I saw your discussion on the 1900 dated Danzig Gew 98 and was hoping to add to this year and maker and find out something about a Danzig 1900 I have.
The Gew 98 in the images below is a 1900 dated Danzig arsenal Gewehr 98 infantry rifle, serial H5368, with scope mounts attached (see pics). I need some advice from others more knowledgeable on Gew 98s but first I have to lay to rest he 800lb gorilla in the room:
Not long after acquiring this rifle, I had email and phone conversations with a friend who indicated this rifle had sold at a James Julia auction a decade or more ago. He was correct: it had sold at Auction on October 16, 2013 for $7,500. It came from the collection of noted collector Dr. Geoffrey Sturgess. It seems this rifle has since been the subject of lots of on-line chatter regarding its provenance because of a brass tag attached to the rifle.
The front barrel band sling loop on this rifle has had a brass plate attached to it via a brass loop that has been soldered together so the plate cannot be easily removed from the barrel band (see pic). The 5in by 1in brass plate is smooth and uninscribed on one side, the other side has the following info inscribed on four lines: “CAPTURED BY” over “LIEUT. W.E. ASHLEY” over “XX THE LANCASHIRE FUSILIERS” over “PASSCHENDAELE RIDGE 1917”. This brass plate indicates that Lieutenant W. E. Ashley of the British Army’s 20th Lancashire Fusiliers captured this sniper-outfitted Gew 98 at Passchendaele Ridge during the fierce fighting there in 1917.
Being the suspicious sort, I embarked on what turned into a multi-month-long journey to determine if there was any credible evidence that this rifle had been captured by LE Ashley at the battle of Passchendaele Ridge. I have done some research on W.E. Ashley and Passchendaele and found the following:
- The Battle of Passchendaele, also known as the Third Battle of Ypres, was fought near Zonnebeke, Belgium, from July 31, 1917 to November 10, 1917. It was one of the bloodiest battles of World War I.
- I contacted the Lancashire Infantry Museum in Great Britain (The Duke of Lancaster\'s Regiment Lancashire Infantry Museum) and inquired about W.E. Ashley to see if they could place him at Passchendaele or could in any way corroborate the story suggested on the brass plate. This research request was forwarded to the Lancashire Infantry Museum in Fulwood Barracks, Preston, Lancashire, England.
- My forwarded inquiry was redirected to Mr. Philip Mather at the Fusiliers Museum. Mr. Mather was extremely helpful. He and I communicated several times over a 6-month period. In the end, Mr. Mather discovered the following information and sent it to me:
- W E (possibly William Edward but not 100% sure) ASHLEY had no record of military service prior to his commissioning as a 2nd Lieutenant in the British Army.
- He was commissioned 2nd Lieutenant on 27th March 1918.
- He was posted to the 2nd Bn Lancashire Fusiliers.
- He disembarked France 22nd June 1918.
- He was hospitalized at Etaples, France 24th June 1918.
- He arrived back at the front with the 2nd Bn LFs 19th August 1918.
- He was posted back to UK 10th December 1918 on sick leave with inguinal hernia.
- He was promoted to full Lieutenant on 14th December 1923.
- He continued to serve in the British Army all through World War Two.
- Given the fact that the brass tag claims WE Ashley captured the rifle at Passchendaele in 1917, and assuming that the WE Ashley who was discovered by Mr. Mather is the same as the one supposedly referred to on the brass tag, Lt. Ashley supposedly captured the rifle BEFORE he entered British Army service, clearly not likely. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the tag is a fraud, added to falsely increase the collector’s value of this rifle. Although I have not removed the tag, I likely will do so, pending some feedback from you.
With that aside, I would like your collective opinions on a couple items on this rifle, with my over-arching question being pretty simple: given that the Passchendaele tag is a fraud, and taking in all of the oddities described below, is this rifle worth anything at all in its current condition, or has it been Bubbaed to the point where I should consider it a parts rifle?
- The rifle is fitted with what looks to be period-correct scope mounts designed to allow use of a stripper clip while the scope is mounted. Can anyone tell me if these mounts are period correct for a Gew 98 sniper rifle, or if they are designed to look like they are period correct to further enhance the 800lb gorilla story outlined above?
- The rifle bore is smoothbore, although the chamber accepts the 8x57mm Mauser Go gauge but not the No-Go or Field gauges. The barrel has British commercial proofs stamped “7.9 M/M SMOOTH 2.244” on the top line, which indicates a bullet diameter of 7.9mm and a case length of 2.244 inches, the proper dimensions of a standard 8 x 57 Mauser round. Was the barrel reamed to smoothbore to allow its use in Britain as a shotgun or was it done to demilitarize the rifle so it could be legally kept in Britain?
- Below this line is stamped, from left to right, a “crown over BNP” followed by “18 TONS PER SQUARE INCH”, the “square” being an actual stamped square, not the word square, followed by the cross-swords symbol with a “V” at the 9 o’clock position, a “3” at the 6 o’clock position and a “B” at the 3 o’clock position. According to www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/514-2, the crown BNP proof mark, indicating British Nitro Proofing for smokeless powder, was used by the Birmingham Proof House and it did not start using the “BNP” stamp until 1954, continuing from then until the present. Am I interpreting the BNP stamp correctly?
- The “18 TONS PER SQUARE INCH” stamping, was only used from 1954 to 1989, after which the Brits converted to metric length and pressure stamping marks (millimeters and bars). This brackets the dates between which the stamp was placed on the barrel. Am I interpreting the 18 tons per square inch stamp correctly?
- According to Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons in his 2014 video on proof marks and stampings (see 23.10minutes into this video: ) the “V” in the 9 o’clock position of the crossed sword stamp indicates proofing was done in 1970. The “3” at the 6 o’clock position and a “B” at the 3 o’clock position indicate the rifles was proof stamped by Inspector #3 at the Birmingham Proof House in Birmingham, England. Do you agree that the cross swords date is 1970?
- Although receiver and barrel have the same serial numbers, the “5368” on the barrel is in a different font than the serial number stamped on the port receiver ring and the barrel serial number does not have the “h” suffix that appears below the serial number stamped on the port receiver ring. It is likely the barrel was a replacement, fitted to the receiver prior to the end of WWI since the bottom of the barrel near the torque ring and the port side of the receiver both bear the Imperial Prussian eagle proof mark which was no longer used after the German monarchy fell and the Weimar Republic was created at the end of WWI. My conclusion is the original GEW98 barrel was replaced during WWI, possibly to replace a shot-out or damaged barrel on an existing rifle, with the serial number force-matched by the repair depot at the time the barrel was replaced. Do you agree that the barrel is a WWI-era replacement?
- The starboard side of the stock aft of the unit ID disc is stamped with three cartouches, the largest of which bears the “FW” royal insignia for Prussian King Wilhelm II (see Storz, M98 Rifle & Carbine, page 135). If the FW cartouche is authentic, does it date the stock to the 1898 to 1918 time frame?
- Virtually every metal part on the rifle is stamped with numbers, most of which are “68”, the last two digits of the receiver serial number. However, many of these stampings are poorly struck, double struck, or clearly forced matched, in some cases with electro-penciled numbers. Best example is the bolt arm (see pic), which was turned down to accommodate the scope mount. The flat at the root of the bolt handle has been scrubbed and the serial number electro-penciled on the flat. You can also see an Old German script letter that clearly is not a match for the “h” stamped on the receiver, indicating the bolt is a replacement bolt. Do you agree that the bolt is a replacement bolt and if so, is the bolt period-correct for a late-war Gew 98 or is this more likely something done post-WWI?
- I did not post a pic of the stock serial but it is clearly force-matched with the original stock serial # 104 stamped over with the 5368 and then a second, clearer 5368 stamped below it. I assume this stock was also added during the depot rebuild when the barrel was added. Is this a reasonable assumption?
That Gew 98 was also owned by Robert Landies. He is the owner of Ohio ordinance works. He is a big time Mauser collector. He's a pretty nice guy and superknowledge of all. I don't believe he is on the forum. I know he is busy a lot with the company. I have talked to him on the phone before.
