Third Party Press

K98 single claw for review

mdarnell19 said:
No. All manufactures moved serial number to the barrel around the same time. They were ordered to. And the numbered safeties likely started sooner (I would be willing to bet around the same time that Mauser and Sauer started). Here are some pictures of a B block with what appears to be a shortened safety.

View attachment 247932View attachment 247933View attachment 247934
Click to expand...

Yes I realize manufacturers moved Serial at around same time. I always thought one of the reasons was the need for more sniper production. Easier to read the serial. Like when BYF started hand stamping serial on barrel. Just something I would consider when I was looking at the various sniper rifles. Sometimes on turrets they work the receiver down a little before putting front turret on receiver, which made serial hard to read on some. Just a theory. I am sure the various letter blocks ran through the factory at same time. So, no exact letter block. Would be some overrun. All these snipers are great. Like the SC maybe more than some of the others.
 
Dave Roberts said:
Better pics of safety would certainly help clarify what type safety it sports .

The other I would ask to see is the WaAD36 Proof on this barrel , I would want to know if this is the original barrel . I say this because I have seen a few SC over the years that had Spandau Depot Proof on the Stock and of these SC they all had MM Rear Sights , but at that time I and many other were unaware of the WaAD36 Proof Mark , my point being was it only the Rear Sight that was swapped or the complete barrel. If that was the case would the Spandau depot had put the Serial Number on the Barrel . If not You may think your looking at a 1943 when it in fact it could have been a 1944 ???
Click to expand...

When you zoom in on the picture you can see that the safety is shortened. I have more pictures of this rifle and the barrel does have the e/36 stamp. In addition, look at how the floor plate is numbered but not the trigger guard. This helps date it to 1944 (unless someone changed the trigger guard which is unlikely but possible).

I am sure it is possible that Spandau changed barrels but I doubt they did it very often. That is a good Mike question. Also, Spandau's font is different then Steyr. All the rifles I have pictures of have Steyr font on the barrel. Have you ever seen a sniper with Spandau numbering on the barrel?

Clay, thanks for the spelling correction and pictures!
 
One thing I can be sure of, the factories did not alter serial numbering style or locations for any sniper rifle programs. Most of the sniper rifle programs were an afterthought, especially Steyr. For all practical purposes, Single Claw snipers are gunsmith made hunting rifles using old technology as a stopgap measure to make up for the shortfall of production after the cancellation of the short side rail Sauer system in 1943.

I doubt seriously factories even cared about sniper rifles as much as you guys do. I would bet a lot on the idea that the Steyr managers didn’t care at all, they didn’t even attempt to manufacture them and subbed it all out.

At least Mauser put effort into development and modernization of their system, as did Sauer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hercules said:
Yes I realize manufacturers moved Serial at around same time. I always thought one of the reasons was the need for more sniper production. Easier to read the serial. Like when BYF started hand stamping serial on barrel. Just something I would consider when I was looking at the various sniper rifles. Sometimes on turrets they work the receiver down a little before putting front turret on receiver, which made serial hard to read on some. Just a theory. I am sure the various letter blocks ran through the factory at same time. So, no exact letter block. Would be some overrun. All these snipers are great. Like the SC maybe more than some of the others.
Click to expand...

As Mike pointed out. I doubt that the German high command cared enough about sniper rifles to put any thought into how they should number all rifles so that it made snipers more convenient.

The late hand stamping was an attempt to insure a sniper rifle had it's factory barrel. As was the numbering of the stock. That is likely the extent to which Mauser put any extra thought into sniper rifles.
 
Dave Roberts said:
Better pics of safety would certainly help clarify what type safety it sports .

The other I would ask to see is the WaAD36 Proof on this barrel , I would want to know if this is the original barrel . I say this because I have seen a few SC over the years that had Spandau Depot Proof on the Stock and of these SC they all had MM Rear Sights , but at that time I and many other were unaware of the WaAD36 Proof Mark , my point being was it only the Rear Sight that was swapped or the complete barrel. If that was the case would the Spandau depot had put the Serial Number on the Barrel . If not You may think your looking at a 1943 when it in fact it could have been a 1944 ???
Click to expand...

While Spandau was the central depot for sniper rifles and a majority seem to have been sent there for inspection and distribution, I highly doubt any single claws were rebarreled from 43-44. Besides, Spandau followed the TL delivery specs that were handed down from the HWA and in 43 the barrel serial was not used in reworks OR regular production. Barrel numbering was reintroduced in 1944 for some unknown reason and loosely implemented at all the makers ( pretty sure we put a chart in the book on that, I remember making it at least).

I’m confused on how Spandau reworking got introduced in this thread on a questionable sniper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mrfarb said:
One thing I can be sure of, the factories did not alter serial numbering style or locations for any sniper rifle programs. Most of the sniper rifle programs were an afterthought, especially Steyr. For all practical purposes, Single Claw snipers are gunsmith made hunting rifles using old technology as a stopgap measure to make up for the shortfall of production after the cancellation of the short side rail Sauer system in 1943.
Click to expand...


It was only a theory. Why do you think they changed the numbering location then? I was trying to think of a good reason. As you know that is how I look at the Mauser world. Through the sniper prism to a large extent.


mrfarb said:
I doubt seriously factories even cared about sniper rifles as much as you guys do. I would bet a lot on the idea that the Steyr managers didn’t care at all, they didn’t even attempt to manufacture them and subbed it all out.

At least Mauser put effort into development and modernization of their system, as did Sauer.
Click to expand...


I don't know about that one for sure. There was a fairly concerted effort to make more of them. I don't feel I'm qualified to be trying to change your ideas, but are you sure about this. Maybe subbed out, because they cared too much to let their factory workers at this time in history do it. Yes Mauser and Sauer did a good job.

I doubt they liked them more than me. I have not cornered the market on that idea of liking them and I'm sure they would have had more if they could have.

Just thinking out loud.
 
Last edited:
mdarnell19 said:
As Mike pointed out. I doubt that the German high command cared enough about sniper rifles to put any thought into how they should number all rifles so that it made snipers more convenient.

The late hand stamping was an attempt to insure a sniper rifle had it's factory barrel. As was the numbering of the stock. That is likely the extent to which Mauser put any extra thought into sniper rifles.
Click to expand...

Maybe you are right, but they sure wanted to make more snipers. Maybe your right about the barrel, but you have to admit the serial is harder to read on some turrets that the receiver has been worked on. Granted they are not all like that. It was just a theory. I try and ignore my sniper focus and look objectively at the rifles, but it is always a consideration when looking at the rifles that came from a sniper manufacturer.
 
Last edited:
Hercules said:
It was only a theory. Why do you think they changed the numbering then? I was trying to think of a good reason. As you know that is how I look at the Mauser world. Through the sniper prism to a large extent.





I don't know about that one for sure. There was a fairly concerted effort to make more of them. I don't feel I'm qualified to be trying to change your ideas, but are you sure about this. Maybe subbed out, because they cared to much to let their factory workers at this time in history do it. Yes Mauser and Sauer did a good job.

I doubt they liked them more than me. I have not cornered the market on that idea of liking them and I'm sure they would have had more if they could have.

Just thinking out loud.
Click to expand...

It’s good to think! You are like most sniper collectors, most I know are not versed on K98k details. They spend their time in scopes and mounts because that is their passion.

We know the serial move wasn’t sniper related. If it was, The Czech factories wouldn’t have moved their serial numbers to the barrel at the same time. Why do it? Nobody knows, we’ve studied it. But there are no documents to follow along with the thoughts we have. It was production related, and from what I’ve seen it caused big problems at Mauser and Brünn II just looking at the rifles from this factories.

Sniper collectors would do well to actually study the base rifles from the maker they like, but not from a sniper collectors view. From a K98k collectors view. There is a distinction, but I am hypocritical in this as I don’t study snipers. Lol. Well, not to the same degree as a sniper collector. That’s why I answer questions about base rifles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mrfarb said:
It’s good to think! You are like most sniper collectors, most I know are not versed on K98k details. They spend their time in scopes and mounts because that is their passion.

We know the serial move wasn’t sniper related. If it was, The Czech factories wouldn’t have moved their serial numbers to the barrel at the same time. Why do it? Nobody knows, we’ve studied it. But there are no documents to follow along with the thoughts we have. It was production related, and from what I’ve seen it caused big problems at Mauser and Brünn II just looking at the rifles from this factories.

Sniper collectors would do well to actually study the base rifles from the maker they like, but not from a sniper collectors view. From a K98k collectors view. There is a distinction, but I am hypocritical in this as I don’t study snipers. Lol. Well, not to the same degree as a sniper collector. That’s why I answer questions about base rifles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, maybe so. I don't concentrate on non sniper manufacturer type rifles. I try to limit my area of interest. Otherwise, this would get more expensive than it already has. I think all the rifles of this period are great, but I just concentrate on the rifles made by the sniper manufacturers for the above reasons. I suppose there could be many reasons to move a serial location. I had always wondered if the sniper aspect could be at least one of the considerations.
 
Mike, I think they were just talking about the barreled action Matt posted in regards to Spandau.

No problem Matt, they sure are interesting. I would love to see the docs one day.
 
Hercules said:
Maybe you are right, but they sure wanted to make more snipers. Maybe your right about the barrel, but you have to admit the serial is harder to read on some turrets the that receiver has been worked on. Granted they are not all like that. It was just a theory. I try and ignore my sniper focus and look objectively at the rifles, but it is always a consideration when looking at the rifles that came from a sniper manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with some of what you are saying. Mauser clearly placed some importance on snipers. This seems obvious to me when looking at late turrets (L block and later). What do we see? Mauser finished the stocks nicer and numbered the stocks while not doing this on non snipers. Mauser installed a special butt plate and shortened the safety. Sauer may have cared more about sniper then any other factory. They produced them the longest and made 4/5 different mounting systems, always wanting to improve.

Yes, often times it is difficult to read the serial number on the receiver of a high turret. However, I believe that they numbered the barrel primarily because they understood it was a critical component of the rifle and they wanted to insure the rifle had it's factory barrel. If this makes sense.
 
mdarnell19 said:
When you zoom in on the picture you can see that the safety is shortened. I have more pictures of this rifle and the barrel does have the e/36 stamp. In addition, look at how the floor plate is numbered but not the trigger guard. This helps date it to 1944 (unless someone changed the trigger guard which is unlikely but possible).

I am sure it is possible that Spandau changed barrels but I doubt they did it very often. That is a good Mike question. Also, Spandau's font is different then Steyr. All the rifles I have pictures of have Steyr font on the barrel. Have you ever seen a sniper with Spandau numbering on the barrel?

Clay, thanks for the spelling correction and pictures!
Click to expand...

I did zoom in and I could not be certain from that pic . I noticed UnNumbered trigger guard but I am looking at a Sporterized example and as you know you don't`make any conclusions about originality from such a rifle .
 
mdarnell19 said:
Yes I agree with some of what you are saying. Mauser clearly placed some importance on snipers. This seems obvious to me when looking at late turrets (L block and later). What do we see? Mauser finished the stocks nicer and numbered the stocks while not doing this on non snipers. Mauser installed a special butt plate and shortened the safety. Sauer may have cared more about sniper then any other factory. They produced them the longest and made 4/5 different mounting systems, always wanting to improve.

Yes, often times it is difficult to read the serial number on the receiver of a high turret. However, I believe that they numbered the barrel primarily because they understood it was a critical component of the rifle and they wanted to insure the rifle had it's factory barrel. If this makes sense.
Click to expand...

Yes maybe so. A barrel is definitely a critical part. It is not easy to remove though unless a depot were to re-barrel it. So, not a part that is easy to loose, but you could be right or then again not.
 
Last edited:
mdarnell19 said:
Yes I agree with some of what you are saying. Mauser clearly placed some importance on snipers. This seems obvious to me when looking at late turrets (L block and later). What do we see? Mauser finished the stocks nicer and numbered the stocks while not doing this on non snipers. Mauser installed a special butt plate and shortened the safety. Sauer may have cared more about sniper then any other factory. They produced them the longest and made 4/5 different mounting systems, always wanting to improve.
Click to expand...

Maybe likely, as both had a pre-war reputation civilian heritage and understanding of building quality hunting rifles....?

It was one of the reasons why the British War Dept contracted the conversion of Lee-Enfield No.4 rifles for snipers to Holland & Holland, once they had been put to one side at the factory after their post production accuracy check.
Anything that interfered with the normal process in the factory system would have been nothing more than an annoyance to most in each factory I would have thought. To use the old adage, there was a war on.
 
MarkDD said:
Hi,
Such a minefield I'm glad I can't afford one.
Thanks Mark
Click to expand...

Not more of a minefield then any other collecting field. As Hambone always says, anything worth collecting will be faked. So if that scares you then you better collect rocks or Beanie Babies. You just have to invest some time in studying. Once you know what to look for, most German snipers are easy to determine if they are real or not. As Mike mentioned, you must first focus on the base rifle.
 
mdarnell19 said:
Not more of a minefield then any other collecting field. As Hambone always says, anything worth collecting will be faked. So if that scares you then you better collect rocks or Beanie Babies. You just have to invest some time in studying. Once you know what to look for, most German snipers are easy to determine if they are real or not. As Mike mentioned, you must first focus on the base rifle.
Click to expand...

Not so easy in the UK though.

This was one of only 2 supposedly original K98k snipers advertised in the UK in the past 5/6 years.....and this one appears not to be the real thing, and very likely duped the 'well known' UK collector that owned it........granted his knowledge may well have been based on outdated and incomplete info, as available to the UK at the time he acquired it.
I would love to know when that was out of curiosity....my guess would be quite some years ago, which begs another question of course.

I'm content to hugely admire the knowledge base here :hail: and learn what I can, which in reality is for interest only, as 2 x K98k's will be as far as I ever get in ownership terms.
 
Dave Roberts said:
I have not yet seen or recorded a 1943 produced SC that had a milled safety . Every 1944 produced SC that I have seen and or recorded had a milled safety . I would not want say that 1943 SC could not or did not have milled safeties . I would say it maybe a possibility but I have yet to see a milled safety on a 1943 SC .
Click to expand...

Going back to this point, I've been trying to make out the date of the stock in the barrel channel as shown in the posted photographs, and it looks like week 16 of 44.......am I reading this right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top