Third Party Press

Prototype SG42 Variant

Strange piece, the tool is identical for first modell of S42, questionable because E/519 stamped on blade, the second piece of same is presented in J.Maddox book.
In 2016 i discussed 2 pieces of similar bayonets, both of first series with strange asymetrical scabbard, similar on pictured here but plastic coated, and E/519 on ricasso, both were with early tool piece type. So certainly a strange pieces, probably not real. one side was cof marked other side E/519 on ricasso.
 

Attachments

  • SG42mod2y2016.jpg
    SG42mod2y2016.jpg
    166 KB · Views: 84
Last edited:
This is a tough call. I sent the photo to "JCJ" (whom sold his two Sg42s last year at the SOS). He said he has never seen this variant offered for sale, but was aware of it. There was a collector he introduced me to several years ago at the SOS, whom had another prototype Sg42. The tool kit was made of brass on that one and differed in the tool types it held. There were some other differences as well, but cannot recall them precisely...
 
when You look at scabbard this is very bad pressing work, as prototype unbelievable, secondly prototypes should not go per WaA system, as no details for proofing as no accepted design. There is a piece with E/518 stamped wrongly on ricasso of same series, so evidently someone made more pieces, they accured late 80 probably, no reports prior that time. The tools were marked with Robert Klass TM logo. The pieces with cof marked has not typical stamp for them, secondly Eickhorn didnt proof E/519 similar proof is not confirmed on bayonets. So i am very sceptical. In auction is declared is Eickhorn, even not visible cof marking, so this too evidently problematic, 519 used major producers of Solingen.
 
AndyB said:
..so evidently someone made more pieces, they accured late 80 probably, no reports prior that time.
Click to expand...

Hmm. While on the surface it seems like a lot of work to make fakes I could definitely see it happening. Also if you really wanted to 'prove' this to a community you'd need more than 1 example I'd think. I'd love to know more of the story. Is the maker still alive? What was his original motivation to create these? What type of workshop/tooling did he have available?

Much more interesting artifact than Nazi assrags or Christmas ornaments.
 
I am very sceptical about similar pieces, all of the mentioned pieces were found with nice blades, some with cof stamps (not even close to real stamp)some only E/519 proofs, here is evidently the leather buffer removed and the handle was brown painted and buffer later added.I believe when someone remove the color from handle, there would be spectacular sign of mashining visible. Other point i never saw that german scabbard would got a hole for water removing.
Other point is that S42 is the most faked german bayonet, the repros patinated goes for 1700USD, why not sale a prototype for 6,5k.? its a good job, when You find a not knowing and rich collector.
 
Last edited:
AndyB said:
I am very sceptical about similar pieces, all of the mentioned pieces were found with nice blades, some with cof stamps (not even close to real stamp)some only E/519 proofs, here is evidently the leather buffer removed and the handle was brown painted and buffer later added.I believe when someone remove the color from handle, there would be spectacular sign of mashining visible. Other point i never saw that german scabbard would got a hole for water removing.
Click to expand...

Trying to clarify your comments above. Are you of the opinion Andrej, that all of these metal gripped SG42 are non-original or fantasy pieces? To include the Maddox example? As you have noted there are some issues of concern here but there are other areas that look acceptable. Having handled a couple of these pieces I am on the fence based on the less than quality photographs.
 
Yes my opinion is they are fakes or reproduction / fantasy pieces.
Some years ago was find the Klaas combat S42 prototype, offcoarse there was not any proofs as prototype could be not proofed for approved design. The blade is nearly identical to S84/98 in grips was sidely attached tool attachment, so this was probably the real prototype before the Eickhorn of S42 design was approved.
From the german sources is avialable that was made of 500 + 1100 also of the first modell S42, which has different vertically moving locking nut differences are only in shape of WaA519
and then larger ammount of S42 with pivoted locking nut 5000-10000pcs in late 1944
no mentioning of any metall handle pieces in literature.
Since 80ies there exist some strange prototype of S42, no one was mentioned in literature since 1945 to 1980?
The scabbard is assymetrical and very rough press work,i never saw to this time E/519 on various items of Eickhorn, why would be prototypes marked E/519 and normal production WaA519?
I observed too pieces one was published on Wehrmacht Awards forum in 2012, the other probably on GDF in 2016, both had early tool serialed with digits like J.Maddox piece, has early grips and scabbard of similar design, some are cof, E/519 marked on ricasso, other E/519 on blade like here presented. For me is not believable that prototypes would have a acceptance for approved modell. Same as one piece is clearly stamped E/518 which was probably never used by Solingen. Stamping on thin blade like is on S42 outside of thicker ricasso is for me not real by german authorities! After some years they occure on internet, to proof to sale it, question is who buy it, as this are problematic pieces. The tools are marked with doubble crane Klaas logo. J.Maddox piece has 11 the other of the Waf and GDF 14 and other serialed into 20 range.
Here is E/519 on other metall handle S42, note there is no ricasso, the blade was not forged but mashined. anyway similar parts are hidden under leather buffer.
The other is E/518 piece with cof stamp here already on shaped ricasso.
So there exist metall handle S42 with E/519 on blade here by Simpsons, metall pieces unmarked (JM) , first type S42 handles with cof marking and E/518 and other with cof marking and E/519 on ricasso stamped, both the last versions had a assymetrical plastic coated metall scabbard as pictured on my first picture
Could someone believe that germans changed the proofing schema on 25 pcs of prototype bayonets more as 3 time and stamped same identical ways 5000 S42 of last contract?
 

Attachments

  • E519 on metallS42.JPG
    E519 on metallS42.JPG
    29.4 KB · Views: 38
  • SG42mod2sn142012.jpg
    SG42mod2sn142012.jpg
    58.5 KB · Views: 37
  • SG42mod2a2012.jpg
    SG42mod2a2012.jpg
    55.8 KB · Views: 35
Last edited:
I have two friends whom will be at Simposn, Ltd. next week for a day. Will ask if they can find out anything about the history of this Sg42...
 
Maybe they should look to tool is it numbered or not?.that would be helpfull.
 
Last edited:
AndyB said:
Yes my opinion is they are fakes or reproduction / fantasy pieces.
Some years ago was find the Klaas combat S42 prototype, offcoarse there was not any proofs as prototype could be not proofed for approved design. The blade is nearly identical to S84/98 in grips was sidely attached tool attachment, so this was probably the real prototype before the Eickhorn of S42 design was approved.
From the german sources is avialable that was made of 500 + 1100 also of the first modell S42, which has different vertically moving locking nut differences are only in shape of WaA519
and then larger ammount of S42 with pivoted locking nut 5000-10000pcs in late 1944
no mentioning of any metall handle pieces in literature.
Since 80ies there exist some strange prototype of S42, no one was mentioned in literature since 1945 to 1980?
The scabbard is assymetrical and very rough press work,i never saw to this time E/519 on various items of Eickhorn, why would be prototypes marked E/519 and normal production WaA519?
I observed too pieces one was published on Wehrmacht Awards forum in 2012, the other probably on GDF in 2016, both had early tool serialed with digits like J.Maddox piece, has early grips and scabbard of similar design, some are cof, E/519 marked on ricasso, other E/519 on blade like here presented. For me is not believable that prototypes would have a acceptance for approved modell. Same as one piece is clearly stamped E/518 which was probably never used by Solingen. Stamping on thin blade like is on S42 outside of thicker ricasso is for me not real by german authorities! After some years they occure on internet, to proof to sale it, question is who buy it, as this are problematic pieces. The tools are marked with doubble crane Klaas logo. J.Maddox piece has 11 the other of the Waf and GDF 14 and other serialed into 20 range.
Here is E/519 on other metall handle S42, note there is no ricasso, the blade was not forged but mashined. anyway similar parts are hidden under leather buffer.
The other is E/518 piece with cof stamp here already on shaped ricasso.
So there exist metall handle S42 with E/519 on blade here by Simpsons, metall pieces unmarked (JM) , first type S42 handles with cof marking and E/518 and other with cof marking and E/519 on ricasso stamped, both the last versions had a assymetrical plastic coated metall scabbard as pictured on my first picture
Could someone believe that germans changed the proofing schema on 25 pcs of prototype bayonets more as 3 time and stamped same identical ways 5000 S42 of last contract?
Click to expand...
To the point
 
Regarding E519 and Wa519, the
AndyB said:
Yes my opinion is they are fakes or reproduction / fantasy pieces.
Some years ago was find the Klaas combat S42 prototype, offcoarse there was not any proofs as prototype could be not proofed for approved design. The blade is nearly identical to S84/98 in grips was sidely attached tool attachment, so this was probably the real prototype before the Eickhorn of S42 design was approved.
From the german sources is avialable that was made of 500 + 1100 also of the first modell S42, which has different vertically moving locking nut differences are only in shape of WaA519
and then larger ammount of S42 with pivoted locking nut 5000-10000pcs in late 1944
no mentioning of any metall handle pieces in literature.
Since 80ies there exist some strange prototype of S42, no one was mentioned in literature since 1945 to 1980?
The scabbard is assymetrical and very rough press work,i never saw to this time E/519 on various items of Eickhorn, why would be prototypes marked E/519 and normal production WaA519?
I observed too pieces one was published on Wehrmacht Awards forum in 2012, the other probably on GDF in 2016, both had early tool serialed with digits like J.Maddox piece, has early grips and scabbard of similar design, some are cof, E/519 marked on ricasso, other E/519 on blade like here presented. For me is not believable that prototypes would have a acceptance for approved modell. Same as one piece is clearly stamped E/518 which was probably never used by Solingen. Stamping on thin blade like is on S42 outside of thicker ricasso is for me not real by german authorities! After some years they occure on internet, to proof to sale it, question is who buy it, as this are problematic pieces. The tools are marked with doubble crane Klaas logo. J.Maddox piece has 11 the other of the Waf and GDF 14 and other serialed into 20 range.
Here is E/519 on other metall handle S42, note there is no ricasso, the blade was not forged but mashined. anyway similar parts are hidden under leather buffer.
The other is E/518 piece with cof stamp here already on shaped ricasso.
So there exist metall handle S42 with E/519 on blade here by Simpsons, metall pieces unmarked (JM) , first type S42 handles with cof marking and E/518 and other with cof marking and E/519 on ricasso stamped, both the last versions had a assymetrical plastic coated metall scabbard as pictured on my first picture
Could someone believe that germans changed the proofing schema on 25 pcs of prototype bayonets more as 3 time and stamped same identical ways 5000 S42 of last contract?
Click to expand...
 
Regarding the German wafenamt proofing, the earlier ones just had an E in front of the inspectors number and then it was changed to the Waa. This can be seen on the early army pistols such as the Walther PP. The earliest proof on the sg42 Had just the E prefix proof on the first variation. It was changed to the waa on the later variations just as it was changed on the pistols.
Sfox
 
Sfox said:
Regarding the German wafenamt proofing, the earlier ones just had an E in front of the inspectors number and then it was changed to the Waa. This can be seen on the early army pistols such as the Walther PP. The earliest proof on the sg42 Had just the E prefix proof on the first variation. It was changed to the waa on the later variations just as it was changed on the pistols.
Sfox
Click to expand...
 
E/519 was not reported on bayonets S84/98 same as not other equipment build by Eickhorn, so in that period we speak 1942-45 i would sceptical about this form.But we wait for correct items similar stamped.
 
AndyB said:
E/519 was not reported on bayonets S84/98 same as not other equipment build by Eickhorn, so in that period we speak 1942-45 i would sceptical about this form.But we wait for correct items similar stamped.
Click to expand...
Hi AndyB
I am not as familiar with bayonet markings as I am with guns. I know Jim Maddox and have seen all three of his sg42 variations. Originally he thought his first variation was the third variation variation . In his bayonet book he lists the second and third variations as first and second variations as he thought that the rare variation with the metal scabbard was a third variation. He has since written in the SABC, American society of bayonet collectors, and corrected it .The isn’t variation with the metal scabbard has the earlier waffamt. Gun collectors of German ww2 Walther pistols are familiar with this.
There are reproduction sg42 made in Czechoslovakia that are so good that it is extremely difficult to tell from an original unless they are side by side or one knows the few tiny differences.
I will try to send pictures if I am able.
Sometimes different inspectors were used in the same factory. This is true with guns. I am not that familiar with bayonets.
Regards steve
 
Hi Andy
Originally Jim Maddox in his bayonet book listed the second and third variation sg42 bayonets as the first and second variations. He thought that the variation with the metal scabbard , which he did not have at the time, was the third variation. As it turned out, the sg42 with the metal scabbard was actually the first variation. It had the earlier waffamt as is the case with the German Walther PP pistols . Jim corrected this in a write up in the SABC, society of American bayonet collectors.
In the gun manufacturers there was sometimes more than one inspector or at times different inspectors. I am not that familiar with bayonet manufacturers, but it is possible that they had an inspector for the sg42 that was not involved with
K98 bayonets.
There have been sg42 bayonets reproduced in Czechoslovakia that are so good that unless one knows the few tiny differences or holds an original next to a reproduction, it is almost impossible to tell them apart. Only the third variation has been reproduced as that was the most sg42 made, although there were not all that many.
I will try to take photos of them and send ,but I am not to good at that.
Regards , steve
 
AndyB said:
E/519 was not reported on bayonets S84/98 same as not other equipment build by Eickhorn, so in that period we speak 1942-45 i would sceptical about this form.But we wait for correct items similar stamped.
Click to expand...

Skeptical is an understatement. And I have examined these bayonets as well and in detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top