G98 Spandau 1917/18

Icarus8383

Well-known member

Attachments

  • CIMG0909.JPG
    CIMG0909.JPG
    286.7 KB · Views: 161
  • CIMG0910.jpg
    CIMG0910.jpg
    117.4 KB · Views: 120
  • CIMG0911.jpg
    CIMG0911.jpg
    112.8 KB · Views: 106
  • CIMG0912.JPG
    CIMG0912.JPG
    261.2 KB · Views: 98
  • CIMG0913.jpg
    CIMG0913.jpg
    108 KB · Views: 98
  • CIMG0914.JPG
    CIMG0914.JPG
    114.8 KB · Views: 77
  • CIMG0915.JPG
    CIMG0915.JPG
    142.5 KB · Views: 82
  • CIMG0917.JPG
    CIMG0917.JPG
    271 KB · Views: 92
  • CIMG0918.jpg
    CIMG0918.jpg
    119.5 KB · Views: 111
I took some time to look over both rifles. Both look quite nice, the Mauser Oberndorf is exceptional (rare in this condition too), very desirable. Personally I find it amazing it has survived in this condition, - though the myth nice rifles are unobtainable in Germany has been disproven many times. Some real screamers have come to light in the last decade alone... though the German government is doing everything imaginable to ruin collectible rifles with all those modern proof laws.

Re-the dot, yes early 1944 serial range, Brno ran consecutively 1943-1944, the serial switch over was in the mid-v block, though I believe many 1943 dated rifles were finished in 1944 (a very typical practice throughout 1898-1945). I can't say the pictures are wonderful or numerous enough, but what you show looks good to me.

If the choice is a singular one, you can only have one or the other, the Spandau/MO is by far more exceptional and rare, these are known in some number, probably a dozen or two of this type (Spandau receivers cycled through Mauser during 1917-1918) but no known example is anywhere near this nice. It is a real steal if the price is reasonable.
 
Will you look at that stock! That may be the nicest beech stock I've ever seen. As a gew 98 collector, off standard production is my favorite and what I seek out. This is one variant that has alluded me. Like Paul said, if you have to choose, pick the MO Spandau and don't look back. This one would be next to impossible to upgrade. I really like the slash date too, I've seen a few but were straight 1917s. I'm curious to see what firm made the receiver.
 
Thank you for your replies and the information provided.

I do not have additional photos at the moment, but I was able to buy the rifle (in fact I bought 3 rifles in a bundle (this one, the mentioned dot1944 and a Kar98a Erfurt 1914 (with non-matching stock), so I will have them next week.
 
Last edited:
Well done! I can not wait to see more photos of this one, it is an amazing piece.

A friend of mine has a Turkish-marked Spandau 1917 assembled by WMO. It has a Pieper made receiver, I wonder if this is one is the same.

Thank you for your replies and the information provided.

I do not have additional photos at the moment, but I was able to buy the rifle (in fact I bought 3 rifles in a bundle (this one, the mentioned dot1944 and a Kar98a Erfurt 1914 (with non-matching stock), so I will have them next week.
 
The RR will tell the receiver maker, but all but two were built on Pieper receivers, - a couple do not show the RR also.

Theoretically, the RR should be C/Z C/E C/E

Well done! I can not wait to see more photos of this one, it is an amazing piece.

A friend of mine has a Turkish-marked Spandau 1917 assembled by WMO. It has a Pieper made receiver, I wonder if this is one is the same.
 
Here are some quick photos from my mobile showing the RR, the sling and the muzzle cover. I will shot some better ones later.
Anything you want to see especially?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1332.jpg
    IMG_1332.jpg
    249.2 KB · Views: 26
  • IMG_1334.jpg
    IMG_1334.jpg
    295.2 KB · Views: 22
  • IMG_1335.jpg
    IMG_1335.jpg
    256.1 KB · Views: 25
  • IMG_1336.jpg
    IMG_1336.jpg
    253.8 KB · Views: 19
  • IMG_1337.jpg
    IMG_1337.jpg
    258.3 KB · Views: 16
  • IMG_1338.jpg
    IMG_1338.jpg
    246.1 KB · Views: 22
  • IMG_1339.jpg
    IMG_1339.jpg
    252.9 KB · Views: 24
  • IMG_1340.jpg
    IMG_1340.jpg
    246.2 KB · Views: 44
This RR fully confirms this is a Mauser made rifle from 1917 which wasn't finished until 1918. The C/Z in the first position also indicates a Peiper receiver (Belgian made), the "Z" in German script is similar to a "3" in appearance.

Here are some quick photos from my mobile showing the RR, the sling and the muzzle cover. I will shot some better ones later.
Anything you want to see especially?
 
The accessories look genuine, though I have not seen such a crosshatch on a G98 sling before (that I recall offhand). Such things vary though and the only uniformity between the makers products is in their individuality, some have no crosshatching, the others all adopting slight variations to one another. I can't make out the full mfg name, so I can't pull matches from known sling makers.

The muzzle cover is a common maker, though unknown, many with this exact pattern have been documented... typically the rifle makers made them and so did a multitude of smaller operations, many of which identified themselves and their product with mfg markings. These "G" typically have neither, but it is probably some small operation that was engaged in similar work. Some bayonet makers and specialized machine shops/tool makers made them also.

Anyway, what you show looks legit and very desirable, - assuming what isn't shown is consistent with what is...
 
Thank you for the information. Highly appreciated.

The maker on the sling is "Wilhseuster 1916".

You will see on the photos that the buttplate is unnumbered, which is not correct, is it?
 
Yes, the buttplate should be serialed in all cases, also a crowned inspector near the center of the BP. No suffix on Imperial rifles though. This changes only with the 98b in the mid-1920's, all Imperial rifles will not have a suffixed BP.
 
The 3 Imperial Gewehrs I have handy all have the suffix letter on the top of the buttplate, above the upper screw. IIRC, this was not done with Imperial Karabiners.

Edit to add image of the buttplate of 1916 Amberg 3651p.
 

Attachments

  • P1010180.JPG
    P1010180.JPG
    172.1 KB · Views: 25
Last edited:
Pictures of the bolt:
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0903.jpg
    DSC_0903.jpg
    296.7 KB · Views: 13
  • DSC_0904.jpg
    DSC_0904.jpg
    292 KB · Views: 15
  • DSC_0905.jpg
    DSC_0905.jpg
    288 KB · Views: 17
  • DSC_0907.jpg
    DSC_0907.jpg
    290.3 KB · Views: 18
  • DSC_0908.jpg
    DSC_0908.jpg
    283.7 KB · Views: 16
  • DSC_0910.jpg
    DSC_0910.jpg
    314 KB · Views: 14
  • DSC_0911.jpg
    DSC_0911.jpg
    289.5 KB · Views: 12
  • DSC_0912.jpg
    DSC_0912.jpg
    265.2 KB · Views: 14
  • DSC_0913.jpg
    DSC_0913.jpg
    279.9 KB · Views: 13
  • DSC_0914.jpg
    DSC_0914.jpg
    286.4 KB · Views: 12
Before disassembly...
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0920.jpg
    DSC_0920.jpg
    284.4 KB · Views: 23
  • DSC_0922.jpg
    DSC_0922.jpg
    292.1 KB · Views: 18
  • DSC_0923.jpg
    DSC_0923.jpg
    284.8 KB · Views: 19
  • DSC_0924.jpg
    DSC_0924.jpg
    290.7 KB · Views: 21
  • DSC_0925.jpg
    DSC_0925.jpg
    284.2 KB · Views: 21
  • DSC_0926.jpg
    DSC_0926.jpg
    300.1 KB · Views: 25
  • DSC_0927.jpg
    DSC_0927.jpg
    291.7 KB · Views: 23
  • DSC_0928.jpg
    DSC_0928.jpg
    287.6 KB · Views: 18
  • DSC_0929.jpg
    DSC_0929.jpg
    297.8 KB · Views: 19
  • DSC_0930.jpg
    DSC_0930.jpg
    299.9 KB · Views: 15
Some more...
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0931.jpg
    DSC_0931.jpg
    327.7 KB · Views: 11
  • DSC_0932.jpg
    DSC_0932.jpg
    305.4 KB · Views: 13
  • DSC_0933.jpg
    DSC_0933.jpg
    304.6 KB · Views: 11
  • DSC_0934.jpg
    DSC_0934.jpg
    309.3 KB · Views: 13
  • DSC_0935.jpg
    DSC_0935.jpg
    287.4 KB · Views: 15
  • DSC_0936.jpg
    DSC_0936.jpg
    296.2 KB · Views: 15
  • DSC_0937.jpg
    DSC_0937.jpg
    302.3 KB · Views: 14
  • DSC_0938.jpg
    DSC_0938.jpg
    282 KB · Views: 13
  • DSC_0939.jpg
    DSC_0939.jpg
    287.4 KB · Views: 11
  • DSC_0940.jpg
    DSC_0940.jpg
    355.2 KB · Views: 13
Thanks Ken, I think you are right, though as I recall, this suffix is not always applied. When I learned of this (Storz I believe also reports this? Which means he found a document/protocol in the archives, for Storz knows next to nothing about the study of actual rifles...), I discovered that some buttplate lacked the addition of this suffix.

Unfortunately, just how consistent/common this observation is will be difficult to determine because so few show this angle. For example, i just searched through about a hundred rifles by Mauser late 1917-1918 and not a single rifle shows this location. That as a statistic is many times worse than the observation of Imperial barrel coding, which about half a dozen have been observed!

Speaking of barrel coding, hopefully the OP will get a chance to observe both this buttplate suffix location and the barrel code, it would be good to see if his buttplate shows a "cc" suffix, which would be a good sign that this practice was in use late 1917 through 1918. The BC will undoubtedly be "BS" (Bergische Stahl-Industrie-Gesellschaft Remscheid) which seems to have the sole contract for Mauser barrel blanks and possibly all metal forgings. Mauser also stamped the BC near the receiver on the underside with the appropriate acceptance stamps, not the practice used at the Berlin firms (DWM/Spandau/Oberspree) in front of the RS (which varied by range)

*** I would expect that if this practice, the suffix, was in consistent use, especially late in the war, that this would be best proven by observations at Mauser or Amberg, they were the only high quality makers late in the war, both retaining strong consistency throughout the war. This buttplate suffix question of consistency is a good subject for further study, something I will try to keep track of in my trends work.

The 3 Imperial Gewehrs I have handy all have the suffix letter on the top of the buttplate, above the upper screw. IIRC, this was not done with Imperial Karabiners.

Edit to add image of the buttplate of 1916 Amberg 3651p.
 
Back
Top