Third Party Press

byf 41 help

S

Sprincemainly

Member
Hey all, I just re bought this byf 41 back from a friend (regret the minute i let it go). i never went deep into it the last time i had it to try to find out a little about the life of this rifle nor did i care at the time because it was good looking buttery smooth and accurate. Now I am doing a little research and hope I can find some direction from this community. i Know it probably has no collector value, the stock has no markings probably aftermarket...its definatley been reblued and polished and the stock hardware is definitely mismatched. also noticed it says N.A. co Ridgfield NJ stamp on left side of the barrel. take a look at the pics and see what you guys think.
 

Attachments

  • 20200310_161507.jpg
    20200310_161507.jpg
    221.4 KB · Views: 136
  • 20200310_222822.jpg
    20200310_222822.jpg
    73.1 KB · Views: 81
  • 20200310_222840.jpg
    20200310_222840.jpg
    198.4 KB · Views: 82
  • 20200310_222844.jpg
    20200310_222844.jpg
    221.4 KB · Views: 78
  • 20200310_222854.jpg
    20200310_222854.jpg
    117.8 KB · Views: 93
  • 20200310_222859.jpg
    20200310_222859.jpg
    120.3 KB · Views: 71
Bob in OHIO said:
The stock appears shortened as the bayo lug is farther from the muzzle than expected...hmmm.
Click to expand...

Have to go along with Bob about the short stock, as you say, the metal has been seriously buffed out to a high polish and re blued.
All of these issues could be addressed to make a more original looking rifle. All it takes is time, hard work and/or money. :sorry:
 
It’s not the fit of a bayo, but the length from the bayo lug to muzzle that is excessive, indicating the stock is shortened.
 
Whatever y’all are seeing must be from the angle of the pic, the barrel shoulder is right at the band as it should be. I really think it’s how the pic was taken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I agree it's the photo perspective. Look how short the buttstock looks in comparison to the barrel forward of the band. It's just the angle of the shot.
 
mrfarb said:
Whatever y’all are seeing must be from the angle of the pic, the barrel shoulder is right at the band as it should be. I really think it’s how the pic was taken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Wow mrfarb, I hate to admit it but I guess the stock hasn't been shortened.:facepalm::faint:
 
Other Barrel Marks??

such as 1001 ?? That stock and the blue, smacks of an East German Post War rework by ETW.

Force matched parts??

does a crown B and U appear on the barrel?

MORE PICS please.
 
Hey it's fine but what I'm actually interested in is that it doesn't have any capture marks, serials match on barrel and receiver and bolt although seperate serials all match and don't appear to be scrubbed and hand stamped but again I'm not by any means an expert on k98 rifles. also would you guys recommend leaving as is or throwing on a war time stock and getting the rid of the blue finish and make it a little more realistic. And what is the e stamp under serial?? Thanks again
 
I did find a "b" on the barrel and I guess that's a crown on the firing pin?
 

Attachments

  • 20200312_203835.jpg
    20200312_203835.jpg
    142.6 KB · Views: 27
  • 20200312_211235.jpg
    20200312_211235.jpg
    347.7 KB · Views: 27
1941 MO 98Ks were originally blued, so no worries there. Phosphate finishes didn't begin to appear until later in the war, and not all manufactures went to phosphate. This one's been reblued. It's a nice job, but it can't be un-buffed.
 
Nope

It's not an East German Rework.

But it is a damn purty 98k and you got yerself a nice one to shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top