This is the most significant historical document yet uncovered to date which gives us many clues to the development of the Deutsches Sportmodell by Mauser Oberndorf.
I will refer to it in future upcoming posts in the works and it is the cornerstone that will pull together much of the evidence I have assembled over decades of researching that specific Third Reich trainer model.
It is significant because:
1. It is the only evidence we have of from where within Hitler’s Government the initiative for a “standardized” .22 training rifle emulating the “standardized” service rifle” came from. (The German National Association for Physical Fitness, Berlin-Charlottenburg via the RKM) and that Mauser Oberndorf was the developer of the design
2. It documents that it was absolutely the goal to “duplicate” the handling characteristics of the 98K.
3. It documents “a rush to production” was an agenda
4. It documents shortcomings that resulted from expedited development
5. It identifies Mauser proposals to improve the design with what has previously been referred to as “the second variation” of DSM which in house at Mauser and within the technical drawings was in fact the DSM 36.
6. It documents that Mauser was thinking beyond those changes with efforts underway on a DSM 37 (of which only a few tool room examples and V prefixed prototypes were actually made up)
7. It refers to a later Mauser goal of developing the the DSM 38 (which never got off the drawing board due to the Governments push on the KKW as a joint effort with other firms.)
I will be returning to these points and referring to this document often in some conclusions it leads us to.
Please Refrain from replys to this here.
Comments or corrections are welcome in a seperate post outside this sticky referring to it.
Jpg scans of the original documents are attached. I felt it important to share this with the many of you whom I know have, like me had a life-long quest to unravel this mystery.
I am posting this as a sticky and subsequent replies to this post by me will expand the development story of the Deutches Sportmodell as I can get them completed in a presentable format.
Again thanks to Jon Speed and my brother Stephen for the following full translation:
Oberndorf, 15 October 1935
Ref: Deutsches Sportmodell
Commentary on the modifications and improvements to the D.S.M., as proposed by the Shooting Division of the German National Association for Physical Fitness, Berlin-Charlottenburg.
Point 1. Weight
The weight of the D.S.M. amounts to approximately 3.5 kg; the weight of the infantry Model 98 is ca. 4.2 kg and the infantry carbine K98k ca. 3.9 kg. The weight of the D.S.M. thus lies on the lower side in comparison to the standard issue arms, and it is up to the responsible authorities to determine if an increase in weight is necessary.
Point 2. Length
The overall length of the D.S.M. is 1110 mm. This is the length previously specified by the R.K.W. and duplicates that of the issue carbine K98k precisely.
Point 3. Sights
The target imaging method of the sights matches exactly with that of the Model 98 overall. The suggestion of utilizing the self-same sight in form and size as the infantry issue arms can be considered, albeit such change would cause an increase in unit cost. The front blade sight of the D.S.M. duplicates the blade of the Model 98.
Point 4. Barrel
The measurements of caliber and loading system of the D.S.M. barrel match precisely those of our normal small-bore target rifles. Also, the same care is taken in manufacture so that the results achieved in shooting with the D.S.M. in no way fall behind that of the other small-bore arms.
Point 5. Receiver and Bolt
(a) Bolt travel in receiver poor and rough, rapid wear indicates chamber entrance not sufficiently tempered, weak springs, partially due to binding of seating of bolt in receiver, excessive effort required to operate bolt:
These are manufacturing flaws. This results from firearms produced during a period of time when authorities were demanding delivery and the manufacturer had not yet incorporated the necessary training and procedures for production. These issues have now been resolved.
(b) Other cited modifications recommended
Smoother bolt travel in receiver, combining firing pin as an assembly through bolster, bayonet lug added as on infantry issue arms, enlargement of safety selector wing
These would require design changes to production. These modifications were presented to our office in hindsight, after a lower selling price was presented to ordering authorities. The desired modifications would require a resultant rise in cost per unit to produce.
Point 6. Cartridge Loading
The modifications to improve the loading of cartridges which we initiated in November of the previous year (widening and increasing angle of loading tray, re-positioning extractor 30 degrees upwards, and lengthening of cartridge rim on loading surface of chamber) were approved by us and applied. Cartridge loading of this rifle conforms to requirements normally true of any firearm. Rotation of the firearm up to 30 degrees in either direction has no ill effect on loading of cartridge. For this reason, we had previously presented the idea of a loading ramp to both Walther in Zella-Mellis and Remnt (?) Brothers in Suhl and it was quickly rejected due to the resultant inescapable increase in production cost of the rifle. Needless to say, we are not denying that the oversight of not including a loading ramp into original design could be considered a mistake. The addition of a loading ramp can be considered should such be determined necessary.
Point 7. Action
The incorporation of a gas-venting system, specifically pertaining to surrounding chamber and barrel area, would require a fundamental alteration of the bolt. An acceptably residue-free action in regard to cartridge loading is only attainable if a bolt in the scale of the Model 98 is used, and with a bolt body which would not rotate but include an internal cylinder which turns a locking lug forward and engages the safety at the rear. By such construction a loading ramp would also be a necessity, in order to bring the cartridges to proper height for entering the chamber. The associated bolt components for such a design could be applied as well to those of the Model 98.
Point 8. Trigger
Trigger too stiff
Excessive length of pull required for release
or too sensitive
are matters related to production conditions. ((Again referring to lack of fine-tuning on units produced under rushed conditions to get them to Abwehr authorities for testing/evaluation))
D.S.M. trigger releases at between 1.8 and 2.5 kg pressure; that of the standard infantry arm at 3 to 3.5 kg pressure. Trigger pull can be regulated by adjusting the sear spring. The required pressure of pull lies within the range specified by the Shooting Department.
Point. 9. Stock
No issues of shooting impairment resulting from splitting of stocks has been noted. The length of pull, or measurement from trigger to buttplate, was previously established by the RKM. This length is approximately 5 mm shorter than that of the Gewehr 98, and can be lengthened at any time. In all other aspects regarding stock form and strength the stock duplicates that of the Model 98.
Point 10. Sling
The suggestion that the inletting on the left side of buttstock for the sling pass-through be cut deeper can be considered, as can the inletting for the sling exit/retaining hook on the right side.
Point 11. Overall Production Quality
The deficiencies addressed here concern themselves with final production quality control. The individual supplier shall be solely responsible for these issues. Refer to the above Point 5., item a.
Point 12. Conclusion
Needless to say, any changes implemented from suggestions made by the committee must be in accordance with the stipulations made by same.
I will refer to it in future upcoming posts in the works and it is the cornerstone that will pull together much of the evidence I have assembled over decades of researching that specific Third Reich trainer model.
It is significant because:
1. It is the only evidence we have of from where within Hitler’s Government the initiative for a “standardized” .22 training rifle emulating the “standardized” service rifle” came from. (The German National Association for Physical Fitness, Berlin-Charlottenburg via the RKM) and that Mauser Oberndorf was the developer of the design
2. It documents that it was absolutely the goal to “duplicate” the handling characteristics of the 98K.
3. It documents “a rush to production” was an agenda
4. It documents shortcomings that resulted from expedited development
5. It identifies Mauser proposals to improve the design with what has previously been referred to as “the second variation” of DSM which in house at Mauser and within the technical drawings was in fact the DSM 36.
6. It documents that Mauser was thinking beyond those changes with efforts underway on a DSM 37 (of which only a few tool room examples and V prefixed prototypes were actually made up)
7. It refers to a later Mauser goal of developing the the DSM 38 (which never got off the drawing board due to the Governments push on the KKW as a joint effort with other firms.)
I will be returning to these points and referring to this document often in some conclusions it leads us to.
Please Refrain from replys to this here.
Comments or corrections are welcome in a seperate post outside this sticky referring to it.
Jpg scans of the original documents are attached. I felt it important to share this with the many of you whom I know have, like me had a life-long quest to unravel this mystery.
I am posting this as a sticky and subsequent replies to this post by me will expand the development story of the Deutches Sportmodell as I can get them completed in a presentable format.
Again thanks to Jon Speed and my brother Stephen for the following full translation:
Oberndorf, 15 October 1935
Ref: Deutsches Sportmodell
Commentary on the modifications and improvements to the D.S.M., as proposed by the Shooting Division of the German National Association for Physical Fitness, Berlin-Charlottenburg.
Point 1. Weight
The weight of the D.S.M. amounts to approximately 3.5 kg; the weight of the infantry Model 98 is ca. 4.2 kg and the infantry carbine K98k ca. 3.9 kg. The weight of the D.S.M. thus lies on the lower side in comparison to the standard issue arms, and it is up to the responsible authorities to determine if an increase in weight is necessary.
Point 2. Length
The overall length of the D.S.M. is 1110 mm. This is the length previously specified by the R.K.W. and duplicates that of the issue carbine K98k precisely.
Point 3. Sights
The target imaging method of the sights matches exactly with that of the Model 98 overall. The suggestion of utilizing the self-same sight in form and size as the infantry issue arms can be considered, albeit such change would cause an increase in unit cost. The front blade sight of the D.S.M. duplicates the blade of the Model 98.
Point 4. Barrel
The measurements of caliber and loading system of the D.S.M. barrel match precisely those of our normal small-bore target rifles. Also, the same care is taken in manufacture so that the results achieved in shooting with the D.S.M. in no way fall behind that of the other small-bore arms.
Point 5. Receiver and Bolt
(a) Bolt travel in receiver poor and rough, rapid wear indicates chamber entrance not sufficiently tempered, weak springs, partially due to binding of seating of bolt in receiver, excessive effort required to operate bolt:
These are manufacturing flaws. This results from firearms produced during a period of time when authorities were demanding delivery and the manufacturer had not yet incorporated the necessary training and procedures for production. These issues have now been resolved.
(b) Other cited modifications recommended
Smoother bolt travel in receiver, combining firing pin as an assembly through bolster, bayonet lug added as on infantry issue arms, enlargement of safety selector wing
These would require design changes to production. These modifications were presented to our office in hindsight, after a lower selling price was presented to ordering authorities. The desired modifications would require a resultant rise in cost per unit to produce.
Point 6. Cartridge Loading
The modifications to improve the loading of cartridges which we initiated in November of the previous year (widening and increasing angle of loading tray, re-positioning extractor 30 degrees upwards, and lengthening of cartridge rim on loading surface of chamber) were approved by us and applied. Cartridge loading of this rifle conforms to requirements normally true of any firearm. Rotation of the firearm up to 30 degrees in either direction has no ill effect on loading of cartridge. For this reason, we had previously presented the idea of a loading ramp to both Walther in Zella-Mellis and Remnt (?) Brothers in Suhl and it was quickly rejected due to the resultant inescapable increase in production cost of the rifle. Needless to say, we are not denying that the oversight of not including a loading ramp into original design could be considered a mistake. The addition of a loading ramp can be considered should such be determined necessary.
Point 7. Action
The incorporation of a gas-venting system, specifically pertaining to surrounding chamber and barrel area, would require a fundamental alteration of the bolt. An acceptably residue-free action in regard to cartridge loading is only attainable if a bolt in the scale of the Model 98 is used, and with a bolt body which would not rotate but include an internal cylinder which turns a locking lug forward and engages the safety at the rear. By such construction a loading ramp would also be a necessity, in order to bring the cartridges to proper height for entering the chamber. The associated bolt components for such a design could be applied as well to those of the Model 98.
Point 8. Trigger
Trigger too stiff
Excessive length of pull required for release
or too sensitive
are matters related to production conditions. ((Again referring to lack of fine-tuning on units produced under rushed conditions to get them to Abwehr authorities for testing/evaluation))
D.S.M. trigger releases at between 1.8 and 2.5 kg pressure; that of the standard infantry arm at 3 to 3.5 kg pressure. Trigger pull can be regulated by adjusting the sear spring. The required pressure of pull lies within the range specified by the Shooting Department.
Point. 9. Stock
No issues of shooting impairment resulting from splitting of stocks has been noted. The length of pull, or measurement from trigger to buttplate, was previously established by the RKM. This length is approximately 5 mm shorter than that of the Gewehr 98, and can be lengthened at any time. In all other aspects regarding stock form and strength the stock duplicates that of the Model 98.
Point 10. Sling
The suggestion that the inletting on the left side of buttstock for the sling pass-through be cut deeper can be considered, as can the inletting for the sling exit/retaining hook on the right side.
Point 11. Overall Production Quality
The deficiencies addressed here concern themselves with final production quality control. The individual supplier shall be solely responsible for these issues. Refer to the above Point 5., item a.
Point 12. Conclusion
Needless to say, any changes implemented from suggestions made by the committee must be in accordance with the stipulations made by same.
Attachments
Last edited: