Armorers Parts

[PrayingMantis]

Recently had a discussion about armorers parts. Apparently most were made by Spandau and WMO. I’ve been photographing what I have and attempting to identify them by known acceptance.

Here are what I believe are Spandau, most have c/N, c/W), and c/T acceptance. Observed on floorplates, followers, triggerguards, band springs, bolt bodies, shrouds, cocking pieces, safeties, cocking pieces, and firing pins.

 

[PrayingMantis]

And here are what I believe are WMO: c/R and c/G. I’ve noticed it on bolt bodies, shrouds, safeties, cocking pieces, firing pins, and extra toes, even extractors on c/W) marked bolts from Spandau.

I’d be interested to see what other parts people have and what acceptance is found on those parts.

 

[flynaked]

They’ve been turned to mostly junk unfortunately but here are some to add. Would this have been an armorer TG or not, I had another just like it but unumbered.

 

[mauser1908]

They’ve been turned to mostly junk unfortunately but here are some to add. Would this have been an armorer TG or not, I had another just like it but unumbered.

It was Clay, never mated to the other magazine components in a factory setting, but did end up on a rifle at some point at a depot. Lot of MO bayonet lugs.

 

[mauser1908]

I wanted to revive this thread, our group chat has had some robust discussion about armorer's parts. Cyrus had an interesting theory about the evolution in production capacity of the arsenal system post 1916. I will leave that for him to add.

Anyway, it's likely that Amberg was the third big player in spare parts production. While I have never personally any un-numbered spare parts manufactured by Amberg it's evident they made substantial number of both magazines and stocks.

Stocks: C/A stocks have been observed in Spandau's sterngewehr production, these examples seem to have been applied to normal rifle production as well. Characteristics of these will be a C/A with a C/Z stamped over it.

In addition, C/A accepted stocks have been observed on Ingolstadt reworks. I would be curious to see any additional reworks with Amberg manufactured stocks. Marc's rifle leads me to believe that Amberg may have only applied one wrist acceptance position on their spares.

Below are a few photos. I don't think the owners will mind that I shared these here.



Trigger guards have been observed on Erfurt Sterngewehrs. These bear Amberg (C/J) manufacture and assembly acceptance characters with a tiny Erfurt character above the assembly position.

 

[Loewe]

Storz mentions the arsenals supplying key parts, bottleneck parts, each arsenal specializing in one or two components, At least that is my recollection...

Amberg or Ingolstadt, perhaps both, have been identified essentially rebuilding Prussian rifles or at least receivers, some pre-war DWM's as i recall, some seemingly late in the war by acceptance patterns, which Amberg is one of the few solidly reliable in patterns and lack diversity in trends, at least compared to the big guys, Danzig in particular.

Wolfgang and I discussed this on some level, but it has been years ago, he provided the details of a couple rifles as I recall, he may own the subject rifles. but I will have to review the rifles to be accurate in any meaningful way, Personally I think late in the war Amberg and WMO took over the primary role in G98 production and possibly this led to a broader responsibility. By 1918 only Amberg and WMO were really meaningfully involved in G98 production, possibly because their facilities didn't lend themselves to some of the other production demands, at least in the short term which clearly was the focus of German leadership. (the short game, because they lost the long game by 1917)

 

[Amberg]

I would be curious to see any additional reworks with Amberg manufactured stocks.

or at least receivers, some pre-war DWM's as i recall

Salvaged DWM 1905

Talking about vice and monkey wrench marks on my Goerz 3x sniper rifle ( http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?6876-Spandau-1914-Goerz-3x-sniper-rifle ), I had to dig this one out of the safe. This DWM 1905 receiver made it into a new rifle with the help of ordnance spares (barrel, stock...

www.k98kforum.com

 

[Fal Grunt]

Replying mostly to tag this as I missed the discussion earlier.

If I might pose a question. How do you differentiate between what most call "armorers" parts, and what are in effect, over runs or excess stock? Do we know how the Germany Army purchased inventory for the Armorers for maintenance and upkeep vs how the Arsenals purchased components from different groups? This is something I have always been interested in, but do not fully understand related to K98k's.

 

[pwcosol]

Here is a link to a post I submitted in 2016 perhaps you might not be aware of...
https://www.k98kforum.com/threads/klein-und-gross-waffenmeister-gew98-armorer-kits.21701/

Wanted to provide the attached photos as well. First two are a pair of Gew98 band springs. Neither are numbered and only the rear one one proofed. The other three pics are of a Gew or Kar98 floorplate. It is original finish with only a proof on the outside. On the underside in front of the latch is a # 19. Never saw a serial number stamped in this location, so not sure if it is or isn't. Only kept this component because of a Gew98 (DWM 1916) which I originally purchased with no floorplate, follower or spring. However it had a sliding breech cover guide (only) still on the rifle (and had been on there a very long time, too!). I acquired a complete cover and trench mag (crown J) to fill the mag well. Thought if I ever decided to remove the trench mag, could use the floorplate as a armorer replacement and had also found a #53 follower to match the last two digits of the 753 serial number of the rifle.

 

[PrayingMantis]

Here is a link to a post I submitted in 2016 perhaps you might not be aware of...
https://www.k98kforum.com/threads/klein-und-gross-waffenmeister-gew98-armorer-kits.21701/

Thanks for sharing, those are very interesting kits! Pretty incredible that they are so complete, bet many were parted out. I would love to know what acceptance those parts are stamped with.

 

[PrayingMantis]

Thanks for the additional photos and comments, everyone. Paul, i'll have to look again in Storz for mention of specialization.

Though nothing can be said definitively without a lot more examples and research, i do think a pattern is emerging. The acceptance on the small parts of Dresden and Hannover assemblies and other Sterngewehre matches that of the observed armorers parts. At first i assumed this was simply because the depots were provided with armorers parts, but after seeing the same acceptance show up in some mainline production, it seems like these were specialized parts made in large quantities and provided to armorers, depots, and even arsenals. To Nathaniel's question, some of the unnumbered parts do have manufacturer logos, so these--especially bayonet lugs and floorplates that end up in WMO finished Gews--appear to have been made by contractors. This starts to emerge in 1916 (when these parts show up in Dresdens) and becomes noticeable in 1917 (especially with Hannovers) so it looks on the surface to be a response to stress put on the traditional system by the acute the need for more weapons. This coincides with Spandau dropping Gewehr production for 08/15 and Erfurt switching mainly to Karabiner, clearly there was a desire to consolidate. Parts trading is evident prewar (like the Spandau/Erfurt prewar rifles) but it looks like specialization in parts (and for some makers, weapon type) was done out of necessity. (Arguably, Erfurt dropping bayonet production in 1915 may have foreshadowed this. In an emergency you don't need one maker doing it all; Erfurt refocused on Kars and the bayonets were contracted out.)

Much more information is needed, but it seems like this specialized system emerged due to need among the Prussian crown arsenals and possibly WMO. Suhl Consortium rifles stay consistent. DWM and WOK i'm not sure, there aren't enough examples to say, i know they had their own relationship so it's possible they did not use specialized parts at all.

 

[Loewe]

I agree with your view to what probably occurred, though I would like to think that WMO and DWM were more independant, they were very consistent as far as trends go, though Imperial trends I do not trend small components acceptance. I do know that the Suhl consortium is very consistent in that the components mix (acceptance), mostly attributable to VCS, CGH, JPS and Erfurt, the latter in ranges. Simson too seems very stable, like they were isolated or ostracized, which I would attribute to their increasing involvement in rifle manufacture more than anti-semitism, though certainly anti-semitism played a leading role during the late 1920's and 1930's, though how much of that was "real" animosity or just convenient leverage I do not know,.. Fritz Walther is said to have led the charge against them on these grounds, and he certainly was tied to KL activity, but he reportedly showed personal compasion to some Jews, though these were accaintences from before the NS regime made it profitable to be anti-semitic, - and I think much of the holocaust, at least in its earlier stages where it was more confiscatory and bullying than terror and murder, much of the German "bourgeoisie" shed their integrity to further their economic and political ambitions (much like in 1789 when the French bourgeoisie funded, organized and gave structure to the proletariat, until they lost control as instigators of revolutions always do and become victims themselves...)

 

[Fal Grunt]

Mr. Speed can speak to this in more detail than I can, hopefully someday I am able to spend some time researching in his collection regarding manufacturing processes. From my research, I found some documents from Pratt & Whitney quoting a "Mauser" factory. We know that Pratt & Whitney supplied a large amount of machine tools to the early German arsenals, up until Loewe and other German firms began producing suitable machinery. These proposals are for an American style workflow, which the Germans worked to adopt according to Storz. By "American" style workflow, I mean that everything in the factory is set up to run a certain amount of pieces per day. This is not always practical, or feasible. In theory, you build out your production lines in a manner that some bottle necks get reduced or eliminated by increased machine tools and labor.

When I served my Tool & Die apprenticeship, I worked at a German firm, which still did most things, the "German" way. However, as I said, the ideal way to do something is not always feasible. Machine tools that are expensive, need to be utilized in the broadest way possible. This means frequent change overs. During this time period, changing over a machine tool was labor intensive. It was expensive due to the time required to setup. This meant, often, that when a machine was setup, a large quantity of parts would be run, often times far more than were needed. It was, in effect, cheaper to scrap a large quantity of un-needed parts, than it was to setup the machines necessary to produce them. Up to World War II Mauser was still setting up machines, running a particular part, and then changing over to another part. This is one of the reasons we see such a large quantity of spare parts as shown in Mauser's inventory of 1929. Mauser was very effective in using this surplus in both selling smaller quantities of product in Military contracts and consuming these parts in their Sporter rifles. Jon can correct me if I am wrong, but I genuinely believe that the whole Sporter program was started as a way to consume surplus parts. It grew into a large and profitable business segment which fortunately helped to keep Mauser afloat through tough times.

By specializing, the arsenals, and likely smaller suppliers, were able to reduce down time through changeovers. An interesting point to consider, up until World War One, the government arsenals worked largely as separate entities. However in Suhl, the smaller gunmakers, had already specialized. Gunmakers have always been specialized, even today, due to the cost of capital intensive machine tools. A point to consider, who learned from who? Did the government arsenals take a que from the smaller gunmakers and see that specializing was a more efficient and cost effective way of manufacturing?