S/27.g

[Peter S]

Had this S/27.G for a while and finally got around to taking a set of pictures. It is well used. Handguard, bandspring & rod, do not match otherwise it is all correct.

 

[Peter S]

The remaining pictures.

 

[flynaked]

Awesome hard to find rifle, thanks for posting it. It’s interesting that these early ermas definitely had a different stock treatment than other makers, comparing this to one that was posted a year or so ago etc. Talk about an untouched stock! Love seeing the contrasting raw wood in cartouches.

 

[Bob in OHIO]

Here's another in nice wood!

 

[jbmauser]

Great example overall but the wood is the highlight for sure. Awesome wood on it.

 

[heavy10]

Superb rifle, thank you for sharing Peter.

Anyone have thoughts on the 4th eagle on the barrel, the no-number WaA that covers part of the barrel code? It almost appears like a firing proof.

 

[flynaked]

Fairly wild guess but I’m thinking it must be a secondary inspection of whatever that 2nd barrel proof covers process wise? Kind of like you see on the RR of some rifles, and seems to be especially evident at BLM early on, but they would still be a numbered proof so who knows? Might be way off base with that.

 

[heavy10]

Fairly wild guess but I’m thinking it must be a secondary inspection of whatever that 2nd barrel proof covers process wise? Kind of like you see on the RR of some rifles, and seems to be especially evident at BLM early on, but they would still be a numbered proof so who knows? Might be way off base with that.

Very plausible, though I get hung up on the 'accountability' aspect of this. WaA's carry a number for a reason; in Imperial times, the same would be true of a crown/fraktur letter, with the letter denoting the inspector or inspection team qualifying the part or assembly. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

It would be interesting to see other examples of S/27G barrel codes to see if this is common there or an anomaly. Given the rarity of this make/date, that may be a tall order to fill.

 

[boilerop]

Great looking G Date Peter! You really can’t go wrong no matter what! Glad after talking with you at The Big E show you finally posted it! Thank you Gage.

 

[bob32268]

S/27 g

That's a very nice looking 98k Peter, it shows a lot of field use too. If only it could talk !
Tks,
Bob32268

 

[mowzerluvr]

Hands down, the reason I am a pre-war collector. Look at the fit, finish and time put into that rifle.

 

[Loewe]

I agree it's a wonderful example of one of the rarest maker-dates, - actually one of the few that are actually rare, as the vast majority of Kar.98k maker-dates are neither rare or hard to find compared to Imperials or Republican era rifles.

The BC question is interesting, I tend to see it as a correction or check on that step as stated already. An NS era version of C/RC or an asterisk later used. What is known by an examination of other ERMA/35 BC's is that 3 waffenamts are "normal" and in a couple cases this extra eagle is applied next to the waffenamt. Generlaly these relate to the mating process of the receiver and barrel and proofing, though the 98k may vary slightly to the Imperial era meanings. Storz details the steps indirectly in charts, and Mike and Bruce probably detailed a more specific definition for each of the three waffenamts.

Following will show a couple examples of other ERMA/35 BC (1935 S27 23).

*** I am glad Peter showed his rifle in this detail, he has an amazing collection and although this rifle is datasheeted already (KCN/95), it is good to see it in all its glory. Peter in the past has done a couple shots of it, but nothing detailed like this.

 

[Loewe]

1935 s27g 2628

 

[Loewe]

1935 s27g 4198

 

[Loewe]

1935 S27G 6266 (Known high)