dsm 34/ dsm 36

Guess I didn't get the memo . How is the dsm36 designation being used v. dsm34?

mauser

well, I guess they never gave us the memo... mauser changed the designation to the improved dsm34 to the dsm 36.. As the receiver and bolt are different enough to warrant a different modell designation..

Bob, thanks for asking because I was wondering the same thing.

Disscussed here

http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread...dorf-Development-of-the-Deutsches-Sportmodell

I really have only touched on this but the changes in first action discussed here evidenced in what we have long refered to as "second variation" DSM were in fact the DSM 36 in the drawings that implemented those changes.
Many makers had ceased production of the DSM by the time these changes went out. I am currently focused on pinning all that down as to whom, at what range, etc.

Again, this really only mattered in house at Mauser and at those locations still making the DSM after changes implemented subsequent to that meeting in that post.

Those maker's who were still producing, and the retailer's, literature, advertisements, instruction manuals and so forth generally refered to the gun only as the "Deutsches Sportmodell" or the "DSM" with no reference in most cases to 1934 or 36. They had a significant investment in all that literature and advertising and there was no need to change all that.

However, for us students discussing the two types it will simplify things to refer to the improved action as the DSM 36 and the first type as the DSM 34. And in the developer and producers drawings that is what they were.

I have failed to clearly illustrate and explain that yet. Will post replys here with photo attachments in upcoming days to illustrate the key changes. They are fairly well covered in Jon's Mauser Small Bores already, however at that point in time we referred to the two as "first or early" version, vs. "2nd or later variation".

And I realize not every one has access to that publication.

Main Differences

The DSM 36 changes were implemented around the 30K range at Mauser and these features begin to show up:

Most obvious is the redesign of the loading and ejection port for ease of loading and less chance of spent brass bouncing back into action. Also made ambedextrious loading easer for south paws.

The loading tray cut in receiver bottom was improved.

Lengthened the safety for better leverage and ease of operation

Repositioned extractor and reshaped end for better purchase smoother bolt travel, less wobble

Redesigned the ejector box and corresponding cuts in bolt.

Changed bolt face machining to better encase cartridge base and added gas escape hole in receiver to preclude blow back of gas and brass in the event of case failure.

Also the bolt body was polished and left in the white in a further attempt to address the complaint about travel and roughness.

Added shoulder to the bolt sleeve to reduce wobble and better align when removing and extracting.

Deepened the sling cut in buttstock on right side.

(The main source of the gouging in the left stock wrist was and remained, miss aligned bolts and over zealous attempts to re-insert them after removal for cleaning. These changes helped but did not preclude that. Even the DSM 36 had that problem. The reason being the small plunger in bolt root is spring loaded and after it wear at tip does not hold cocking piece in perfect alignment if striker assembly is bumped or turned.)

These changes address most the complaints in that memo. But failed to address all, such as more comparable weight with 98k standard service rifle, bayonet lug desired and so forth. Net result was SA coming forward to industry with BSW (party owned) in the lead to develop the KKW.

The net result of that development in 38 was far reaching. Mauser was developing the DSM 37 variation with even more changes (much larger port and spring loaded loading tray). Only one example has surfaced and is included in Jon's book. That they fully intended to produce it in quantity is evidenced in the parts on hand documents in the Archives documents in 1940. They had already produced significant quantities of the spring loaded loading tray for that action. They even had a full wall chart done for the DSM 37. KKW precluded it going into production. The customer wanted the KKW.

They were going to go even further than that with the DSM 38 but it appears that design never got off the drawing board due to the KKW and the war intervening.

All that referred to in the memo in the stickys.


Rough pics better later, but since I have only muddied the water on this these will suffice for now:

Dsm 38

Courtesy of Jon Speed

Appears to have never got off the drawing board as not even factory photo of tool room example or a prototype has turned up.

Note date in datum block is December 37. Within a few months of that, Mauser was involved in joint development of the KKW.

Variances not Relative to the DSM 36 changes

Both soldered on and sleeved rear sights will be observed during both DSM 34 and 36 production.

Shift to Elm and other alternative woods due to availability of walnut.

Less serialization of parts.

Logo changes with various makers.

Grooved vs. file cut checkered front sight ramp.

Use of 98K type rear band.

Logo changes.

Address line location, font changes.

These variations prevelant late by all makers still producing after 1935 but not relative to the action machining changes. Or the drawings.

Carry over into Mauser B Series

The actions changes will be noted taking effect in the B series single shot sporters as well.

Some of the changes (safety length for example) effected the repeaters (MM410B and MS420B and MS350B). However the loading port cut remained square and the extractor and ejector were already different on the repeaters.

Sticky?

I wanted to do a better job of presenting this, but felt the state of confusion I have already caused necessitated getting something out.

At the point it appears I have adequately conveyed enough information to clear this up (by nature of further questions and responses) perhaps this should be a "sticky".

Your thoughts?

Yes, sticky please

All is in the title.

Tiger

Can this be simplified by using the gas port in the receiver to
delineate dsm36 from the dsm 34?

I think so

But the loading port is the dead give away.

Not sure but think these changes were phased in piecemeal to some extent. Will be looking at Simpson's collection soon to determine that and will post what I see.

At the point that was done the receiver was being machined different to accomodate the bolt, extractor, and ejector changes.

However, have noted on the ES340B that the gas hole was added prior to the other action changes and infact moved from right to left.

So the gas hole could have been added prior to the receiver being changed.

I have to look at a lot of guns to answer your question.

Courtesy of Jon Speed

Attached is a portion of the design listing from the Mauser files courtesy of Jon Speed.

Here the progression of developments and pending developments on the Deutsches Sportmodell as well as the KKW are listed.

This document also depicted in "Mauser Small Bores"

Actions Changes Photos Added

Photos added.

In each case the DSM 36 is on the left, DSM 34 on the right.

For the benefit of those without access to Jon Speed's Mauser "Mauser Small Bores"

Most of this covered there but captioned as "1st or early" variation and "2nd or later variation". A note on captioning that slipped through editing there, Page 58 lower right photo of bolts the bolt face photos opposite correlation to side shot. My bad, sent Jon those pics. Figures 137,138,139, 140, 141,142 illustrate most of this but not the ejector.

The sight variations and band variations figures 144 through 146 are not specific to the DSM 36 design changes and may be noted in both DSM 34 and 36 but were more prevelant on the later guns.

A change that was relative to the DSM 36 not depicted here was the deeping of the sling cut on right side of stock.

Those pics subsequent reply update to this thread.

Here are two that might be useful for comparison: Based on the gas port... sn 29,743 (dsm34) and 31,646 (dsm36). 29xxx is the top or right rifle, and the Rf ss example too. Looks like both rifles have the same type of safety. Mauser also changed the side rail label.

Another brick in the wall

Thanks Bob!

It's starting to look like the complete transition was phased in and they were using up the last short safeties at Mauser on the first DSM 36 receivers.

Also, note early guns with longer safety but the last DSM 34 receivers and bolts going out. So vice versa, using up old receivers althought changes begun. Or is possible that gun had safety swapped replaced.

So it is possible some 34 actions are out there that had gas hole added.

I would refer to any gun that uses the receiver changes and bolt improvements, a DSM 36 or in case like this "transitional".

The change in the address line location fonts not really relative to DSM 36 other than done concurrent with the receiver milling changes.

These two guns definately narrow down the range.

Further dates the later one of these to late fall 35 or early 36. Parts in inventory push the implementation of the change date in the memorandum out a couple months past the new parts productions starting. This coincides very closely with the year correlations (time line) Jon did in Small Bores on the DSM serial number listing.

FWIW, my 36xxx still has a short safety, and 39xxx finally is a long one.

Who made the DSM 36?

Gaining ground on several things relative to Production of both types by all makers.

Some DSM makers never produced the improved design. Clearly some continued to assemble DSM34's with either parts on hand or continued to manufacture them by the original drawings well past Mauser's design improvements.
(BSW for example)

Most of the larger makers (Suhl consortium - Waffenstadt Suhl for example) did implement the changes.

The reasons may vary. In the Case of BSW and Walther they already had their own competing designs. Also production capacity for escalting weapons contracts after 1935 factor in. By time the drawings from Mauser could have been made available it would only be two years before the joint KKW development started. IF any form of directive, clandestine agreement, or economic incentive had been a government initiative for production the first two years (purely hypothethical) it may have expired.

I am currently looking closely at the guns to determine who did and did not implement these changes, and who was still at least assembling them after the Eagle N proofs came into effect. And yes there are DSM's built on the 34 pattern at least assembled and sold very late.

Very interested in any examples of DSM36 by makers other than Mauser particularly range where first noted and high serial numbered examples.

Observations on What firms did

First I want to state that just because a Firm did not produce the DSM 36 pattern, does not mean they did not continue to produce or at lease assemble the 34 pattern after Mauser had made the developments and drawing changes.
Clearly some did.

The Suhl Consortium AKA Waffenstadt-Suhl (J.P. Sauer, Haenel, others?) adopted the DSM 36 changes as the example in the attached pic clearly illustrates. Not aware of any competing models by these firms.

Anschutz adopted the changes and as is evidenced the attached example at least assembled them into 1940. This although they had more than one competing model of their own design.

The last GECO's (not sure made by whom or where) adopt the changes as illustrated in the attached example. Had competing designs retailer of all makes at some points.

BSW may not have built the DSM on the new Mauser pattern. I have notes that some of the last high numbers by them were 34 pattern and had Eagle N proofs. One observed SN 192014 which is the high, falls in the BSW KKW range and is the 34 pattern. I have not observed any on the 36 pattern nor have I observed any with Eagle N proofs. Sporters in that serial number range built with BSW markings after the name change to Gustloff, and with Eagle N proofs have been observed. I believe these must have been built on shelved receivers and they trickled out using up the last pieces. They had a competing design and were developing what would become the KKW.

Erma - don't know not observed beyond 34 pattern - had their own competing design

Walther - had competing design, may have continued to produce the 34 pattern (D suffix range) beyond the implementation of those changes by others.

Green Heart - don't know not observed beyond 34 pattern

Paatz - only made a few 34 patterns, scattered through other production, no dedicated serial number range, probably mixed with other guns of various type and caliber,also had competing design

Weihrauch - none observed not likely there are clues they may have contributed to the Green Heart

Bolte and Anschutz - opinion they only made prototype 34 pattern may have been contributor of pieces on Greenheart

Schimdt - opinion they only made prototype 34 pattern may have been contributor of pieces on Greenheart

Haenel - opinion they only made prototype(s) 34 pattern known to be contributor on the Waffenstadt Suhl

Diem - Probably, only made prototype(s) on 34 pattern - further involvement?

Menz - made 34 pattern may have made both patterns or pieces for GECO late after ceasing to market with own logo

Note: Simson was superseded by BSW in 1935 with the NSDAP take over. Some Simson marked receivers were evidently found in inventory and trickle out after that time frame. By the time the Mauser changes were implemented the company was BSW.

To what extent J.P. Sauer was involved remains controversial. Certainly made the receivers, I personally believe they were the assembler on the Waffenstadt Suhl but have no solid evidence yet other than the guns finish, fonts, and other observed manufacturing traits. However, they appear to have been the leading firm in the Suhl Consortium and were clearly the largest production facility involved in the Waffenstadt Suhl. It was one of the more prolific DSM's in quantities produced.

Generally, what I am seeing leads me to believe that most the Deutsches Sportmodells were built the first two years with only a couple other makers besides Mauser continuing past that and some clearly either using up existing parts or producing a few on the old pattern.

This tends to reinforce my previous opinion that the demand for trainers in 1934 and 1935 was certainly one of the first markets for re-armament while the wraps of the Treaty of Versailles were still cloaking production. In 1936 as the 98K and other combat weapons production ramped up and the wraps came off, production of the DSM was no longer a priority. Logical that in those first two years it was a priority.

Contradictions, corrections, observed examples???

Edits and updated observations

Have found errors in the above, made corrections, added observations and mentioned other reported guns.

Only where I have either observed the gun, or have photos can I consider the report as valid.