Third Party Press

Help with a unit marking

carguy4471

Active member
Is anyone able to tell if this is a unit marking, and if so, what are we looking at??
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1250.jpg
    IMG_1250.jpg
    112.1 KB · Views: 86
I am not an authority on unit markings, however this is almost certainly republican era, - which is why I moved the thread (if it turns out Imperial I can move it back); Unfortunately the unit marking is not clear enough to be certain of the characters, but probably Infantry Regiment, maybe try and do a better picture of the characters or try and glean them visually and tell us best guess on your part?

I assume the barreled receiver that comes with it is mismatched? If it is matching do some pictures of it... often times when these stocks are found, republican era unit marked, they came in from the Albanian imports of the 1990's. Republican era G98's and 98b came in significant numbers and pretty much contributed significantly to the availability of these rifle variations. I dare say that the numbers of 98b's doubled because of the imports, still rather elusive, but the Simson/S28's known are often traced backed to these imports.

DO more pictures if you can, is the stock property (1920) marked? What is the action in the stock?
 
I found the link to Gunboards thread, - just wow, that shooterrike has to be the most ignorant participant on the forum, possibly even more ignorant than anyone on the entire site... and that is saying something because that forum is occupied by the most ignorant people in this field (hobby).

This was not done in the field, nor was it done by some rouge ordnance armorer. The stock is from the republican era (1918-1933) probably mid-1920's, the barrel is an ordnance spare supplied by SDP (Steyr Daimler Puch). Nothing shown is from "WW1" or the Imperial era.

It is possible the stock has a superficial link to the Imperial era, a left over ordnance spare or blank, but the final on the side shows this was republican era work, not Imperial or NS related. What is important to know regarding the stock (the only interesting or unusual part shown... the rest is humdrum dirt common ordnance work, almost certainly re-barreled at a HZa) is whether it has further markings. The unit stamp is republican (Reichsheer), but it would be very important to the equation whether the rifle has further acceptance or a property mark. Probably not the latter, as the E/H seems to rule that out (its style and placement).

If you want to understand the stock, do pictures of both sides of the buttstock and the wrist of the stock. Also any marking you can locate on the stock. As the stock is mismatched to the action, there is no connection to one another. Discussions would be smoother if you separated the two components in your questions.
 
".. and that is saying something because that forum is occupied by the most ignorant people in this field (hobby)."

Ok, now my feeling are hurt...:laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
It's true I couldn't tell up from down when it comes to WWII era rifles. Thus I really do appreciate folks trying to make some corrections.

Even though I've got a mixmaster special, the story behind it is still fascinating to me. I find it amazing the number of folks that are willing to chime in and help piece a bit of the history back together.
 
..It is possible the stock has a superficial link to the Imperial era, a left over ordnance spare or blank, but the final on the side shows this was republican era work, not Imperial or NS related.

I defiinitely agree Paul as 'obviously' the Weimar eagle over H dates the stock. What initially threw me was the buttplate with crown over Fraktur Danzig..jpg

and since this was shown before any other stock details or photos that's where I got the Imperial connection. No saying the buttplate is original but stock numbers would confirm that or not.

Well jumping from thread to thread on both sites I can see that the buttplate serial does match the keel of the stock and in the barrel channel. Certainly adds something to consider IMO.
 
Last edited:
Naturally I was not speaking of Frank or HM in my assessment of the forum contributors, - after all Farb moderates the "nursery". There are a few knowledgeable collectors that frequent the forum, possibly out of habit from when it was relevant.

The presence of fraktur acceptance is not necessarily evidence of Imperial use, for one Imperial style acceptance carried on into the republican era, protocol and methods did not abruptly change overnight, production at the firms did not just stop on November 11, 1918. We not only know this from books and period literature, we can see this in parts, not only rifles dated 1919, but rearsight components with the old style acceptance.

Anyway, my comments were not directed at anyone in particular or beyond shooterike's post (who is not always wrong, - learning is a process that involves cooperation and evolution, and he seems incapable of communicating with others or learning/regurgitating what is written in books, - which all books are written by men who bring their prejudices and incomplete views into them. A great historian once wrote that "most of history is guessing and the rest is prejudice", every researcher must read and condense information from a number of sources, several authors across a spectrum of related subjects and seek out period literature where possible...). That forum will remain inconsequential until it changes its views on moderating and censorship. Research stagnates when it is stifled, when it is restrained by artificial boundaries or arbitrary "feelings" of moderators (ignorant moderators in particular, - like BArF who is responsible for gunboards 98k decline).

The stock can only be fully evaluated by a detailed examination of the markings, the wrist and both sides of the buttstock. It isn't important to my research, however it is interesting enough to have my attention if the OP does the necessary photographs. It won't change the value of his rifle in either case.
 
"most of history is guessing and the rest is prejudice"

The winner generally writes the history, at least short term. Anyway thanks for the further information Paul. I was not aware Imperial Fraktur acceptance continued into the Republican era. Do you know how long that might have gone on? '22? 24? I also envisioned a scenario where a certain small part or several fell under the back of an assembly bench and escaped retrieval until a substantial or orchestrated 'clean up' or reorg of the production floor (possibly to accomodate more production) resulted in these older (possibly significantly) small parts that later appear in the parts bin. I know I would do the same thing, even seaking out the proper bin to desposit it. I don't think I'm reaching into SI territory here?

No Waffenmeisters were harmed in the creation of this post.
 
Last edited:
Here are the requested photos. If there are any additional photos that would be helpful please let me know!

I really appreciate all the great info above!!!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1258.jpg
    IMG_1258.jpg
    330.4 KB · Views: 24
  • IMG_1259.jpg
    IMG_1259.jpg
    322.3 KB · Views: 24
  • IMG_1262.jpg
    IMG_1262.jpg
    327.5 KB · Views: 20
  • IMG_1263.jpg
    IMG_1263.jpg
    314.6 KB · Views: 19
  • IMG_1264.jpg
    IMG_1264.jpg
    344.6 KB · Views: 20
  • IMG_1265.jpg
    IMG_1265.jpg
    303.9 KB · Views: 19
  • IMG_1266.jpg
    IMG_1266.jpg
    326.7 KB · Views: 18
  • IMG_1267.jpg
    IMG_1267.jpg
    348.9 KB · Views: 18
  • IMG_1268.jpg
    IMG_1268.jpg
    316.1 KB · Views: 27
  • IMG_1270.jpg
    IMG_1270.jpg
    346.1 KB · Views: 16
Orwell spoke of this obvious truth many times, essentially that history is written by the victors or winners... he is not alone, many before him noticed this fact (long before Braveheart came to the television screen). History deals in facts to a degree, when it speaks of casualty figures, dates and statistics of battles (the leaders, scale and scope perhaps, - though influences and impact are opinions/guessing); nothing is wrong acknowledging that history is distorted by the authors prejudices and perspective, sometimes the best authors are the ones that do acknowledge this fact (like John Kenneth Galbraith in his biography, his obvious prejudices he readily acknowledged, but because he managed the war economy for the US and supervised many of the post war economic studies, including interviewing Speer and others, his book is valuable), the worse are those that insufferably preach their objectivity and speak as though their arguments are facts. What I have noticed generally, is that the best authors, those most capable of objectivity, are English authors, almost alone can find the strength to be critical of their own countries responsibility in both world wars, - Germans perhaps the most insufferable in the fact the wallow in the guilt they have been bathed (drown) in (indoctrinated) since 1945. Most are social democrats or former communists, at least the ones that found their way into English translations...

Anyway, there is no innocent nation in the two world wars, naturally none of are responsible for our fathers and grandfathers roles, most of whom are innocent as well, as politicians and bankers are the only beneficiaries of wars...

As to the transition to numeric acceptance, Bryan/Görtz might have something on this, or Görtz anyway, but probably between 1922-1923, an insane period up to that point. By 1924 we know numeric acceptance came to the forefront, Simson's production all carry numeric acceptance, though still have some evidence of the transition. DWM seemingly uses the more formal waffenamts quite early (e/29), probably about the sametime.

I suspect very little small arms production occurred at the factories after 1919 or Versailles (June 1919), but is a fact that factories hid illegal weapons rather than surrender them voluntarily (without compensation, Mauser was caught a couple times with illegal weapons). Likely much of this material was made at the end or shortly after the war ended. Things were pretty nuts at the end of the war in Germany, indeed all of Central Europe, - we also know that Danzig continued making weapons for the Poles long after the war. All the arsenals did similar trying to keep work forces employed, though generally transitioning to commercial arms made from military components (also consumer products their facility could fabricate). Little of this was militarist in purpose, though the communists in Bavaria probably sought arms from Amberg for there purposes, most of it was to find some employment for their workers to feed their families.
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top