
bnz's

a comparison side by side of a single rune Radom e/77 receiver top and the totally blank ss contract receiver.. The machining and the markings are totally different. So steyr had in-house receiver as well and maybe didn't mark them??

these two single runes are roughly six didgits apart. They use two different receiver's ?? One may be blank the other an astrawerke? Not enough data on either. One has the bnz the other bnz. The '43' has a different depth to it as well..

Four Runes in a row. Here are four know good bnz43 single runes already disscussed. There are two distinct types. bnz. & bnz we know farbs is an e/77 radom receiver. The other two I have no data on. Seeing clearly on the two bnz. receivers it's really clear in one photos the rune is a single struck stamp. The other two especially on farbs item the rune is clearly made up of different hand stamped segments. The stamp showing a defined taper to it. Is this a clue of two different sources or just two types of stamps ? We are assuming these are all from the same run.. Were the runes pre-applied ??
 

Attachments

  • pix217966801.jpg
    pix217966801.jpg
    42.8 KB · Views: 119
  • pix952880414.jpg
    pix952880414.jpg
    55.4 KB · Views: 116
  • 3.JPG
    3.JPG
    100.2 KB · Views: 115
  • DSC_0044.jpg
    DSC_0044.jpg
    120.4 KB · Views: 103
  • pix649779093.jpg
    pix649779093.jpg
    41 KB · Views: 96
Last edited:
bnz43, really a 44 ??

this might be an example of what captain Farb is talking aboot..This is a blanko bnz43 receiver no letter block But, a possible bnz44 in disguise?? I thought this to be a bnz43 ss contract but the more I study and look at the features it's different. The biggest thing being the serial number placement. Moved from the receiver to the barrel. Also the lack of serial on the t.g. and then the floorplate gets serialed. It seems like in 1944 a few of the makers switched their serial placement from receiver to barrel an then back again. Or from barrel to receiver?? Just an odd observation..

This rifle has later features than the bnz43 ss contract and a lower serial number. So I must come to the conclusion it's being made in the first no-letter block in 1944 ??
 

Attachments

  • germank98bayo040.jpg
    germank98bayo040.jpg
    107.1 KB · Views: 87
  • germank98bayo006.jpg
    germank98bayo006.jpg
    101.7 KB · Views: 89
  • germank98bayo031.jpg
    germank98bayo031.jpg
    118.3 KB · Views: 68
  • germank98bayo019.jpg
    germank98bayo019.jpg
    104.6 KB · Views: 81
Last edited:
I'd like to see the barrel code on this one Wayne. Another good way to date these is by the firing proof- as they get later it loses definition. This is a post 43 one from my studies though.
 
bnz 43

sorry farb, this was another auction rifle with limited pic's.. serial is lower than the other examples with later features IE stamped t.g. and bands Also a white glue stock.. This has the worn out proof with no bottom. The receiver at least shows both sides with complete lack of proofs. So maybe this is a no letter block bnz44 in reality? This might be a good lesson to correctly id'ing an ss contract bnz43. When did steyr switch from serialing the the receiver to the barrel? And maybe switched back. I honestly have only owned a couple bnz43's and have none right now. All were straight up army rifles.
I find it interesting these three runes being so close in serial numbers show two different receiver types. Also the variation in the rune itself.. Food for thought and further research.
 
sszza4

Where do '43 bnz SSZZA4 depot rifles fit into this equation?

032.jpg


PM
Not sure, Serial # on barrel. maybe an astrawerke receiver? look for the 1 on the right side. The serial on the receiver was added by the importer. This version lacks any fire proofs which I assume the e/sszza4 takes the place of the test-proof ?

This variation falls into its own catagory. But the serial range falls after this batch of runes..So do they fall into no letter block catagory??? Is there a range running from
0-9999 of these rifles?? More info is needed.
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top