norseman007
Member
Thanks for the tips mto7464 and i hope to use this rifle as the foundation for a k98 collection.
1943 kar98 byf 135 Vet Bring Back numbers matching, combat used...would like info
- Thread starter norseman007
- Start date
YCGG and Backboner were the same thing for the most part, Peter just revised some of the original articles Bob Jensen wrote for the KCN and MRJ back in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Peter did a good job updating them, but in reality they are still very dated and not very accurate.
I agree with Eric, none of the firms made a million rifles in a year, - none were working at full capacity (Gustloff was working at 60% capacity, mostly due to raw material allocation and extreme inefficiency, constant changing of designs and projects). Even in 1944 they only made 261k rifles and all totaled, by wars end, they barely broke a million rifles altogether.
Mauser made 665k in 1944, their biggest year, and they were probably the most efficient and highest producer.
Steyr's wartime maximum capacity was 30k a month, and I doubt they really reached that, - they also had 20k capacity for machine pistols and pistols. (Their MG42 production not included- Steyr's small arms production was distributed throughout Austria, nothing was made in one place, and none of it was made or assembled in Steyr itself, shortly after the war began Steyr rifle making tooling was spread to 4 different facilities- plus Radom and Warsaw supplied huge numbers of parts, so 6 plants were involved in these crummy quality rifles they made by 1944)
The biggest maker was Brno, but I am positive the totals include both dot and dou together. In 1944 they made about 730k 98k altogether (both facilities). Matt Gadds study, based on thorough research, suggests that Brno (dot), throughout the war (1943-45) only made 700k, and dou made the balance.
So you can see, Eric is right, none of the makers came anywhere near 1 million rifles, in a one year period, and while it might have been possible that Gustloff, Brno (dot & dou together) or Mauser could have attained such a figure, it was not possible under the conditions that existed at the time. Mostly because rifles were not really the focus of production, except perhaps in Mauser's case, though they too made many things besides rifles.
I agree with Eric, none of the firms made a million rifles in a year, - none were working at full capacity (Gustloff was working at 60% capacity, mostly due to raw material allocation and extreme inefficiency, constant changing of designs and projects). Even in 1944 they only made 261k rifles and all totaled, by wars end, they barely broke a million rifles altogether.
Mauser made 665k in 1944, their biggest year, and they were probably the most efficient and highest producer.
Steyr's wartime maximum capacity was 30k a month, and I doubt they really reached that, - they also had 20k capacity for machine pistols and pistols. (Their MG42 production not included- Steyr's small arms production was distributed throughout Austria, nothing was made in one place, and none of it was made or assembled in Steyr itself, shortly after the war began Steyr rifle making tooling was spread to 4 different facilities- plus Radom and Warsaw supplied huge numbers of parts, so 6 plants were involved in these crummy quality rifles they made by 1944)
The biggest maker was Brno, but I am positive the totals include both dot and dou together. In 1944 they made about 730k 98k altogether (both facilities). Matt Gadds study, based on thorough research, suggests that Brno (dot), throughout the war (1943-45) only made 700k, and dou made the balance.
So you can see, Eric is right, none of the makers came anywhere near 1 million rifles, in a one year period, and while it might have been possible that Gustloff, Brno (dot & dou together) or Mauser could have attained such a figure, it was not possible under the conditions that existed at the time. Mostly because rifles were not really the focus of production, except perhaps in Mauser's case, though they too made many things besides rifles.
Last edited:
norseman007
Member
Thats really interesting! Also I thank you as well simpson!
John Lawson
Senior Member
Interesting. I have a byf43 serial# 3304 ll (double L). Wouldn't this be the 103,304 rifle completed for December 1943?
All matching, NIM, not RC.
Might just be a factory mistake. Does the bolt have the double L as well? Or perhaps this is another catch all block like the n block in '44? It would be interesting to see pictures.
byf 43 serial number 3304 LL could also be a byf 43 receiver assembled into a rifle at the tail end of the byf 42 serial number run. I don't have any serial number data for byf 42 immediately at hand but would guess that the LL block was around the end of that year's production.
John Lawson
Senior Member
Its definitely a double ll (lower case L). Bolt is numbered the same way.
I will get my son to post some pictures.
I can also bring it to Allentown in October if anyone there wants to have a look.
Son of a WW2 vet purchase.
I will get my son to post some pictures.
I can also bring it to Allentown in October if anyone there wants to have a look.
Son of a WW2 vet purchase.
Again this is correct (imo), these are a continuation of the 1942 production range, and I think all that are known are in the lower "kk" ranges, - so your "LL" is quite unusual.
1942 byf serial range stops around the "ii" block, no "jj" known, and these "kk" spilled over but only a few are known. While "LL" seems high to me, it is the only explanation if authentic. The barrel code will help, as will images.
Harlan Cook wrote a little about these years ago on Gunboards98k, he had recorded more than I have so he might have recorded them higher.
1942 byf serial range stops around the "ii" block, no "jj" known, and these "kk" spilled over but only a few are known. While "LL" seems high to me, it is the only explanation if authentic. The barrel code will help, as will images.
Harlan Cook wrote a little about these years ago on Gunboards98k, he had recorded more than I have so he might have recorded them higher.
John Lawson
Senior Member
Barrel code is R wa135. I did not see a year. Pictures later this evening.
Excellent, definitely a 1942-barrel, the abbreviated coding started in 1942, along with the first steps Germany took towards rationalization of production (industry wide- ordered by Hitler himself late in 1941, when they could no longer avoid the problems due to the campaign in Russia continuation). These "sterile" markings and cut back on serialing of parts starts quite early for MO, but really is noticeable around the k-l blocks (1942).
Interestingly, you see a lot of early 1942 Mauser barrels (full code 1942 barrels) cycled through in early 1943 production, but about the "d" block, 1943 dated barrels become the norm with byf/43 production. Very few of these non-dated lots show up in 1943 production, only a few early in 1943. Obviously these sterile barrels started in production early in 1942 (no-blocks are known), and went into early 1943 probably, but very early in 1943 they started dating barrel lots again and adding lot numbers.
None of this was a reversal of Hitler's directive, it was simply developed from it, adding more short cuts, modifying other details, - most probably the lot system was determined important for accountability. After all acceptance (waffenamt are acceptance- not “proofs”) and these lot number-mfg codes are all about responsibility and if you abbreviate them you take from that. I think that is behind the further development of the lot system, especially with subcontractor production.
Anyway, no question your rifle is a continuation of 1942 serialing, though assembled in 1943, - a rather rare variation, as only a handful are known, and yours is by far the latest.
Interestingly, you see a lot of early 1942 Mauser barrels (full code 1942 barrels) cycled through in early 1943 production, but about the "d" block, 1943 dated barrels become the norm with byf/43 production. Very few of these non-dated lots show up in 1943 production, only a few early in 1943. Obviously these sterile barrels started in production early in 1942 (no-blocks are known), and went into early 1943 probably, but very early in 1943 they started dating barrel lots again and adding lot numbers.
None of this was a reversal of Hitler's directive, it was simply developed from it, adding more short cuts, modifying other details, - most probably the lot system was determined important for accountability. After all acceptance (waffenamt are acceptance- not “proofs”) and these lot number-mfg codes are all about responsibility and if you abbreviate them you take from that. I think that is behind the further development of the lot system, especially with subcontractor production.
Anyway, no question your rifle is a continuation of 1942 serialing, though assembled in 1943, - a rather rare variation, as only a handful are known, and yours is by far the latest.
John Lawson
Senior Member
John Lawson
Senior Member
You sure do! I thought the rifle was late 43.
That is what is great about this web site, you do learn something new everyday!
Thanks everone for sharing your knowledge.
That is what is great about this web site, you do learn something new everyday!
Thanks everone for sharing your knowledge.
