CE 42 (pic heavy)

[Mauserguy85]

Hey Guys,

I picked up a CE42 from a fellow gunboards collector a while back. Its basically a bolt mismatch (with a Sauer bolt) and with its stock cut right before the rear band. Unfortunately, the original end piece is MIA and so are the bands and original handguard. Not a big deal to me because I have a few armorer's bands, donor stock forend and a unnumbered handguard so this should make for a pretty decent restoration. I finally had a little time to start taking care of the stock issue. So I took it apart, examined the action and a few questions started to pop into my head.

First the barrel code is something that I have not seen before on any of my other Sauer's and even on the rifle's posted up (unless I just failed to notice). Also, the lack of proofs on parts (TG, FP, Follower, rear sight base, etc) strikes me as strange. The stock doesnt have any exterior proofs but doesnt look sanded (im not on expert on stocks though) which is really weird. The stock doesnt feel overly smooth and the unmarked and definately not messed with buttplate doesnt extend over the wood. No serial on the barrel for this letter block? Can somebody please give me an assesment of what's the deal with this rifle? Is everything in order?

 

[Mauserguy85]

More pics....

 

[Mauserguy85]

Last set....

 

[Loewe]

This topic is well discussed on the forums, essentially in November 1941 (started as early as August/41) Germany undertook a series of steps to move towards mass production in a serious way (the way the US and Britain had long undertaken). Germany had been on a war footing before the war, officially anyway, but as the economy was managed by Göring, and his administration of the economy makes obama's look coherent, manufacturing was in a shambles. There was no real incentive to be efficient, profit was long removed from manufacturing (even if there were profits, the currency controls removed much of the value in having wealth) and politics were largely making the decisions in industry.

The campaign in Russia largely changed this, it came to a point where Hitler had to intervene, he ordered the Military (OKW) to take steps to reduce alterations and upgrades to production (improvements to models under production) and stop excessive demands on fit & finish. Todt's plan at rationalization of industry and giving the industrialist a free hand, more or less, was incrementally implemented over time. Speer took full credit for this but it was actually begun under Todt.

Anyway, these changes you see in rifles begin in 1942, first with a more sterile approach to acceptance and markings, then slowly, a looser attention to finish, but still quite high considering the war situation in 1942-1943. Some firms embraced this more than others, the government owned firms quickly dropped what quality control they possessed, Gustloff and Steyr noticeably so, Brno also embraced the sterile marking pattern, but kept finish fairly high, - I suppose this was due to the Czechs pre-38 tendency to not use such excessive marking in the first place, as the Czech industry had developed interchangeable parts manufacture in the mid-1920's whereas the Germans lagged due to the interwar situation (no need to upgrade as the arms industry was heavily regulated due to treaties and the German economy was always teetering on the edge).

Your rifle, JP Sauer (S&S) was the only true privately owned company that made the 98k, late to the nazi party the family business had a first rate reputation for rifle manufacture. They manufactured rifles using a consortium of firms in the Suhl & Z-M area, your barrel shows the pattern discussed above, S&S had been one of the more marking happy firms that made the 98k earlier, long BC's are common, probably due the fact they used a lot of sub-contractors. Mike Steves wrote a first rate article for the MRJ in 2010 (MRJ/201) where he came up with a rather unique and ingenious theory on S&S marking patterns. Your "o" like figure is actually a Sütterlin script "S" and in Mike's theory he associates this marking to CG. Haenel, probably the firm most closely linked to S&S throughout the consortiums history (CGH, S&S & VCS were longtime collaborators in military rifle production contracts). The "D" is for the Saxon steel mill in Döhlen, probably the most prolific barrel blank supplier (Ruhrstahl was the other main one).

Acceptance on the TG group drops early in ce/42 production, generally if the part is in-house production S&S drops acceptance starting in the early blocks of 1942, probably around the "e" block, hard to be too specific as trends work is dependant upon reliable reporting of data and many do not show every component, but it does seem to end sometime after the late "c" block and by the early "e" block, probably with some overlap.

 

[Mauserguy85]

SimsonSuhl,

I was hoping you would chime in. Thanks for the great and impressive information! S&S is my favorite assembler of k98ks. My other CE42 with the bsw barrel exhibits a more detailed and extensive proofing blueprint. Any idea when they dropped the barrel serial number?

 

[Loewe]

Thanks, glad to help.

This is easier to guess as "rc" reporting can help here.. sometime between the mid-"d" block and the early "e" block in the trends sheets I made up.
Could be some overlap of course.

This is probably a good range for the TG group too, though not currently shown in trends work.

SimsonSuhl,

I was hoping you would chime in. Thanks for the great and impressive information! S&S is my favorite assembler of k98ks. My other CE42 with the bsw barrel exhibits a more detailed and extensive proofing blueprint. Any idea when they dropped the barrel serial number?

 

[Mauserguy85]

Thanks, glad to help.

This is easier to guess as "rc" reporting can help here.. sometime between the mid-"d" block and the early "e" block in the trends sheets I made up.
Could be some overlap of course.

This is probably a good range for the TG group too, though not currently shown in trends work.

Thanks once again,

I forgot to ask, what's your opinion on the stock with the lack of proofs? There is really not a shred of proofing that I can make out even with the use of a magnifying glass. I know from experience with RC stocks that you really need to do quite a bit of heavy sanding to completely eliminate all remnants of inspection stamps.

 

[Loewe]

MG, Acceptance, not proof, but this is a tricky area in the trends work, the only consistent thing I can say is they should be serialed internally, w/o suffix and have (small) e/H on RS, this is the case in every rifle I have come across in over 10 years and have recorded. That said, there are a few, for some inexplicable reason, that have serialing along the bottom buttstock, f-g blocks mostly though it could be others as the database is meager in this area.

The stocks in question (f-g) look original, internal serialing, fonts good, Se/H etc.. rifle apparently original. Others seem to only have the Se/H and internal serialing. This could just be that the owners neglected to show the area clearly, it could be worn or whatever. Many stocks are not shown in any detail to know or guess, others clearly depot or mismatched. The percentage of full detail documented rifles is less than 10% of the total for 1942, almost half rc or screwed up rifles of little value. Stocks are a troublesome aspect across the board in the trends work I have completed. Easily less than 10% factory original, less than that fully documented... that is one of the purposes of this forum, to remedy the absolutely poor quality of information currently known. When B&M get to Vol.II hopefully that will inspire others to get involved and document rifles.

Your rifle, it is SI and seems to show a "H" on the RS? The small eagle is not clear but it is probably ok? Hard to say. (IMG 0440) The fonts compare well internally to others, the "4" is right anyway (footed & closed), some "3" are flat tops, other round in the database, the rounded much earlier than yours. Not enough clearly documented to say more than that.

Can you record the siderail, I assume it is bold, not script, also image the wrist and lower buttstock, as whether something is there or not it is always good to show these areas as trends work requires consistent reporting and acceptance patterns change, as do application of markings. I like to record "blank" as much as something for consistency.

Thanks once again,

I forgot to ask, what's your opinion on the stock with the lack of proofs? There is really not a shred of proofing that I can make out even with the use of a magnifying glass. I know from experience with RC stocks that you really need to do quite a bit of heavy sanding to completely eliminate all remnants of inspection stamps.

 

[Mauserguy85]

MG, Acceptance, not proof, but this is a tricky area in the trends work, the only consistent thing I can say is they should be serialed internally, w/o suffix and have (small) e/H on RS, this is the case in every rifle I have come across in over 10 years and have recorded. That said, there are a few, for some inexplicable reason, that have serialing along the bottom buttstock, f-g blocks mostly though it could be others as the database is meager in this area.

The stocks in question (f-g) look original, internal serialing, fonts good, Se/H etc.. rifle apparently original. Others seem to only have the Se/H and internal serialing. This could just be that the owners neglected to show the area clearly, it could be worn or whatever. Many stocks are not shown in any detail to know or guess, others clearly depot or mismatched. The percentage of full detail documented rifles is less than 10% of the total for 1942, almost half rc or screwed up rifles of little value. Stocks are a troublesome aspect across the board in the trends work I have completed. Easily less than 10% factory original, less than that fully documented... that is one of the purposes of this forum, to remedy the absolutely poor quality of information currently known. When B&M get to Vol.II hopefully that will inspire others to get involved and document rifles.

Your rifle, it is SI and seems to show a "H" on the RS? The small eagle is not clear but it is probably ok? Hard to say. (IMG 0440) The fonts compare well internally to others, the "4" is right anyway (footed & closed), some "3" are flat tops, other round in the database, the rounded much earlier than yours. Not enough clearly documented to say more than that.

Can you record the siderail, I assume it is bold, not script, also image the wrist and lower buttstock, as whether something is there or not it is always good to show these areas as trends work requires consistent reporting and acceptance patterns change, as do application of markings. I like to record "blank" as much as something for consistency.

I will get you the pics by next monday. LOL, I took close to 50 pics and none of the siderail or the the areas you ask for. I have a pic from the previous owner that shows the siderail so here it is.... Its not high quality but it will have to do for now.

 

[Loewe]

This is good enough, only needed to confirm for the trends sheet. The other areas are the same, only need to know if they are totally blank (sterile) or there is any chance some acceptance (or serial) was ever there. On occasion depots will external serial a buttstock along the bottom, so if serialed you need to see the wrist to see if that is a possibility. Depots will mark a stock if it passes through them and if it has been acceptanced you have to determine what was applied when and by whom, which is determined by the stock acceptance (acceptance of the stock itself, whether ord.spare or for a manuafcturer, etc..)

 

[starsnbars56]

Thanks once again,

I forgot to ask, what's your opinion on the stock with the lack of proofs? There is really not a shred of proofing that I can make out even with the use of a magnifying glass. I know from experience with RC stocks that you really need to do quite a bit of heavy sanding to completely eliminate all remnants of inspection stamps.

Hi Mauserguy85....

I posted a ce42 very similar to yours a short time back. It shows fewer acceptance stamps than were seen in the previous years. Mine is in the "f" block......JAMES

http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?5212-1942-ce-42-JP-Sauer-K98

 

[Mauserguy85]

Hi Mauserguy85....

I posted a ce42 very similar to yours a short time back. It shows fewer acceptance stamps than were seen in the previous years. Mine is in the "f" block......JAMES

http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?5212-1942-ce-42-JP-Sauer-K98

Very interesting and a an excellent example. Your "f" block and my "o" block is separated by 7 letter blocks. That's over 70,000 rifles. The year 1942 is extremely interesting in JP Sauer & Sohn production.

 

[starsnbars56]

Very interesting and a an excellent example. Your "f" block and my "o" block is separated by 7 letter blocks. That's over 70,000 rifles. The year 1942 is extremely interesting in JP Sauer & Sohn production.

I noticed something else interesting, at least to me, a ce44 98k on 'gunboards' that has the same serial # exactly like my ce42, including the block letter. Quite a coincidence....


http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?225590-Is-this-what-you-call-all-matching