G98m - Questions

Hi everyone,

I recently picked up a deactivated Simson & Co 1917 G98. The stock is quite beat up (I like it - It has a story to it). It has the correct straight bolt handle, however has the same takedown disc as the K98, as well as the same rear sight as my 1937 K98. I've been reading about the modified G98's and their use in WWII. After reading a fair bit, I think I've ended up with a G98m? Is this correct? Pictures I've seen are the same (Slot for fingers in stock/Takedown disc/Rear sight type).

I'll attach some pics of the markings on the rifle - Could people have a look and let me know if these are original markings/stamps from WW1 manufacture? (not the rear sight markings, they're obviously from much later)

Thanks!

Yes, typically these are called G.98M or Gew.98M by collectors as a easy to use "moniker" or nickname, - rarely used in any study or conversation where study is involved. Which is why Mike and Bruce didn't use it often in their book. The term came about, as far as I can remember, in the 1990's when Mark Wieringa used the term Modified Gewehr98 or Gewehr98 modified in an article. Old timers sometimes use Gew.98A or Gew.98B with the bands being the distinguishing factor (generally).

Generally, as the Germans never gave these rifles an official designation, - usually just calling them Gewehr 98 mit s.S Visiere - most serious collectors and researchers call them upgraded Gewehr98's. I think that is generally what Bruce and Mike used, which is most appropriate imo...

Regarding the rifle, it would be helpful if you could take the stock off and record the barrel code under the stock (probably Krupp made, the lot would help date it), plus the acceptance pattern (also the rear sight if it matches, a matching RS is the next best thing to date a rifle after the stock, though mismatched it will not be revealing). Simson/17 is pretty hard to find, especially late (and d-block is pretty late... technically they made about the same number of rifles in 1917 as 1916, but you wouldn't know it by recorded rifles in the latter blocks, - very tough finding an d-g block, especially a f-g block.

Regarding stock, what would have been right for this rifle in WWI, beech stocks seem more common in the last blocks, but walnuts are known til the end. By the d-block it should have the grips and take down, but only about half of the known rifles d-g block have original stocks, so I would say a d-block could go without either TD or grips, as it is close to the transition and not long before the d-block grips and TD's were uncommon (non-existent actually, Simson is pretty cut & dry in changes, probably because they made so few rifles each year...).

Lastly, I would say your rifle carries a later acceptance pattern, typically one not seen until the f-block, it is possible this rifle was made later than it seems, though to be honest anything after the c-block is based upon pretty scanty number of rifles (observations wise, they are pretty hard to find).

I took the liberty of moving this thread to the republican era (interwar) forum; it is more appropriate here.

Reply

Thanks for the information! I'll post some more pics when I get time. I'm a bit hesitant to pull the rifle apart, but can tell you the RS is matching numbers. Is the acceptance pattern under the barrel between the stock also? I'll try to get it apart - Hopefully nothing breaks haha. Thanks

Reply

Here are some more pics.

How matching is the rifle? I see the TG-FP (trigger guard assembly) matches, does the stock assembly (stock, bands, BL etc..)? Lacking disassembly look for a serial along the bottom of the buttstock, also the the last two digits on the bayonet lug (BL), also the buttplate. These will give a clue to whether the stock matches, though disassembly might be required due to the condition of the exterior. (while looking, watch for weird markings at the wrist or anywhere on the buttstock, though naval it should lack early acceptance)

I see the stock is RM (naval) marked, if matching that is very good news. While condition is one of the most important things, more important (generally, - in extreme cases of neglect condition can trump all other considerations) is having original components and a period finish (any postwar refinish is a value killer). This rifle looks like some of the parts are original.

The RS shown only tells us the sleeve is made by Mauser Oberndorf in 1935, which alone is utterly useless in an evaluation. That part could have been installed anytime from 1935 to 1945, though generally 1935-1942. Do pictures of the numbered parts, the RS base, scale and slide, - actually take pictures of every numbered (matching) part. The sum of the parts may tell something of a story we can piece together... that it is naval marked often means things will have less "order" or consistency, the RM/KM tended to have a smaller budget for small arms and their repairs (they worked mostly with leftovers and stashes of hidden arms), so you see queer things regularly in their reworks and most of the weirdest things (hybrids, quirky alterations etc..) are often RM worked rifles.

As for disassembly of the stock, it isn't necessary but it would be most helpful. Typically if a rifle has been together for a long time (many decades), especially with greasy crud or is rusty with neglect, it can be a tough nut to crack (biggest thing to be wary of is the front sight, don't go jerking front bands off or you will get a purple heart along with a gouge in the hand), rather use wooden blocks and a tool for tapping and do not rush... the rest is simple though often need practice/patience if parts are glued together by decades of neglect..

Honestly I have more difficulty assembling some cheap book case or furniture made in China (with unintelligible/illiterate instructions) than disassembling one of these rifles, - though inexperience is often difficult to overcome and it might not be best to start with a neglected rifle. (though if this is deactivated, one would think its been disassembled recently, at least once? How was it deactivated?)

Reply

Hi, thank you for your reply! The bayonet lug, front sight, buttplate and front band are marked '1447' - same as the receiver. The bolt is marked differently, therefore it wouldn't be original to the rifle. There are no markings that I can see on the wrist, underneath or on the buttstock at all - The wood is quite beat up. The wood has a bit of a shine to it - definitely not laminated though, but I'm not sure how they originally were. (My 1937 K98 has a non laminate stock and isn't shiny.)

Out of curiosity, how do you know it's naval? What signifies this on the stock?

I'll try to disassemble it when I get a bit of time - I'll post my findings.

Thanks!

Reichsmarine / Kriegsmarine

The take down ferrule offers a clue that the rifle is naval, Reichsmarine / Kriegsmarine, the "O.12018", which is a RM property mark. Interestingly I have recorded another rifle with a close property mark, not quite as rough as yours, but rode hard by service with multiple signs of depot work.

Typical of this variation, they were heavily used and show considerable service, probably longer than their Reichsheer counterparts. I assume because the navy never had the access to large stores of new rifles, they kept these old rifles in service along with what new rifles they acquired. This is reflected in the odd assortment of rifles we can attribute to the KM during the second war (SDP-Radom components assemblies by KM ordnance personnel, the blotchy nature of 98k contracts, including the G.29/40's SDP made for them). The KM was pretty far down the procurement ladder, they got leftovers, which meant they kept rifle longer and didn't recycle them as early as the Army.

Anyway, pictures of your rifles cousin, - 1915 Danzig 9824 g O.12046

*** Your stock looks beech to me, but it could be walnut, hard to say with the exterior neglect and damage. it wouldn't be laminate, these long (G98) stocks weren't made in laminate.

Waow, I like your rifle. What stories it could tell. This is a true warhorse, and it has been through the mud!