1935 S/42G (Factory Reconditioned in 1940)

Badger

Badger

Well-known member
Hello Simson/Mike/Bruce et al ………. :)

As promised .....

I've removed picture copy restrictions, so go ahead and enlarge then right click pics to save for your research.

I've also left "descriptions" open for any of you to make comments.

1935 S/42G K98k Serial# 5137c
(Factory Reconditioned in 1940 by Mauser Werke AG, Oberndorf a/N)
(Click PIC to Enlarge)

(Click PIC to Enlarge)

1935 S/42G Serial# 5137c (click here for 265 pic photo montage)http://imageevent.com/badgerdog/germanservicerifles/1935s42gk98kserial5137c

I also have in my collection the following Oberndorf "all matching" pieces:

I've linked the ones already done …

1934 "Banner" Mauser Serial # 92862http://imageevent.com/badgerdog/germanservicerifles/1934bannermauser
1936 S/42 (beautiful condition in walnut stock)
1937 S/42 (walnut)
1938 Code 42 (walnut)
1939 Code 42 Oberndorf K98k # 8089(i) (Luftwaffe Marked)http://imageevent.com/badgerdog/germanservicerifles/1939code42oberndorfk98k8089
1939 Code 42 Oberndorf K98k #602(z)http://imageevent.com/badgerdog/germanservicerifles/193942oberndorfk98k
1940 Code 42
1942 Code byf Oberndorf K98k # 9607(f)http://imageevent.com/badgerdog/germanservicerifles/1942byf42oberndorfk98k
1942 byf
1943 byf
1944 byf
1945 Mod 98 byf

If you'd like me to work on any of these next, let me know which ones and some kind of priority. I have to go out of the country this week on business, so it may take a week or so for me to get back to camera bench.

Regards,
Doug
 
Last edited:
Doug, I just had the time to examine the links in some detail, and none of this critique is directed at you. As you are referencing the book properly. (It actually suggests what you state, which was a surprise.. )

I went to page 281 in Backboner and to say I found nothing I agree with is an understatement.

I try not to be too disparaging or too critical of backboner, as at the time I thought it quite good (1996 or so), but I must say as time passes it sure doesn't age well. It is not easy to write a book- especially going first!

This page has to be one of the worst sections in Backboner, - generally I do not believe commercial firms reworked or refurbished the Kar98k (they did recycle some receivers in 1944 but this was an expediency to increase production after losses of critical firms- like Radom). There certainly is no proof they did and it makes no sense they would take on such unprofitable work when they were so busy already. The only confirmed case of a commercial firm doing refurbs was BLM with the Norwegian Krag's (CIOS report) and it was hardly a raging success. It specifically states that they refused other projects due to lack of capacity (and no doubt to avoid such confusion and problematic work).

Mauser would have been twice as busy in this period (1941-1942 when these rifles were reworked) and would have caused confusion to say the least. Plus there is no profit in such work (technically firms were still private commercial firms,- firms extremely restricted as to profits – 6% max- and imports/exports as well as raw materials were strictly controlled but they still followed the typical perspective of any business. They wanted to make money.. at least at the “private” firms like Mauser.)

As for the Backboner rifle, it specifically says it s a Geco barrel yet attributes the e/26 to MauserB, which is rather astonishing. The barrel is a Geco provided barrel (Geco, also in Berlin used e/26 and the waffenamt on the barrel only represents the finishing of the barrel- the barrel maker- not the final of the rifle or replacement) and the rifle is a typical depot rifle. The only thing that ties the rifle to MauserO apparently is the "byf" stock? Well they are ordnance spares and MO supplied the depots with these stocks. As did Hermann Menzel/C stocks and others.

Anyway, this rifle of Doug's is not a Mauser refurbished rifle imo, just a typical depot re-barrel and re-stock (front band looks hinky to me though). And if it had been refurbished by Mauser they wouldn't have used a Steyr barrel (they were above all a massive barrel finisher.. by far the largest represented in my barrel study) and they wouldn't have marked the stock "byf" as they only do that when the part is provided to the ordnance system.

Lastly, the 1940 date of the work in this case is also problematic considering the code "byf" and the use of e/135 was not used at Mauser Oberndorf before 1941, so this work dates to 1941 or later. Probably just a rifle cycled through a depot during the rifle crisis of 1942..

Anyway, just my opinion and you did ask for comments. I had thought against giving an opinion as so many seem to take opinions about rifles as some form of personal insult but hopefully you will understand this is only directed at Backboner and the theme of commercial firms doing Kar98k reworks.
 
SimsonSuhl said:
Doug, I just had the time to examine the links in some detail, and none of this critique is directed at you. As you are referencing the book properly. (It actually suggests what you state, which was a surprise.. )

I went to page 281 in Backboner and to say I found nothing I agree with is an understatement.

….<snip>

Anyway, just my opinion and you did ask for comments. I had thought against giving an opinion as so many seem to take opinions about rifles as some form of personal insult but hopefully you will understand this is only directed at Backboner and the theme of commercial firms doing Kar98k reworks.
Click to expand...

Hi Simson .. :)

I completely understand and I assure you, none of your opinions about the piece I take personally. On the contrary, I view my collecting K98k journey and for that matter life in general, as a constant learning exercise. I'm an expert at nothing and a generalist about most things. What I do sincerely appreciate is your graciousness in taking the time to examine the piece in detail and not just draw precipitous conclusions. I know your time and the other K98k experts here is valuable and you could be spending it writing the next book. :biggrin1: I also appreciate the non-arrogant manner you guys exhibit in helping educate this old retired warrior. So, I hope that spirit of openness from my end is clear and understood by you and everyone else who provides me feedback. ;)

So, a few questions if I may …

1. I believe Law is dead now? Therefore, is there any legacy he left behind or anyone to ask as to why, or what empirical data he used to draw the conclusions he did about the "Factory Reconditioned" 1935 S/42/G's, on which he created that specific separate section in his book?

2. Has any new empirical data surfaced since his 1996 publication that sheds greater light on, or provide clear rebuttal to his conclusions?

3. To summarize your opinion for my own clarity. You believe this is a "depot" recycled piece, probably some time in 1942 as evidenced by contemporaneously matched serial number (inside stock and hand guard ) with Mauser Oberndorf e/135 WaA on the outside of the stock? Being a neophyte, what is the difference between "depot" and the Oberdorf factory?

Finally, may I have your permission to use your feedback as an integrated part of our Knowledge Library article on this piece, so it helps educate our readers with a more complete picture and conclusions?

Again Simson (Paul?), please continue being open, as it benefits me personally and in my opinion the hobby in general. I hope that's what this forum is going to be about and that everyone leaves their egos at the door to share the enjoyment of the common give and take learning experience. After all, it wasn't until Darwin's theory of evolution treatise was published did anyone even question the theory of creationism. I think it's important we all do the same thing in our hobby, however it's equally important we don't turn it into our own religious experience without some foundation in empirical data. In my opinion, forums like this and books (even like Law's old one as you point out), plus the new one based upon more advanced knowledge, altogether provide well rounded thoughtful conclusions, instead of biased unilateral or revisionist views of history.

Regards,
Doug
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your comments, and it is good you can take the comments as intended.

1. Yes he has been gone awhile now, and his legacy is going first.. a tough spot to fill, especially if you are going to exclude others insight. He even ignored his primary contributor Bob Jensen on some aspects of rifle production (most well known, the svwMB controversy which Bob told him he did not agree with what the book stated.) I do not know where he came up with this theory, but throughout the book he clearly misunderstands some very basic facts about the kar98k and how they were made. The sections on reworking in general and sub-contracting specifically are totally confused and misunderstood.

2. I have written several articles on reworks, and production practices regarding the interwar period through the nazi era in the MRJ. I have studied the topic in great detail and have an extensive database of examples I rely upon. Of course it is only a small sampling to what was done and many things we have not seen. Hell just yesterday we all learned of the first known 1936/BSW! Best position “right now” is that the commercial firms did not rework rifles that were already accepted into the German military. This was a practice primarily done at the depots. (Simson did have the interwar contract for “major repairs” and I believe they did do some, but most are clearly identifiable to depots. In the nazi era they all seem to be attributable to depots and considering the activities of the various firms- all did other things besides 98k mfg- such tedious, time consuming, labor intensive and unprofitable work is really impractical)

3. Yes, most probably a depot reworked rifle where the stock and barrel were replaced with ordnance spares (many- not all- commercial firms supplied new, spare parts for the ordnance system/depots.) The discussion of depots is long and rather complicated, however basically Germany (later in the occupied countries ordnance staffs were created) was broken into districts, called Wehrkreis or military disctricts, and within these areas depots existed to support the units assigned. To assist these depots (HZa) numerous branch depots (HNZa’s, HMa’s, HNMa’s etc..), were created and this process evolved over time and many variations exist. These depots reworked every thing from rifles to vehicles, many had a specialty, and some a very focused purpose. A great many reworked rifles and a good many actually “built” rifles from scraps of damaged rifles combined with ordnance spare parts. That is the short of it, but there are articles on the internet that cover the topic superficially and of course the MRJ covered the topic before as well.

4. Certainly, we are all here to learn and though our individual purposes may vary slightly, the broad goal is the same.


Badger said:
Hi Simson .. :)

I completely understand and I assure you, none of your opinions about the piece I take personally. On the contrary, I view my collecting K98k journey and for that matter life in general, as a constant learning exercise. I'm an expert at nothing and a generalist about most things. What I do sincerely appreciate is your graciousness in taking the time to examine the piece in detail and not just draw precipitous conclusions. I know your time and the other K98k experts here is valuable and you could be spending it writing the next book. :biggrin1: I also appreciate the non-arrogant manner you guys exhibit in helping educate this old retired warrior. So, I hope that spirit of openness from my end is clear and understood by you and everyone else who provides me feedback. ;)

So, a few questions if I may …

1. I believe Law is dead now? Therefore, is there any legacy he left behind or anyone to ask as to why, or what empirical data he used to draw the conclusions he did about the "Factory Reconditioned" 1935 S/42/G's, on which he created that specific separate section in his book?

2. Has any new empirical data surfaced since his 1996 publication that sheds greater light on, or provide clear rebuttal to his conclusions?

3. To summarize your opinion for my own clarity. You believe this is a "depot" recycled piece, probably some time in 1942 as evidenced by contemporaneously matched serial number (inside stock and hand guard ) with Mauser Oberndorf e/135 WaA on the outside of the stock? Being a neophyte, what is the difference between "depot" and the Oberdorf factory?

Finally, may I have your permission to use your feedback as an integrated part of our Knowledge Library article on this piece, so it helps educate our readers with a more complete picture and conclusions?

Again Simson (Paul?), please continue being open, as it benefits me personally and in my opinion the hobby in general. I hope that's what this forum is going to be about and that everyone leaves their egos at the door to share the enjoyment of the common give and take learning experience. After all, it wasn't until Darwin's theory of evolution treatise was published did anyone even question the theory of creationism. I think it's important we all do the same thing in our hobby, however it's equally important we don't turn it into our own religious experience without some foundation in empirical data. In my opinion, forums like this and books (even like Law's old one as you point out), plus the new one based upon more advanced knowledge, altogether provide well rounded thoughtful conclusions, instead of biased unilateral or revisionist views of history.

Regards,
Doug
Click to expand...
 
I have to agree with Simson Suhl. Much misinformation exist in regards to "reworked" K98k rifles.

I was just talking to Bruce about something that goes with this- a period document that talks about a Zuegamt returning a rifle to Mauser because of a defective stock. That is the exception to the rule- once delivered, Mauser did not want to have anything to do with the rifles. The facilities were set up to manufacture new 98k's.

To put it in an understandable example- Chevrolet builds new trucks. Imagine if the end user could send his 5 year old truck back to GM for a rebuild. Do you think Chevrolet would do that? Never- they spend millions building factories to manufacture new vehicles. In all honesty, they would lose money rebuilding an old vehicle- for the time it took to rebuild one they could make 1000 new ones.

So, these 98k manufacturers were hands off when it came to repair and rework. Rather, the end user ( the Army) was responsible for repair and rebuilding, which led to the depot system. By 1944 the system was pretty complicated I'm sure, as it had grown to repair a myriad of vehicles and weapons.

Many reworked rifles will have features specific to the facility, such as proof marks on stocks and such. There are other features you notice if you study these as well, but each reworked rifle is unique, so trying to classify them is almost impossible. Some work was done at the unit level, some repairs done at division level, some at corp level. As SimsonSuhl states, many facilities were district based and serviced units assigned to that district. Some reworks are what I call "attributed", meaning they have inspection markings of the depot that did the work, such as Su proof marks done at Spandau. Many others are just unmarked, and are difficult to authenticate. Sometimes you see reworked rifles with inspection proofs but no visible work done to them. Sometimes you see totally reworked rifles with new stocks, barrels, bolts, bands, etc. with no rework facility proof (these are actually not common as most heavy reworks are marked).

The rework guns are a field of their own, and some guys have reworked guns and don't realize it. I've seen quite a few Russian Capture rifles that were obvious reworks, with replaced barrels (the only evidence left), so it was obviously done quite often.

I want to add- the firing proof and letter suffix on your replacement barrel is probably what will tell you what facility did the work. I've seen that exact proof on other reworks- it's the "tell" in my opinion. I don't know who it was, but you also see it on other reworked rifles. I'll see if I can't find another rework with that style firing proof. From my experience, most of these facilities had unique features such as this.
 
Last edited:
I might also add that R.Law, not only went first but he did it a time when gathering information was very problematic. For one you often had to reply on datasheets, sometimes written up by those that barely understood the rifle. I get datasheets today from collectors that are far more familiar with rifles and they often contain errors. Another is in the early 1990’s research on German military rifles was almost none existent. You had Olsen, John Walter, and several very superficial works- newsletters were dismally poor back then, none of which would stand close scrutiny with what we know today.

He also did not have access to all the primary source materials, period reports, or pervious writings and books that we do today- today we have more German authors and the DWJ to help, - my DRP article benefited from German sources and German collectors who you can have answers from in hours.

Today we have the work of Dr. Storz, Pruess, Görtz (who I believe recently passed as well) and Speed- and Storz will actually answer your emails if you have a question.

No way to compare what Law was able to achieve with today’s researcher if you chose to write. Much primary source material is available on line if you take the effort to find and utilize it.

Anyway, bottom line for me is Backboner was first, and a good effort for the time but is so dated today it is of very little use to a collector today. I have it on the shelf but very rarely open it... whereas I have many books almost as old I use daily or weekly.
 
Thanks guys ... :biggrin1:

I love threads like this ....

Of course I learn a LOT which advances my own knowledge to share, but more importantly, I gain a humbling perspective as to how complex and ever changing any hobby can be, that utilizes old information from sources long since gone.

Get the next freakin book done !!! :hand: :biggrin1: :biggrin1:

Regards,
Doug
 
I agree, many levels of work is possible, some not attributable.. There were ordnance staffs throughout the occupied countries. The west (Low countries and France included) and we do not know how they marked their rifles or if they even did? They might have done very limited work or none at all? We know they did do superficial things, managed work within the occupied territory etc..

There is a vast void in what is known on the actual practices outside of Germany proper. What does exists rarely covers rifles, rather focusing on vehicles, tanks etc.. I believe it is in Backboner that they show a pile of rifles going through a lower level workshop? Who knows how many exist!

In a US Army study it lists the ordnance shops of the German Police organizations, the list is very numerous, several dozen of facilities, maybe 50 or more.. who knows how they were marked? If at all.

Anyway, it is a developing study and every year something new is learned.

mrfarb said:
I have to agree with Simson Suhl. Much misinformation exist in regards to "reworked" K98k rifles.

.... Some work was done at the unit level, some repairs done at division level, some at corp level. As SimsonSuhl states, many facilities were district based and serviced units assigned to that district. Some reworks are what I call "attributed", meaning they have inspection markings of the depot that did the work, such as Su proof marks done at Spandau. Many others are just unmarked, and are difficult to authenticate. Sometimes you see reworked rifles with inspection proofs but no visible work done to them. Sometimes you see totally reworked rifles with new stocks, barrels, bolts, bands, etc. with no rework facility proof (these are actually not common as most heavy reworks are marked).
Click to expand...
 
Here is an interesting photo to illustrate, from "Wenn alle Brüder schweigen - Großer Bildband über die Waffen SS"- this is a waffenmeister repair shop for a Waffen SS unit, an arms repair section with delousing equipment added in. Note there are at least 4 box trucks. In each truck is a lathe and other fine machine tools. These unit armorers could repair a lot of stuff, and did.
 

Attachments

  • waffenmeister.jpg
    waffenmeister.jpg
    302.6 KB · Views: 44
Hi Mike ... :)

May I have your permission to use that pic and its context within an MKL article about the rifle above?

When combined with Simson's "depot" repair definition, I think it helps the reader to better understand the differences.

Thanks ...

Regards,
Doug
 
Sure- make sure you credit the book I mention in the thread. It's probably a Bundesarchiv photo, but just credit it and you should be ok.
 
Here is my retroverted RC G date Oberndorf. I can only assume it was upgraded post-1940 seeing the original front sight base (K marked and S92 marked) is grooved for the hood (which I had to add.
 

Attachments

  • 0k98goa.jpg
    0k98goa.jpg
    260.8 KB · Views: 18
  • 0k98rod.jpg
    0k98rod.jpg
    97.1 KB · Views: 12
  • 0k98bans211.jpg
    0k98bans211.jpg
    240.9 KB · Views: 16
  • 0k98bands.jpg
    0k98bands.jpg
    146.8 KB · Views: 12
  • 0k98actg.jpg
    0k98actg.jpg
    185.8 KB · Views: 21
  • 0k98waff.jpg
    0k98waff.jpg
    236.9 KB · Views: 20
  • 0k98 3.jpg
    0k98 3.jpg
    181.1 KB · Views: 21
  • 0k98rear.jpg
    0k98rear.jpg
    182.6 KB · Views: 14
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top