Simson Gew98 1925 shortened to K98k with SS DH

[Absolut]

This rifle had been posted on this forum by its previous owner some years back, I obtained it in a trade. Thought it is worth doing professional pictures, since it still is a bit of a headscratcher to me.

The barrel carries two SS DH stamps, one in the "common place" on the barrel shank right next to the serial number, the other one is the rather uncommon small SS DH stamp on the step of the barrel. The barrel is marked BSW under the woodline and various Eagle 4 imperial stamps. It is marked 7.9 atop on the step of the barrel as well as 0.2 hidden under the wood. There is NO commercial proof on the barrel. The receiver carries a large 32 on the underside. The stock is matching numbers (actually twice, there is a faint matching serial with smaller font under the more obvious one - and another matching number inside in the barrel channel) and seems to have carried an Eagle 4 stamp on the left side right behind the takedown disc. There is a Deaths Head stamped on the pistol grip area. I believe the hole in the stock at the rear used to be a repair that someone pushed out, for whatever reason; maybe I'll put a plug in, we'll see. The hole for the L shaped spring (rear barrel band) is still present; the stock was modified to the K98k barrel band configuration. The rear sight is a bit of a weird mixmaster, with being marked S/42G on the base, curve carries an Eagle 26 as well as WaA623 on the flat spring, the rear sight ladder dual matching numbers (one full serial and one only last two digits) as well as various acceptance stamps (Suhl?).

What I really don't get with this rifle are two things:
- I do think the SS DH stamps are original to this rifle. But why would this one NOT get the receiver scrubbed?
- Why does the barrel on this rifle NOT have any commercial proof stamps? Is the barrel a replacement or original to the receiver and "just" shortened (or maybe even pre-SS replacement)?

Vol.IIb on page 724 shows another Gew98b SS2 rework which also does NOT have a commercial firing proof - but it seems that this rifle "at least" has a scrubbed receiver. It was called an oddity for the absence of the firing proof in the book. Now that there are at least two known, would there possibly be a reason as to why these escaped the re-proof?

 

[Absolut]

Other 7 pictures.

 

[Herk1994]

I have no meaningful input to provide on this but man, that is wayyyy cool, thanks for the pictures.

 

[biggymu]

Why no conversion data on bottom of barrel?
Someone replaced the 98b barrel with 98k length BSW replacement. Agree that SS makings are authentic. Interesting rifle.

 

[flynaked]

Maybe there is some flaw in this thought process; but IMO, the dated reworks, which predominantly or exclusively(?) feature Zella Mehlis proofing (I can’t think of any from Suhl off the top of my head) were completed by commercial firms in the area. I don’t even mean necessarily in their entirety, perhaps just the pressure related elements, barrel work, bolt changes etc, which would require proofing. The reworking and fitting of less critical components, could be accomplished by less than specially trained individuals. Think of the poorly reworked and sanded stocks, often seen on these, fitting and renumbering barrel bands and such, the work looks poor by comparison. I have a feeling much or all of this second tier work was carried out at the ss lagers or depots, and once the rifle was assembled, subsequently accepted there. Interesting to me, is that the barrel shanks of these other reworks seem to exhibit markings that align with known makers in the Z-M area. Combine that with the documents Ryan recently posted in his thread, relating to work on these rifles having been completed at a “Fabrik” it sure is compelling.

All that being said, I come around to the specific location of markings on this barrel shank, just where the seemingly “commercial markings” show up. Combine this with a lack of commercial proofing, perhaps this/these rifle were completed in their entirety by the ss, and perhaps a later rework than we typically see?

 

[RyanE]

There are a few possibilities:
1) It was delivered to the SS with this barrel. Its obviously been replaced at some point, but I would expect any Army depot to have proof tested it. Not a likely explanation IMO
2) It didn't get tested by mistake. Probably the right answer.
3) This is a very late one after the SS stopped commercially proofing repairs. SSZZA4 repairs are not proofed so perhaps some of the late 1943 SS2 repairs were not?
4) Clay's suggestion above.

Rear sight is a Simson made replacement part (the 'Circle/Triangle S' is Simson), but interesting that it is WaA4 accepted. Must be very late manufacture for Simson.

All that being said, I come around to the specific location of markings on this barrel shank, just where the seemingly “commercial markings” show up. Combine this with a lack of commercial proofing, perhaps this/these rifle were completed in their entirety by the ss, and perhaps a later rework than we typically see?

We may need to take a look at those rifles that have SS2 or 01 markings on the shank. That said, I did recently see an 01 rework with an 01 on the shank that was commercially proofed.

 

[biggymu]

simply included because of SS2 on shank, this RC also has conversion data on bottom of barrel and evidence of commercial proof.

 

[RyanE]

simply included because of SS2 on shank, this RC also has conversion data on bottom of barrel and evidence of commercial proof.

The date on that one is from the first rework. Raises another question though on the early rifles (like this one) that have SS2 on the shank: why is it there?

What is the date on this one, by the way?

 

[biggymu]

Sorry for the terrible photo, I sold this recently but remembered the shank marking, 7/36
That’s why I thought to include the photo. Proof or not, the mark is present.

 

[heavy_mech]

I also think this is a very cool piece. It would seem to me that barrel and sight components are not original to the receiver but 'who' did the work I can't answer that.

 

[Absolut]

… this is the other Simson 98b from Vol.IIb which also does not have a commercial firing proof. Could there be a reason for them lacking commercial proofs?

 

[RyanE]

… this is the other Simson 98b from Vol.IIb which also does not have a commercial firing proof. Could there be a reason for them lacking commercial proofs?

It has the original barrel which is proof tested. Maybe German law requires proof testing after shortening the barrel, but I image that is why that one was not sent back out.

Wartime SS reworks that retain the original barrel are not proof tested either. If bolts were replaced, those would be testes and E/N marked, but not the barrels.

 

[Absolut]

Maybe German law requires proof testing after shortening the barrel, but I image that is why that one was not sent back out.

I have no idea whether this has changed since back then, but if a barrel is shortened then according to current regulations both in Germany and in Austria NO re-proof is required. If you though cut a threading to the muzzle you do need to get it re-proofed. The reason for this is the fact that they consider a barrel to be safe with its current thickness if it survives a firing proof. If you cut something off then it will still be able to survive being shot. If you though reduce the diameter, the barrel in that area may blow up, and that is why you need to re-proof it when changing the diameter.

I would consider it most likely to have been the case already back then. If this was the case, then simply shortening of a barrel would not require a new firing proof. On the other hand, the rifles in most cases didn't have (commercial) firing proof, and it was always the common believe that the SS is a private organization and would need a commercial firing proof. So still would not work.

The question therefore is, would there be rifles that would escape the firing proof (stamp), or would the Germans be Germans and if they proof a rifle then they would stamp the rifle? And if yes, then this would mean there is a particular reason as to why neither of these two (and maybe others we are not aware of yet) would lack the commercial firing proof. What would also mean to compare those with each other and see what they have in common versus with what they don't share with other rifles.

For example I have too little knowledge to be able to tell whether the rifle in Vol.IIb would originally have had a receiver marking and got scrubbed, or if it anyway had a blank receiver (maybe @bruce98k could tell?). Because if neither of the two have scrubbed receiver markings as well as both lacking commercial firing proof stamps, well than this is quite important and surely would be in a context.

 

[Absolut]

… this is the other Simson 98b from Vol.IIb which also does not have a commercial firing proof. Could there be a reason for them lacking commercial proofs?

I was made aware that this particular rifle was featured in its own thread back in October 2016. Therefore let me cross reference to the thread here -> https://www.k98kforum.com/threads/simson-98b-o-block-ss2.23740/

In that particular thread another 98b to K98k conversion was linked which also seems to lack the firing proof -> https://www.k98kforum.com/threads/ss-rifle-conversion-no-commercial-proofs.23792/#post-167048

Would this indicate that 98b to K98k conversions possibly ALL lack the firing proof?!

 

[RyanE]

Would this indicate that 98b to K98k conversions possibly ALL lack the firing proof?!

I don't know if we can say that. Both examples you included have their original proofed barrels still installed. No need to reproof them.

 

[Stephan98k]

I looked through the documents but I couldn't match your serial number to a specific SS unit.

… this is the other Simson 98b from Vol.IIb which also does not have a commercial firing proof. Could there be a reason for them lacking commercial proofs?

I agree with @RyanE , this Karabiner 98b converted to K98k still has the original barrel and therefore no need to reproof.

But even some years before in 1929, during the trials that led to the delayed introduction of the K98k, I couldn't find any document that indicated that the shortened Gewehr 98 and Karabiner 98b had to get reproofed. It only mentions that the sighting-in shoot had to be carried out.

For example I have too little knowledge to be able to tell whether the rifle in Vol.IIb would originally have had a receiver marking and got scrubbed, or if it anyway had a blank receiver (maybe @bruce98k could tell?). Because if neither of the two have scrubbed receiver markings as well as both lacking commercial firing proof stamps, well than this is quite important and surely would be in a context.

Karabiner 98b Simson "zero" series serial number 268 didn't got scrubbed, it had a blank receiver.

In general not all of these receivers got scrubbed. I was looking through the records of an SS Totenkopf Cavalry Squadron and the armorer had four Gewehr 98's that had been converted to K98k and all the receivers were unscrubbed.
- Danzig 1915 serial number 2575
- Spandau 1916 serial number 5594w
- Mauser Oberndorf 1917 serial number 7000
- Amberg 1917 serial number 7830


@Slowburn
We have talked about your Simson, in this thread you will find important information, here is the link: Kar.98b Trends
I asked you some questions in the trends thread, it would be nice if you could answer them in this "SS" thread here.

 

[flynaked]

Nice work on the documents Stephan, I can’t wait to see what you’ve been digging up.

Just as an aside, and without recalling a better thread for it at the moment; two commercial rifles surfaced within the last year with recycled SS barrels. Further evidence to the assumption that the barrel shank markings e.g., letters, symbols etc are related to commercial makers. Many reworks feature “HW” on the shank, and one of the aforementioned rifles just happens to be a Hermann Weihrauch hunting rifle. I thought this was pretty interesting and compelling evidence for some previous threads’ discussion.

 

[PatickD]

Maybe there is some flaw in this thought process; but IMO, the dated reworks, which predominantly or exclusively(?) feature Zella Mehlis proofing (I can’t think of any from Suhl off the top of my head) were completed by commercial firms in the area. I don’t even mean necessarily in their entirety, perhaps just the pressure related elements, barrel work, bolt changes etc, which would require proofing. The reworking and fitting of less critical components, could be accomplished by less than specially trained individuals. Think of the poorly reworked and sanded stocks, often seen on these, fitting and renumbering barrel bands and such, the work looks poor by comparison. I have a feeling much or all of this second tier work was carried out at the ss lagers or depots, and once the rifle was assembled, subsequently accepted there. Interesting to me, is that the barrel shanks of these other reworks seem to exhibit markings that align with known makers in the Z-M area. Combine that with the documents Ryan recently posted in his thread, relating to work on these rifles having been completed at a “Fabrik” it sure is compelling.

All that being said, I come around to the specific location of markings on this barrel shank, just where the seemingly “commercial markings” show up. Combine this with a lack of commercial proofing, perhaps this/these rifle were completed in their entirety by the ss, and perhaps a later rework than we typically see?

There was period sanding on SS builds? Or, just SS depot work?

 

[flynaked]

Absolutely

 

[PatickD]

Absolutely

Both then, haha?