SS Gew Conversion Barrel Shank markings discussion

Reinforces the idea that the collar marking is related to the barrel work. What exactly needs to be done to convert a Gew barrel to short length? Cut down, mill the end for the sight. Or are these new made commercial barrels? That’s a thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brian, I think your collar example is actually “ES” a very likely possibility for this would be Ernst Steigleder.

I’m thinking about this a bit - from memory none of the barrels have maker marks. Is it possible the SS depots removed barrels and sent some to commercial firms for shortening? So not commercial made barrels but reworked ww1 barrels. You never see remnants of ww1 barrel fireproofing or serials, at least not on normal SS Gews. Receiver serials you see. Hmmm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flynaked said:

Brian, I think your collar example is actually “ES” a very likely possibility for this would be Ernst Steigleder.

Click to expand...

You might be correct. Hard to read first letter correctly. Kind of looks like a T, but could be an E. I have not seen a lot of these barrel stampings. If you see another like it let me know. Thanks.

I looked at it again and you are probably right. The 1 is over stamped making it hard to see a possible E.

mrfarb said:

I’m thinking about this a bit - from memory none of the barrels have maker marks. Is it possible the SS depots removed barrels and sent some to commercial firms for shortening? So not commercial made barrels but reworked ww1 barrels. You never see remnants of ww1 barrel fireproofing or serials, at least not on normal SS Gews. Receiver serials you see. Hmmm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yes, the serials are a different font on the barrel and receiver mostly.

Barrel shank

Steyr supplied barrel with the 'star' stamped on the barrel.
From the rifle previously owned by Denny Gaither.

Damn Bruce there's some interesting things going on from what I can see. Is this rifle posted up somewhere?

1938 Steyr in house made/finished barrel for ordinance spares built-up? proofed? in November of '39 commercially? Later proofed again in '57 somewhere in Europe? I don't read proofs all that well. Built up on a scrubbed Gew receiver? I can't make out what's going on the the bottom left of the photo, Left side barrel shank near the woodline in line with the 660? Anyway seems an interesting piece.

heavy_mech said:

1938 Steyr in house made/finished barrel for ordinance spares built-up? proofed? in November of '39 commercially? Later proofed again in '57 somewhere in Europe? I don't read proofs all that well. Built up on a scrubbed Gew receiver? I can't make out what's going on the the bottom left of the photo, Left side barrel shank near the woodline in line with the 660? Anyway seems an interesting piece.

Click to expand...

Its an SS rework like the others. "57" is the case length, i.e., 7.92x57mm.

RyanE said:

Its an SS rework like the others. "57" is the case length, i.e., 7.92x57mm.

Click to expand...

Thanks Ryan. The SS part I got if nothing else than the title and Mike reminding me. Honest question; not trying to be smarmy but would this more properly be considered a rework or a build on a salvage receiver? The 57 referencing the cartridge case length I did not know.

RyanE said:

"57" is the case length, i.e., 7.92x57mm.

Click to expand...

Geez. Now that I look at it again.

mrfarb said:

Reinforces the idea that the collar marking is related to the barrel work. What exactly needs to be done to convert a Gew barrel to short length? Cut down, mill the end for the sight. Or are these new made commercial barrels? That’s a thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I find this doubtful as commercial barrel makers would have marked them in their own fashion and we would undoubtedly see some of the prolific barrel makers in the region like one of the Kelbers etc. I still think they are scrubbed imperials, the lack of markings could be due to the ease with which they could be turned off on a lathe, as opposed to the receiver which is surface ground and obviously no longer concentric. Given this theory you would then run into the dimensional step from the barrel to the sight base, but if you study the sight bases, they too are heavily ground, and my guess is that many are quite thin now. Throwing calipers on a selection of these barrels might start to show something interesting.

Most of the picture sets of these rifles only show the shank, studying examples from especially Spandau, WOK etc might prove interesting given that many or all? were maker marked and proofed forward of the sight base. The rifle previously pictured does appear to have some remnants of the serial potentially, but this gets hard to confirm when things like light duplicate punch strikes are common as well, so who knows.

To me, the fact that these barrels lack an E/J suggests that they were of course removed for rework. They would in effect be reborn so to speak, and so would only require an E/N proof once installed again after modification. They would effectively be a “new” barrel at that point. If they were removed at a depot potentially and sent to a commercial maker, they would then be sent back for reinstall, and then the completed rifle back to Suhl/Z-M for proofing, it would be a lot of back and forth but crazier things have happened so who knows.

flynaked said:

To me, the fact that these barrels lack an E/J suggests that they were of course removed for rework. They would in effect be reborn so to speak, and so would only require an E/N proof once installed again after modification. They would effectively be a “new” barrel at that point. If they were removed at a depot potentially and sent to a commercial maker, they would then be sent back for reinstall, and then the completed rifle back to Suhl/Z-M for proofing, it would be a lot of back and forth but crazier things have happened so who knows.

Click to expand...

Or possibly the SS got their hands on a stock of Imperial or Weimar era spare barrels? I assume the commercial firms would have scrubbed them as a matter of course.

I'd concur the barrels are most likely Gew98 barrels that were shortened. A few thoughts:

If you kill thousands of Gew98 rifles to be converted to K98k rifles, you break them into parts. The receivers were scrubbed, the stocks were shortened. So basically all useable parts were reused. Why then get NEW barrels made instead of reworking the barrels?

So assuming now you have thousands of barrels that were removed from the actions you are not likely to match them back to the actions, plus you anyway need to remove all potential Reichswehr ownership markings - right, you'd simply strip it of ALL markings by turning it down on the lathe. They anyway need to remove the front sight, remove the rear sight base, shorten the barrel and recrown the muzzle prior to being able to reinstall it on a rifle.

Plus then another thought: everyone else who had ever changed a barrel on a K98k can confirm this: the index for the barrels were individual fits. Which means the barrel blanks were installed and when installed then the rear and front sight were installed in position. Assuming if a company ONLY reworked barrels (or even when supplying new barrel blanks) they would never had been able to install the sights, because they would not know to which action they were fitted and therefore the sight installation would be off on nearly any rifle. I would not imagine the SS being unable to rework the barrel but being able to install the rear sights themselves, this is way too much work that does not make sense to split.

A proof for this is the fact that the symbols that we consider to be the performing companies sign (FS, HW, etc.) are nearly always in the same position. If they supplied barrels or barrel blanks only, this would be impossible. Otherwise we are to encounter SS rifles with the FS, HW, etc. on the right side or even under the wood. This therefore is a proof for the fact that they got stamped when the barrels were already installed.

Finally, we know from the SS DC sniper rifles the sniper conversion was outcarried by Waffenwerke Brünn, but the rifles were sent to the SS to be accepted (original documents proof this). If at a stage where the SS was way more important and way larger they didn't even outcarry the sniper conversion themselves, why would they do it at an earlier stage? It is more likely they did it the same way both times.

There is some good discussion here, my comments on new barrels is sort of a stream of consciousness thing. A few points - the special marks we see on barrels are not always located in the exact position but are usually close. From what I’ve been told, the marks are sometimes used as an initial index mark on barrels- the mark is put at the beginning of the threaded portion in order to aid in installation. Some get turned further during install, some less. But generally fall in the same area if the receiver threads are consistent. Not sure if I’m explaining that where it’s understandable. I’ve had loose barrels but never thought to confirm this aspect.

It’s interesting to think about the process used to convert these. Someone who is a gunsmith might help us understand what the process is - does the barrel have to be removed to alter it? I’m sure it does. What is the process to alter it? It might be neat to come up with a flow chart of events for a conversion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mrfarb said:

I think it’s clearly TS, looks like maybe the T could be imitating a hammer?

Click to expand...

Hi,
I know next to nothing about SS G98 conversions. But that stamp is not a "TS". To me it looks like a "FS"
The upper line of the supposedly "T" is not symmetrical. The left part is shorter than the right part. It is an "F".
Thanks

Ryan that could be a real possibility, and maybe there is no single answer, this could be one component of the scenario. This era of spare barrels doesn’t seem to show up much, whereas many other imperial spares were filtered into the depot system and used throughout the war.

Georg, excellent points you bring up, it helps put things in perspective when you step back a little. One thing I did notice while studying these examples is that the receivers on a few examples seems to be faced a decent amount, I assume this to be a component of their headspacing process but maybe a smith might think otherwise.

Wolfgang, that’s an interesting observation and I could definitely see that, I was unsure of the TS attribution myself. I haven’t seen an example in these threads of the other “FS” I think I recall seeing this in the past, but don’t recall it clearly if so, isn’t it an FS within an oval, I’d like to see that if anyone has an example picture to share?

Mike, I don’t believe the barrel would have to be removed, careful jigging with steady rests could make that possible, is it likely though? Probably not. I’m not positive but I think the only way they could have been reworked as installed, would be with the presence of an E/J proof on them.

flynaked said:

Wolfgang, that’s an interesting observation and I could definitely see that, I was unsure of the TS attribution myself. I haven’t seen an example in these threads of the other “FS” I think I recall seeing this in the past, but don’t recall it clearly if so, isn’t it an FS within an oval, I’d like to see that if anyone has an example picture to share?

Click to expand...

Here is one in the oval. Looks like this is the same stamp that is seen above: FS/ES? Star marked also. Maybe the star is depot applied like the small SS2?

Also, while digging I stumbled on this rifle (looks like one of the Empire Arms RCs). Note the date.

I always thought the shoulder marking were involved with the Gew barrel shortening as well, but I have a couple conversions with depot spare barrels and stars, but the stars are in other locations.

Left rifle has a depot spare barrel with a star placed in a similar spot as the one Bruce posted with the Steyr barrel.

Middle rifle also has a depot spare barrel.

Right rifle is a shortened Gew barrel.

Placement seems to be different on depot barrels, but this is too small of a sample to really tell anything. Also interesting that the star and other shoulder stamps show up together on the same barrel shoulders.

Perhaps the star should be viewed separately from the other shoulder stamps and had a separate purpose?

Awesome thanks Ryan, it is very similar, to the point that it could be a different rendition of the same stamp, but it certainly lacks the serifs and the “wreath” or “gear” or whatever decoration that is. I still believe on close examination that the previously posted marking must be an ES, if you look at the rifle photographed by Bruce, it has the weak remnants of the “E” given the highly tilted punch strike, and of course Brian’s is mostly obscured by the 1.

Another possibility for the FS in the oval is Fritz Seyffarth in Suhl, who is noted as a barrel maker, and supposedly used the FS in oval trademark, however I haven’t found an example of it yet.

The RC example is neat, it was proofed twice oddly enough, likely Z-M the first time upon conversion but we can’t tell now. But it obviously went through Z-M again, some years later as it now exhibits the proof house mark they later switched to. Why it required an E/J is anyone’s guess, it could have been for a bolt replacement.