"Mauser DSM for the Deutsches Reichspost"

Reference the following thread:

http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?2268-DRP-Trainers-from-Mauser&highlight=drp

I am particularly fascinated by these. It is my intent to do a full chapter on them in my book on the Deutsches Sportmodell. In addition to these marvelous examples in the referenced thread, I have others located, accessible and photographed already.

It is my opinion, that these were procured in a large lot either direct from Mauser or through a retailer or jobber, and distributed by a central office of the DRP, not so much for use as trainers, but as “substitute” (stand-ins) for the big version.

I have nothing other than the guns themselves and my serial number observations and data base to work with currently. Received the following response from Jon Speed regarding any documents relative to the purchase of lots of Mauser DSM’s by the Deutsches Reichspost”

“Jim, I have NOT seen in the Mauser financial reports anything about the smaller sales of .22 rifles to the Post or any other group. I only have the total yearly sales data.”

The fact that these appear in a fairly tight serial number range (39-46K) approximately 1938 time frame infers to me that they were purchased due to the “big versions” not being available as K98K production priorities for the rapidly expanding Wehrmacht, conscription, etc came to bear.

A “holy grail” clue in my research has long been a photograph of a DRP official or mail carrier armed with a DSM in the course of official duties and not shooting or “training” with it. Such a photograph I believe would be a "silver bullet" substantiate that opinion.
Should any of you other students have observed or be in possession of, or know the location of such a photograph I would appreciate any help you might lend on that.

Further, I have never observed any of these purchased from any other maker than Mauser Oberndorf. Naturally the channels were well rehearsed from previous transactions on the "Mauser Gewehr for Deutsches Reichspost" so marvelously covered in Bruce and Farb's new book. IF ANYONE HAS A DSM SO MARKED BY ANY OTHER MAKER I would sincerely appreciate posting photos here or a personal confidential send to me.

I should state here, that unlike the 8mm version where a Mauser in-house term was applied to that variation of 98 centerfire rifle, the term; "Mauser DSM for the Deutsches Reichspost" is of my own spin to refer to this variation of the DSM and comes from no historical evidence that it was perceived by the Mauser Company as a "special" version of the Deutsches Sportmodell.

Here is another example to add to those already presented in the referenced post. This one and others documented have had the bands butt plates and trigger guards numbered to the gun post factory I believe. This lends further credence to this having been a large scale buy (appears now through a retailer) and the property marks done at a central location prior to distribution by the DRP.

Drp dsm

Jim the added serial numbers are typical of some Banner DRP issued examples with the added numbers on the bands, buttplate, and various other small parts (action screws,etc.) Last SOS a Mauser DSM34 was sold by a member here with a variant DRP cartouche similar to the ones found on Banner Ks but without the serial number. As far as I know, this is the only example of this marking found. Perhaps Wayne can post an image. I believe the gun is now owned by a forum member. As far as the idea of the DSM being used as a substitute first line weapon, I remain on the fence on that one, pending any historical evidence (ie. photos) showing guards or personnel on duty with said weapon. All the images I have uncovered of police personnel with rifles show either Banner K or Kar98a in use.

its in the link he posted....Bob Simpson now owns that rifle..

Thanks for weighing in Bruce!

"As far as the idea of the DSM being used as a substitute first line weapon"

Not my perception that even the 8mm DRP guns were "first line weapons". Security weapons better term?
Largely evidenced by condition of the 8mm examples mainly served as deterent with little use.

Other points that bears: .22 ammunition difficult to obtain particularly subsequent to 1938. May explain why virtually all these DSM's observed appear either unused or little used. If the Reichs Post aquired these for economocial marksmanship training and practice (very possibly the reason) they arrived too late. Conversely, a period photograph of them training with DSM's would sway my opinion the other direction. I'm still off the fence on the side I was on, and of the opinion the DSM was what they could get and had to suffice for "security" weapons. Other thing I ponder, how many personnell would have been located at any given location these are property marked for? Enough that organized markmanship training was practical? Answer, I don't know. (In some cases - have doubts, in other definately yes.)

Another thing effecting my perspective: From first hand experience I very much appreciate the German mind set which has ultimate respect of persons in positions of authority. An authority figure armed with any firearm particularly within the borders of the Reich need only create the facade of being lethal.

One other point: As layed out in your book, acquisition of further 8MM rifles subsequent to 34. Would demand for arming personell subsequent to 34 have increased or decreased? Were other alternatives to the 8mm rifle available to the DRP?

I do definately appreciate and respect, will take into further consideration your opinion!

Just a dad gummed hard headed Missouri Mule on this end.

A period photo either way would "Show Me" May never find one.

Mauser DSM DRP

Hi Jim
A few days ago, after your post on the Walther DSM stock markings, I took pictures of the markings on one of my Mauser DSM's #40913, without suspecting that it was Deutsche Reichspost, I thought it was Deutsches Reich Patent... I wanted to ask on the forum the signification of the Oldb letters under the DRP mark :











Now, I know : it's the city of Oldenburg, in the north of Germany

The bands, triggerguard, and buttplate are not serial numbered...

If you need more photo's, please advice

Tiger

Thanks for the good pictures Tiger

That rifle has obviously seen some use but suspect most was post war.

It talks to me in more ways than one.

I meant to also state that some of these observed only have the DRP mark such as the one on your gun and no indication of what city or other markings on right side.

As always great pics.

Drp procurement of k98k

We know from period examples that deliveries of K98k from Mauser continued well after Banner production ended in early to mid-1934. This continued at least into 1936 and possibly even later. Your time period for DSM deliveries seems to begin after the end of K98k shipments from Mauser to the Reichspost. Interesting timeline and worth further investigation. As far as my "first line weapons" reference this was only in reference to the main rifles used by the Reichspost and not intended as a reference to their use by the German Army.

Thanks for adding that.

I had noted the normal K98K's diverted in 35 and 36 as you document in your book, but failed to mention that.

That and the time line as you mention gave further cause for me to suspect that they may have procured the DSM due to the inability to acquire anymore 98K's.

I also went back and closely reviewed the pictures presented in your book. These all appear to me to have been taken early, well before 1938.

Further investigation warranted yes, but running down alot of dead end alley's and think the only "clue" thay may exist would be finding a photograph of a DSM employed in a security vs. training role. Silver bullet, maybe not, but some substantiation of the theory.

Aside from that, the observed guns condition as a rule indicates very little operation of the mechanism, with only light carry wear. That could be soley due to the availability of ammunition after 1938. So no conclusions can be made from that. I am finding significant evidence relative to the availability of .22 ammunition once the war began.

The sole example noted with the circular marking you mentioned is the only one so marked I am aware of. Most of them I have seen only have DRP in the left slot with no local property mark such as the ones pictured in this and the reference thread.

Pardon my over emphasis of the term "first line" comes from my previous occupation.

Any evidence you encounter relative to the HZA or others complaining or concerned about diversion of "issue" 98k's to others could be helpful as well. I see some mention of that in your book.

And again thanks for your perspective.

I may debate and challenge others perspectives and statements where I can not see their basis, but do appreciate them and need all the input I can get from such well studied persons as you.

mauser22 said:

I had noted the normal K98K's diverted in 35 and 36 as you document in your book, but failed to mention that.

That and the time line as you mention gave further cause for me to suspect that they may have procured the DSM due to the inability to acquire anymore 98K's.

I also went back and closely reviewed the pictures presented in your book. These all appear to me to have been taken early, well before 1938.

Further investigation warranted yes, but running down alot of dead end alley's and think the only "clue" thay may exist would be finding a photograph of a DSM employed in a security vs. training role. Silver bullet, maybe not, but some substantiation of the theory.

Aside from that, the observed guns condition as a rule indicates very little operation of the mechanism, with only light carry wear. That could be soley due to the availability of ammunition after 1938. So no conclusions can be made from that. I am finding significant evidence relative to the availability of .22 ammunition once the war began.

The sole example noted with the circular marking you mentioned is the only one so marked I am aware of. Most of them I have seen only have DRP in the left slot with no local property mark such as the ones pictured in this and the reference thread.

Pardon my over emphasis of the term "first line" comes from my previous occupation.

Any evidence you encounter relative to the HZA or others complaining or concerned about diversion of "issue" 98k's to others could be helpful as well. I see some mention of that in your book.

And again thanks for your perspective.

I may debate and challenge others perspectives and statements where I can not see their basis, but do appreciate them and need all the input I can get from such well studied persons as you.

Click to expand...

Jim

As far as I can understand, the use of firearms by the DRP would be confined to two situations: protection of DRP facilities or recreational use.
I can see the use of the early DRP Mauser as well as DRP marked Walther pistols and others being used by the Postschutz, but .22s? These I could only imagine being used either for training purposes either locally or at the Postschutz Schule or for recreational shooting in matches.

Could you elaborate a bit on your view of what I perceive you believe to be have been a shortage of .22 ammunition after 1938. On the contrary, I have found written evidence of the continued availability of rimfire ammo both in 1940 catalogs and publications of the NSDAP promoting marksmanship.

Uses

Joe

Certainly can not and am not ruling out use as trainers and for recreational shooting.

If used at a central location such as Postschutz Schule would likely be the guns only marked "DRP" not the ones with the city markings included. That could explain that type marking vs. the other.

Still think the time line on when these were acquired points to the DSM likely bought as an alternative.

Same point in time that observed examples of diverted K98K run out.

Why would they have waited until 1938 to acquire any DSM's (assuming all their guns were property marked) if bought for training purposes? Unless they did not mark them prior to 1938 that is what the guns tell me.

If they waited until 1938 to buy any, what were they using for .22 rimfire training prior? - assume EL-24's as no other trainers noted by me with DRP marks. Here too I make an assumption that theywould have property marked them. Were any of the EL-24's DRP marked? I have no notes on that. Any help there would be appreciated.

None of what I have seen relative to .22 ammunition availability comes from what was listed in retail catalogs.
That retailers put it in the catalog does not substantiate it was in stock in my opinion.

I have only examined a handful of HJ shooting books and all of those predated 1939. Have never seen one's contents beyond that point in time. Just my limited resources but, have never seen one for the SA, nor examined other where .22 practice is noted beyond those HJ versions I had access to.

All the evidence I have seen is scattered will take some time to quote sources. Most comes from accounts of snipers during training in the sniper schools, alotted quantities miniscule and insufficient there. I do make the assumption that if the sniper schools were having to ration and limit practice with .22 rimfire that there were shortfalls across the board.

The other factor that leads me to that conclusion is very opinionated: There are way too many trainers of all types made after the war started that show little evidence of actual use, particularly KKW's to indicate they were getting work outs those last 5-6 years vs. fair wear and tear on earlier guns. That is even allowing for some well worn examples that likely accrued the wear post war. Not enough well worn guns vs. used little. Not referring to stock condition, rust, or handling wear but wear at crtical points in the action where it is obvious.

Any documents you can refer me to relative to or regarding number of rounds fired in training, actual training conducted, particularly where dates are noted would be most helpful. Not the training plan, or course, but actually conducted. I have the requirements in many cases such as for the various degrees of marksmanship badges. There again, that is not an indication of how many rounds were actually expended or how much training was actually conducted.

All points you make are well founded and come from your years of serious research and are precisely the feedback I am seeking by stating opinions.

We collectors are a very opinionated lot aren't we?

When it comes to substantiating or elminating any theory, in the absence of relative documents, or best of all period photographs and eye witness accounts all I can do is gather the best opinions available to find direction for further research.

I appreciate you weighing in and providing new avenues of thought.

Trying to put it all together 70 plus years after it went down is challenging. The participants of these events pretty much extinct, the photos scarce, alot of the documentation may be non-existent.

tiger_jedi said:

Hi Jim
A few days ago, after your post on the Walther DSM stock markings, I took pictures of the markings on one of my Mauser DSM's #40913, without suspecting that it was Deutsche Reichspost, I thought it was Deutsches Reich Patent... I wanted to ask on the forum the signification of the Oldb letters under the DRP mark :

Now, I know : it's the city of Oldenburg, in the north of Germany

The bands, triggerguard, and buttplate are not serial numbered...

If you need more photo's, please advice

Tiger

Click to expand...

Tiger, for the record, "Oldb" is the official DRP designation for the Reichs Post Direktion (RPD) Oldenburg according to my 1939 Verzeichnis of Beamte of the DRP.

mauser22 said:

Joe

Certainly can not and am not ruling out use as trainers and for recreational shooting.

If used at a central location such as Postschutz Schule would likely be the guns only marked "DRP" not the ones with the city markings included. That could explain that type marking vs. the other.

Still think the time line on when these were acquired points to the DSM likely bought as an alternative.

Same point in time that observed examples of diverted K98K run out.

Why would they have waited until 1938 to acquire any DSM's (assuming all their guns were property marked) if bought for training purposes? Unless they did not mark them prior to 1938 that is what the guns tell me.

If they waited until 1938 to buy any, what were they using for .22 rimfire training prior? - assume EL-24's as no other trainers noted by me with DRP marks. Here too I make an assumption that theywould have property marked them. Were any of the EL-24's DRP marked? I have no notes on that. Any help there would be appreciated.......

Click to expand...

The nationalized police did not recognize the use of the DSM until May 1938. We know there were some in service with the Prussian police, but never recognized in manuals or by directive. What did the use? The old M20 4mm cartridge inserts and the EL 24. I have never seen a police marked EL 24. I am sure there is one out there, but never seeing them doesn't mean they were not used. So do you have to see a DRP marked EL24 to believe they used them?

mauser22 said:

Joe...................................
None of what I have seen relative to .22 ammunition availability comes from what was listed in retail catalogs.
That retailers put it in the catalog does not substantiate it was in stock in my opinion.

I have only examined a handful of HJ shooting books and all of those predated 1939. Have never seen one's contents beyond that point in time. Just my limited resources but, have never seen one for the SA, nor examined other where .22 practice is noted beyond those HJ versions I had access to.

All the evidence I have seen is scattered will take some time to quote sources. Most comes from accounts of snipers during training in the sniper schools, alotted quantities miniscule and insufficient there. I do make the assumption that if the sniper schools were having to ration and limit practice with .22 rimfire that there were shortfalls across the board.

The other factor that leads me to that conclusion is very opinionated: There are way too many trainers of all types made after the war started that show little evidence of actual use, particularly KKW's to indicate they were getting work outs those last 5-6 years vs. fair wear and tear on earlier guns. That is even allowing for some well worn examples that likely accrued the wear post war. Not enough well worn guns vs. used little. Not referring to stock condition, rust, or handling wear but wear at crtical points in the action where it is obvious.

Any documents you can refer me to relative to or regarding number of rounds fired in training, actual training conducted, particularly where dates are noted would be most helpful. Not the training plan, or course, but actually conducted. I have the requirements in many cases such as for the various degrees of marksmanship badges. There again, that is not an indication of how many rounds were actually expended or how much training was actually conducted.

All points you make are well founded and come from your years of serious research and are precisely the feedback I am seeking by stating opinions.

We collectors are a very opinionated lot aren't we?

When it comes to substantiating or eliminating any theory, in the absence of relative documents, or best of all period photographs and eye witness accounts all I can do is gather the best opinions available to find direction for further research.

I appreciate you weighing in and providing new avenues of thought.

Trying to put it all together 70 plus years after it went down is challenging. The participants of these events pretty much extinct, the photos scarce, alot of the documentation may be non-existent.

Click to expand...

Jim, I certainly don't mind discussing matters with opinionated collectors like me who have gone to school and can base their theories/opinions on facts. I enjoy the discussion.

By shooting books, I assume you are referring to the printed versions for SA, SS, NSKk, HJ and the like that provide record of shooting and accomplishments. Unfortunately, those that I do have are woefully lacking in details. I can provide details on what the training regimen was, but whether it was carried out is not noted. I can provide evidence of consistent holding of shooting contests by the police well into the war, the continuation of the massive shooting program in Gau Tirol-Vorarlberg including Kleinkaliber Gewehr and notices of continued firearms training of Political Leaders with SA assistance into the war years, including exhortation to recover empty .22 casings. I must confess I have no knowledge of sniper school training or the reports of shortages for these trainees. Were these reports in the time before Stalingrad or after? Fritz Walther presented his son a exquisite engraved Walther Olympia pistol for winning his shooting match in mid 1942. And my Walther Mod 1 was engraved for presentation to an officer of the Mot Gendarmerie School in Suhl in August 1944. I just don't think logistical supply problems for a particular Heer school can be taken to be indicative of the industry.

It is fun to discuss this.

This is good.

Joe thanks much for all that input.

Certainly don't have to see a property marked EL-24 to believe they used them. Particularly when evidence they did is so well presented such as you have. Thanks for that. All very enlightening.

You have also presented enough evidence on ammunition availablity to sway me on that and now think that did not occurr to the extent it impacted training until much later. And yes the absence of entries in those books was combined with the condition of late guns the primary reason I had formed that "opinion" this may have been an issue as early as 39 and 40. It definately was in some areas subsequent to Stalingrad.

For a lack of good references, and from necessity, I have for many years channeled my research based on what I see in the guns. Also a result of accessability to period documents and photos. With the internet much developed since beginning that quest, we are light years ahead of where we once were in that regard.

Then too, I have the inherent tendancy as a born and bred hillbilly from Missouri to have to be "shown". You are showing me much, please continue to do so.

Wish some others whom I am confident have information that would contribute to my efforts were as generous with their knowledge.

The guns provide the clues, some answers, often more mysteries. That approach, however backwards it may be, has been the avenue that has led me to finding the answers or possible explanations on alot of things.

I will be presenting further opinions and theories based on what the guns have "shown me" for anyone and everyone to add to, shoot holes in, correct my perspective, and the more input I can get the better.

I too enjoy the debate where opinions are all we have to work with supported by available evidence.

Jim, you are most certainly welcome. I always enjoy a good discussion. But I do not think the Internet has helped in the quest for knowledge. On it I usually find generalized histories and such. Research for me has alwasys been conducted with paper the paper trail. Either from the National Archives, Bundes Archives, or my purchases of books and documents that detail a history long gone.

I did examine my shooting books and found I had one for the Deutsche Schutzen Verband, as well as for the SA, NSKK, SS, HJ and DJ. The Deutsches Jugend used air rifles. The NSDAP also reprinted the firearms training manual in 1939 to include small caliber rifles. Most of the books were dated 1939-1942 and unfortunately few record any significant shooting.

Trying to clarify previous comments

Joe

"I did examine my shooting books and found I had one for the Deutsche Schutzen Verband, as well as for the SA, NSKK, SS, HJ and DJ. The Deutsches Jugend used air rifles. The NSDAP also reprinted the firearms training manual in 1939 to include small caliber rifles. Most of the books were dated 1939-1942 and unfortunately few record any significant shooting"

That better stated is in part what I was referring to as a lack of evidence that the shooting was actually conducted. It may only mean they did not bother to record it when done.

I also need to understand what you meant or are referring to by:

"The nationalized police did not recognize the use of the DSM until May 1938"

mauser22 said:

Joe..............
I also need to understand what you meant or are referring to by:
"The nationalized police did not recognize the use of the DSM until May 1938"

Click to expand...

Jim, this is material in the police chapter I prepared for the Simpson book. The DSM 34 was first recognized as a training rifle in an order dated May 1938 issued by the RFSS u. Chef d. deutschen Polizei. I have prepared the chapter with additional info on the Allgemeine SS use of trainers as an article for publication in Bender's The Military Advisor, but I can't put the finishing touch to it.

Just stumbled across this thread. I checked a Mauser Oberndorf DSM 34 that I have had for some years. All matching and in great shape. SN44XXX. A representative example except I just noticed that the left side of the sling slot in the butt stock is stamped "DRP Agsg". Could this be an abbreviation for "DRP Augsburg"? I will post pictures if needed but not sure I can get a good resolution shot of the mark in question.

GEM said:

..the left side of the sling slot in the butt stock is stamped "DRP Agsg". Could this be an abbreviation for "DRP Augsburg"?

Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. There was a directorate housed there since the 1920 unification of the postal system.

New Book

I just bought a copy of the new training rifle book from Jim at the Stover Mo. Gunshow today. I haven't started reading it yet, but it is a big book with a lot of information on it. I may have to buy a few rifles now.