thoughts on this training rifle?

heavy_mech · Jan 25, 2019

I admit my knowledge on these is weak but of course as things go with this hobby I'm becoming more interested in them. Any thoughts appreciated. How was the price? Desirability? Any thoughts regarding condition or whatever. Thanks.

https://www.gunbroker.com/Item/796650659

mauser99 · Jan 25, 2019

I would say the price was fair. This one was discussed on Dave's auction forum and I did comment. The ? was should the bolt be numbered or not ?
I see added photos were placed by the seller but they were poor of little value.

I collected trainers for years and this DSM alluded me. But, I also owned some that were quite scarce. This is the luck of collecting as some stuff falls into our laps and others don't.

I would own this rifle for sure. Honest condition and nice finish still.. I think someone did well. Its clear from the photos as piss poor as they are the bottom flat is blank.

So it could have a correctly in-numbered bolt. I'm not sure If Bob S's book gets into this detail for each maker ??

Only neg. is the horrible repro k98k sling....

My thoughts On JGA and Simson/BSW is they made very few Dsm34's as they both made their own trainers and they were successful as well.. I have seen 10x as many JGA designed Sportmodells to a JGA DSM34.

Also can be said to the 625 series of Simson/bsw to their DSM34 product.

Tom H · Jan 25, 2019

Looks like a nice rifle and I just couldn't pull the trigger 'cause of the shitty photos. I did ask the seller for bolt pics and he served up some more bad pics.

Regarding bolt numbering is there any list of Mfgs that did or did not number bolts on DSMs? The Simpson book is a little vague.

mauser99 · Jan 25, 2019

I have the book but, haven't started to read it yet. Not the first complaint Ive heard about not covering enough in detail.. Or info being hard to find in the book..

I think the book Was/is just too large and covers all models it was impossible to fit everything on every rifle in the book..

When it comes to some DSM and KKw's for that matter there was some flip flopping on bolt numbering by some makers....

When it comes to this I will always accept a Non-numbered bolt as possibly correct. At least its not "mismatched" and to me I can accept that.

Mauser, of coarse is the exception as they were rock solid with their procedures. But, even they softened on later DSM parts numbering.

Some of the best buys can be chances taken in my past experiences. As I said this wasn't a steal but, a decent buy for someone..

Tom H said:
Looks like a nice rifle and I just couldn't pull the trigger 'cause of the shitty photos. I did ask the seller for bolt pics and he served up some more bad pics.

Regarding bolt numbering is there any list of Mfgs that did or did not number bolts on DSMs? The Simpson book is a little vague.

Parkerswede · Jan 25, 2019

I think these were generally unnumbered (bolt). I am going to disagree slightly with you guys. I think the guy who bought it got a bit of a steal. I looks like its all there and on the rare side for DSMs. I would buy a similar all day long for $600.

mauser99 · Jan 25, 2019

I was surprised it didn't go higher but, If guys get scared off due to bad photos I cant help that.

All Z.M. makers didn't number their bolts. But, Walther did. The smaller firms no. JGA didn't number their bolts on their own designed rifles So Id dare to say they probably didn't on their DSM's also.

I haven't seen enough to come to a concrete decision of this.

Tom H · Jan 25, 2019

Parkerswede said:
I think these were generally unnumbered (bolt).

You "think" or do you know for sure?

The rifle above might have been a great deal for someone or it may have been a bolt MM. Nobody seems to know with any certainty.

Maybe we could start a DSM thread w/good pics? Just a thought.

WreckTangle · Jan 25, 2019

Tom H said:
You "think" or do you know for sure?

The rifle above might have been a great deal for someone or it may have been a bolt MM. Nobody seems to know with any certainty.

Maybe we could start a DSM thread w/good pics? Just a thought.

I mentioned this before... like the K98 picture reference thread. It needs to be done.

WreckTangle · Jan 25, 2019

Concerning the rifle:

The finish looks a little flat in the pictures.. notice the bolt vs. receiver finish? Still for $600 this JGA it's a great deal, it's worth that in parts alone. ($250 for the bolt, $170 for a cracked stock with missing handguard and barrel bands.. $138 for a barrel band set) all recent prices from eBay.

I got my JGA DSM34 s/n 87XX with commercial N proofs for $350 in September and it's in really good shape.. I can't help that the auctioneer couldn't spell correctly and didn't wipe it down--it looked like someone left it outside for a year. I forgot about the auction, called a few days later to see if it had sold and sure enough it didn't. Sometimes you get great deals. :thumbsup:

even with crappy pictures.
No parts are numbered on my JGA except the barrel and receiver.

Parkerswede · Jan 25, 2019

I'm not sure any records exist that say "this model had the bolt numbered to the rifle" but when you see 50-60 examples of a certain model and they are all unnumbered and no other examples exist with a numbered bolt, you can reasonably assume that they were not normally numbered. Makers like Mauser with more established practices/greater resources were very different.

Tom H · Jan 26, 2019

http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?1742-JGA-DSM34-SA-marked

Mauserken · Jan 26, 2019

Mine sn 8521 does not have the bolt numbered.
Ken

KKW22cal · Jan 26, 2019

I saw the auction but the seller didn’t show the bottom of the bolt root. The barrel/receiver blueing looked flat and the butt plate looked polished which could have been the pictures. I have an example but not at my fingertips so I can’t see if the bolt is numbered or not. Bob’s example is real nice and appears not have been messed with and the bolt root was numbered with the last two digits. Looking at the training rifle book it appears that JGA was not consistent with numbering the bolts. It appears that they numbered at the beginning but not in the middle or end except for one example. I agree with Mauser 99, I would rather have a numbered bolt but an unnumbered bolt wouldn’t scare me as much. Using the training book as a guide I would make a call on a case by case basis as each maker was not as consistent as Mauser.

KKW22cal · Jan 26, 2019

I was able to get some photos of my example. The bolt is not marked yet the safety is. I bought mine right around the price of the rifle in question. This is only the third JGA DSM-34 that I have run across but that is for from scientific on their numbers. I will have to see where my rifle falls on the examples in Simson’s Book. It looks like my rifle and the rifle in question are both on the early side, only 168 rifles apart. I feel that I t is likely that they could be in the range where the bolts are not marked. Rifle 5408 has a marked bolt and 6257 does not on Simson’s list.

WreckTangle · Jan 26, 2019

Very interesting KKW22Cal

JGA is rare, only about 4,000 made based on S/N study. BiO has one of the cooler one's I've seen.

My rifle S/N 8734 has Commercial N proofs with only the last digit of the serial number (4) on the underside of the safety. No other marks are on the bolt. Pictures make condition look worse than it is.

Simpson states that S/N 8738 is the lowest S/N observed where Anschutz changed the rollmark by removing Thuringen--see page 121. My rifle is 4 numbers below his. Interestingly S/N 8738 has the .22 long rifle. under the barrel S/N, while mine is to the top left. The next lowest recorded S/N is 8686 which has Thuringen below the JGA. It seems that Anschutz was all over the place with their serializing, or lack-there-of and other stamp placements.

KKW22cal · Jan 26, 2019

A variation I do not have and the condition of your rifle does not look bad at all. Bob’s is a really nice example because of condition and the markings. Mine is certainly more worn than yours but I have only seen three for sale. I am glad that someone else has a marked safety but an unmarked bolt.

Tom H · Jan 27, 2019

Thanks for the pics WT and KKW, much appreciated!

Evidently there was no TL 1/1003 for trainers...trippy. And a little confusing.

luftmacher · Jan 27, 2019

As for numbering individual parts: Remember that these trainers were NOT military contract being purchased and inspected by RWM. There was NO requirement on manufacturing rights contract to number parts. Serial numbers were the concern of individual manufacturers for THEIR control and purposes only. Smaller producers didn't need to spend more time/labor/money on numbering everything, so it depended on their individual policies for such, and was subject to change at any time. K98k rifles originally had all parts numbered (in a certain way, in a certain place and manner) because it was REQUIRED. Trainers were a commercial firearm.
Steve

mauser99 · Jan 28, 2019

Great discussion. And one that reminds me of this forum when it started.. Pooling our minds together to figure something out..

As far as finish is concerned.. Early rifles exhibit a dull lest lustrous rust blue finish and later rifles a more high polish gloss finish.

I see nothing rifle with the auction examples rifle. The switch from rust to hot salt bluing happened from 37-38 time frame.

Eagle/N proofing started Jan or April 1940 depending on what text you want to believe.

JGA was less than consistent with bolt and bolt component numbering. The DSM34 to dsm36 happened in the 37 time frame. Raised extractor the easiest tell tale trait.

All this I can take in from this thread.

KKW22cal · Jan 28, 2019

I also enjoy the discussion.

thoughts on this training rifle?

RKI- Reasonably Knowledgable Individual

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Mad Dog 20/20 Connoisseur (RIP Brother 06-05-203)

Mad Dog 20/20 Connoisseur (RIP Brother 06-05-203)

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Mad Dog 20/20 Connoisseur (RIP Brother 06-05-203)

Attachments

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member