Danzig Gewehr 98m Reworked in 1939?

Rutche said:

..E/63 is mauser oberndorf who i believe provided the rear sight, s/42 was apparently used late 1930's 37 til 39 if i read it correctly

Click to expand...

I'm not checking the books, don't find MO a strong suit and would rather not guess based on my track record the last 24 hrs. However I'm positive these parts date the first work (why we were digging for that stamp) as 'no earlier than'. It could have been later but not earlier than that acceptance combo shows up. "Trends guys, post!" Sorry couldn't help myself

I found what appears to be a stamp on my bolt takedown disc looks like Su4 with an eagle or something above it


Do you know what this marking could represent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, not too revealing... bolt looks like has the Erfurt style eagle (small picture hard to say), which could be any number of firms, Suhl-Dresden, the acceptance might narrow but it really doesn't matter as it looks to be matched to the rifle. WMO made most of these later RS components, especially for the upgraded G98's.

It's HZa Spandau, though they marked parts they made and this is probably related to the takedown (ferrule); but it is a good indication that HZa Spandau did the rework or one of them. It is possible this went through a couple reworks in the 1930's, early 1940's. I was hoping the RS might have some e/Su components, but they are uncommon and I am not 100% sure they did G98 RS parts. Probably did but i would have to look it up...

Rutche said:

I found what appears to be a stamp on my bolt takedown disc looks like Su4 with an eagle or something above it

Do you know what this marking could represent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Rutche said:

..a stamp on my bolt takedown disc looks like Su4 with an eagle or something above it

Click to expand...

Spandau as Paul previously suggested? Seems like it. The S/42 e/63 parts are early so the sight rework could have happened anytime I suppose. Real early?

I thought i read that s/42k was 1934 which became s/42g in 1935 .Then in 1937, became just Regular S/42 but im really not sure, but spandau seems to be making more and more reappearances on my rifle, perhaps it was reworked there? Its a far stretch, but it seems plausible maybe.

Rutche said:

I thought i read that s/42k was 1934 which became s/42g in 1935 .Then in 1937, became just Regular S/42 but im really not sure, but spandau seems to be making more and more reappearances on my rifle, perhaps it was reworked there? Its a far stretch, but it seems plausible maybe.

Click to expand...

I'm tracking where you're going and the rifles and their parts were marked as such but were they making ordinance spares that early? Marked as such? I checked and found them mentioned in 2 different volumes and they describe S/42 e/63 as 'early'. They're pre-Swazi anyway

I have this image that i made maybe it might be correct, but i need to compare more

I also found this link to a kind of similar rifle: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=52368

Rutche said:

I have this image that i made maybe it might be correct, but i need to compare more
View attachment 219673

Click to expand...

Again I agree with what you posted, at least in general terms. I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) when the marking be it acceptance or whatever changed it changed on all that type part made whether for production or ordinance spares. And at a given facility I think they all changed fairly quickly.

My question was were they (MO) producing ordinance spares marked with the year suffix in 34 or 35 marked as so? I certainly don't know that answer. I'd imagine they were pouring all production into the line as so few rifles were in the field I can't imagine a robust spares inventory would be required or requested. Many of those early rifles were probably heavily factory supported. Makes good business sense.

I'm more convinced than ever that your MO produced spares were made in either very late 36 or more likely 37, The acceptance on most all the parts is a spot on match.

Sorry about that, i must've misunderstood the question, i'm not in the position to answer that, as i do not know much on the subject, maybe someone else does, but i think we are on the right track.

Rutche said:

..as i do not know much on the subject, maybe someone else does, but i think we are on the right track.

Click to expand...

Nor do I sir. But thanks to the wonderful folks here we can see such great examples as this 37 block where we get this lovely pic of the RSB right side or this ? but check the pattern and acceptance on the sight ladder.

Yea that sight ladder looks very similar to mine, except for mine has a 2 where the 4 is

The eagles on my RSB look a little different aswell but they are also over 63. overall, the layout is the same


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Generally, ordnance spares carry the ordnance code and waffenamt that inspected the component (actually inspected under his authority, which often was conducted by lot inspection as was the normal practice in US ordnance inspection); simply that parts had to stand alone in the system and therefore had to have its individual identification. Seemingly this wasn't always the case, very small or simple components sometimes only have a small waffenamt, but on more significant items (bolt bodies, bolt components, RS components) this is almost always the case, especially if they are large enough to carry markings. Possibly/probably some of these requirements were loosened on less critical parts, like the pretty uniform RS sleeve and scale, but the base either earlier or thought more critical(?) No way to know, but WMO made the vast majority of RS ordnance spares**, though Ernst Pack (Soligen) and BLM made some sleeves during the war (several other ordnance spares like bayonet lugs out of the Solingen area also, possibly EP). Really there is no way to date these parts other than to say late 1930's, but if specific to the G98 then certainly 1939 or earlier.

In this case the RS sleeve and scale lacking the ordnance code probably means they are later than early, possibly directly supplied to Spandau? Hard to say, something like this is unprovable or unknowable.

**this after Simson was marginalized from military sales (which was probably in 1933-34, you do see e/6 with the Simson trademark in 1933 and 1934, though it seems BSW didn't really get back in the game until 1935 with e/4, which interestingly sometimes shows the Simson logo combination) many other makers made specific ordnance spares, ERMA another big supplier, BLM another, but WMO was the most diverse and important. Later, during the war, WMO would stop making such parts and that is where ERMA, EP and Astrawerke (and others) probably come in. By 1939 WMO was way too important to piddle with such parts...

So if i am understanding this correctly,
this might put my rifle at a later rework maybe late 30- early 40’s? But we arent sure what depot,or exact year because the stock HZa marking is missing or faded away?

It is my opinion that this rifle was reworked at least once and possibly twice, once 1936-1938, possibly again 1940 or so, possibly for a re-barrel (probably bolt also); that HZa Spandau was probably involved in the stock replacement earlier. I think this because the barrel is the latest ERMA G98 barrel recorded, probably one of the last they made and probably not installed until 1940 at the earliest. Seems the mix of parts (and eagles) suggest a mix of work, though this is obviously an opinion and a mix of early and late parts could have been at the same time. Naturally if I saw a rifle with less discrepancies and the same eagle mix this could change my opinion, but my files are not organized in a manner to make a search easy or fast... I do classify (have folders) rifles that have identifiable HZa characteristics (acceptance), but these rifles are not common in your rifles condition. The vast majority of upgraded G98's that show depot work are typically mismatchers to one degree of another, yours is exceptional in that regard, but lacking a HZa acceptance hurts its value considerably. For lacking a clear acceptance creates doubts (knowledgeable collectors with decent skills could easily replicate real features and fool even the most experienced collectors, - I could easily do the intellectual aspects, what to stamp and where, what is commonly acceptable and what isn't, but haven't the metal and stock working experience, - there are those with both... which is why almost all reworks carry a discount) and collectors thinking something is authentic isn't the same as a factory rifle with no modifications or alterations.

Believe it or not, for some people the only opinion about a rifle purchase (authenticity) is their own! Anyway, I think your rifle is authentic, I doubt anyone would challenge it without some evidence but that isn't the same as buying it. (I am sure someone here or on Gunbroker would pay a good price for it, it isn't 98k, but it is pretty nice and quite scarce for what it is... type collectors would probably be your best option if you are selling, for every 50 Gew98M's you come across you are lucky if one is this matching and seemingly original...)

I am sure someone here or on Gunbroker would pay a good price for it, it isn't 98k, but it is pretty nice and quite scarce for what it is... type collectors would probably be your best option if you are selling, for every 50 Gew98M's you come across you are lucky if one is this matching and seemingly original...)

Paul you are correct and I 100% agree to that statement. It took me years to finally find a decent matching Gew98m for my collection. And what is nice is alot times you can find them priced very reasonable. They don't have the same following as the K98k or the Imperial era Gew 98. Honestly I really do like these rifles and find them very interesting and an important variation to collect. I'm hoping to find a Gew98m unit marked to the Weimer Navy someday, and of course a Simson Kar98b. Most importantly I'm also parts nut too. I love all the different suppliers on these pieces, as well as who did the repairs and the depots that built them.

Also thanks for all the info as well Paul. I feel like I learn something everyday from you!

So, i might be going crazy, but maybe not. I inspected the grip area closer, and found what seems to be a (possibly) faded stamp. It looks deeper, and darker than the rest of the wood, and the lines are almost perfectly straight. It looks similar to wings of a stamp on the grip area of another rifle in this forum.

My Rifle:


Toulon 44’s Spandau:


To me it looks like the start of the wing or something similar again, i could be mistaken, it could just be a chip in the wood, but its hard to tell.

No you are not seeing things that is a Depot stamp but I can't tell who did the work it looks like they stamped it right over the old Imperial Cipher proof. I think the only way I'm going to able to tell is basically the shape of the Wings compared to other stamps which may give me an idea who did the work.

By the way does your rifle have LK5 stamp anywhere stamped on the buttstock? There seemed to be quite a few Gew98m rifles stamped with that.

Awesome,but my rifle is the top picture, and it is so faded that i dont see much. The only thig i did see was a shape that looks like a wing tip. The bottom pic is a different rifle that was posted on this forum. I haven’t checked for a LK5 mark and will do so after i return from school.

Loewe said:

It is my opinion that this rifle was reworked at least once and possibly twice, once 1936-1938, possibly again 1940 or so, possibly for a re-barrel (probably bolt also); that HZa Spandau was probably involved in the stock replacement earlier. I think this because the barrel is the latest ERMA G98 barrel recorded, probably one of the last they made and probably not installed until 1940 at the earliest. Seems the mix of parts (and eagles) suggest a mix of work

Click to expand...

It may be your opinion but it's mine also and I think it's not only plausible but the most likely scenario. While that elusive depot stamp on the stock would be the 'smoking gun', the way the parts are marked, especially the band labeled SUWW1937 nearly cements it as having the first work done at Spandau in that era and then obviously having the barrel replaced at a later date, probably 3-4 years later than that. I just don't see any way it happened together.

There's a convo among several of our guys from here in 2012 on Gunbored about a VC Shilling turned 98M with a SUWW1936 band