Updated factory Mauser commercial K98

[pzjgr]

Definitely an interesting rifle...and a cool addition to a collection regardless of the ultimate history...

I was wondering if it had been refinished at some point, the 1936 marking looks a little washed out like it was buffed and polished, so maybe that lends some creedance to the thought that the receiver was either a rejected military receiver, or pulled from the military receiver line....then assembled as a commercial, and finished to commercial specs?

 

[RyanE]

By law, all non-military rifles had to be commercially proof tested. No one was exempt from this law, the factories included. I hate repeating myself, but this included factory test rifles like the G40k.

The barrel markings were applied at the commercial proofhouse (located at Mauser in this case) after the rifle passed proof firing in January 1944. Markings are typical, including the E/j. Who knows why they changed the barrel and stock fittings (or for what purpose), but there is no question it was done by Mauser in January 1944.

 

[Turbo Archie]

but that barrel was numbered to match the receiver with the same font as that used on the original receiver.

It looks to me more like one of the "made for the Amis" guns tossed together after the war to sell to American GI's. That would explain most of the discrepancies - an old rejected receiver, hammer on some stamps, give it a quick blue job, a pick up barrel, bits and pieces from around the shop, and a quick payment in cigarettes. Was the serial number a continuation of some pre-war series? Perhaps, or maybe just made up.

Jim

Jim,

You do realize that he posted two guns only a few numbers apart.

The font is not the same on the re-barreled gun but is the same on the original gun posted.
Notice the "1"..

..

 

[James K]

Hi, RyanE,

Well, no. The German law (then and now, and for almost every other country that has national proof laws) is that arms offered for sale to the public or in the general firearms trade have to be proved. A firearm retained at the factory for testing, or whatever, would not have to be proved. (It might be, but it wouldn't HAVE to be.)

Also, arms made for the military are generally exempt from commercial proof, but the military usually has its own proof testing system. A Mauser receiver made for the military would not have commercial proofs, since it would not be sold on the market. It would, if completed satisfactorily, be given the appropriate military proofs. As I said, the barrel proof is for the barrel, tested when it was made beforr it was installed on any receiver.

If the receiver were "scrubbed", then it would not be considered military and would have to be proved before sale. The commercial proof law might or might not recognize the military proof or vice versa, usually a question when military arms are sold on the market.
Jim

 

[RyanE]

Hi, RyanE,
As I said, the barrel proof is for the barrel, tested when it was made beforr it was installed on any receiver.

If the receiver were "scrubbed", then it would not be considered military and would have to be proved before sale. The commercial proof law might or might not recognize the military proof or vice versa, usually a question when military arms are sold on the market.
Jim

The first statement is simply incorrect. The proofing was done on a completed rifle, not a lone barrel.

The S/42 markings are really irrelevant. The receiver belonged to Mauser until the Army paid for it.

 

[Loewe]

I tend to agree, the S/42 code doesn't make it military property, though if it were ever sold privately they would want to remove the marking. (I wouldn't want to run around hunting in nazi Germany with a rifle that has a military code on it...)

I think the rifle is legit, obviously it was re-barreled in 1944 for whatever purpose, but the other rifle 155022 makes the case clearly as TA states. I would rather like to have seen more pictures of this rifle, the barrel looks to have a waffenamt e/13 (or partial e/135 for MO?), which is probably a Ruhrstahl made barrel, but the BC is not shown, which might lend a clue to details on when the barrel was made. I would also like to see more pictures on other markings if they exist anywhere on the rifle.

Had it not been for the existence of Lockhoven's rifle this rifle would be more suspect, but I can't see this being anything other than authentic because of it, though I can't explain its existence either. Without more pictures (and they probably won't help either) this is just a weird rifle no one can probably explain. (what would be really interesting is to know more about Lockhoven's rifle, its BC, more on its markings... his rifle seems to have the original barrel, possibly more original overall, it is the more important rifle)

The first statement is simply incorrect. The proofing was done on a completed rifle, not a lone barrel.

The S/42 markings are really irrelevant. The receiver belonged to Mauser until the Army paid for it.

 

[James K]

Hi, RyanE,

Sorry, but barrels were proof tested before they were released for assembly. The reason was that if a barrel was weak, it would blow during barrel proofing rather than after it was installed on a rifle, only to have it blow in the final proof, taking the expensive receiver and stock along with it. The final proof is the one you are referring to, and it was done with the rifle fully assembled. But prior to that, all significant parts had passed numerous inspections and tests.

The rifle might have "belonged" to Mauser, but it was marked as directed by the government, for delivery to the government. Further, it is marked with the (not very) secret manufacturer's code, so having it sold by Mauser as a "Mauser Sporter" would have been a security compromise.

Jim

 

[mrfarb]

James,

You are absolutely wrong about the barrels being proofed before assembly. Barrels, Receivers, and Bolts were assembled together prior to proof testing at all of the makers and commercial proof houses. It's well documented that this is the case. Any barrels supplied to the depot system were not proof tested and required testing, only bolt bodies supplied to the system were proof tested- this was the reason most rebarrels took place in larger depots with the proper equipment. The G33/40 unserialized guns made from unnumbered parts feature depot spare barrels- guess what, no proofs. Plus, all of the depot assembled rifles with new barrels (and rebuilt rifles) have virgin, unproofed barrels. You can tell because the new firing proof on receiver and barrels match, some unique to the facility that did the work.

It's clear this rifle was originally some type of test rifle or potential export model, and at some point was put away. In 44 is was rebarelled and proof tested again as per the law. There's no guarantee that the stock was replaced at that time, could have been done earlier in 41. Mauser proof tested all of the in house experimental guns I have ever seen in photos. Most likely this rifle was a test mule of some sort, and in 44 was assembled and tested to sell. It wasn't illegal for commercial arms to have military coded receivers, many commercial K98k rifles have bcd marked receivers and those are in no way military accepted.

By the way, we have complete images and documents regarding the proof testing equipment used at Mauser in Vol. 1 - I'm posting that info showing the mechanism along with the TL info from the operation in the text. We also have detailed descriptions of which operations took place and when.

 

[bruce98k]

Additional images

I have included more image data from the rifle.
A couple of interesting points.

1. Front sight base is rejected Chinese contract.
2. Rear band is left over S28 from Banner production
3. Military barrel was passed and accepted by WaA authorities at Mauser and diverted. Barrel code is 43D978 (late 1943 production).
4. The ink stamped '11' in the barrel channel in my opinion is a lucky coincidence and more than likely a stock acceptance stamp, similar to the ones found in Mauser production K98s.
5. I believe that the Eagle N is a partial strike with just the upper part of the 'N' showing. The 'J' is likely some inspection stamp or process stamp originating in the commercial dept. at Mauser.

Mike is correct in that the stock could have been replaced earlier (circa 1941 period). In any event, a Mauser factory commercial rifle from my viewpoint, and hence my interest and investment.

Also additional info from Jon regarding proof testing of limited production and trials rifles.

Bruce, In most cases a Test type rifle or a Muster example for potential customer would be proof tested and marked with period commercial proofs. I forgot but mabye your .303 Test rifle for England had commercial BU proofs. Many of the more or less one of a kind Muster rifles and carbines in my files had BU proofs. As an Example when they were testing the first series of 6mm rifles in 1895/6 period they were all BU proofed. Mine is BU and serial number 4 and ring dated 1896. Also I may have mentioned this some time before but the SN on many test rifles does Not indicate a total number but can be an in house book keeping number like on your .303 as there were only about 20 of these ever made and yours has 3 digit number if I remember ? Some test riifles could have been proof tested but Not marked if they stayed within the firm. Jon

 

[Bigdibbs88]

Hi, jbMauser, point taken on the font.

Hi, RyanE, that military receiver was not "scrubbed", it was a German military contract receiver and the markings are correct and intact. To use it to build a commercial rifle could have been illegal diversion of government property.

If that were true how do you explain the banners, which are commercially proofed, with "ghost markings" of scrubbed military proofs?

http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?7779-Standard-Modell-late-B-prefix&highlight=ghost

http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread...dard-Modell-FS-Ghost-Receiver&highlight=ghost

 

[reich1900]

I believe that these commercial guns made at the end of the war were for the Volksstrum. I have one that has a BCD 43 reciever, 12/44 barrel, WW1 roller coaster sight and very nice commercial stock. Since the Volksstrum couldn't get factory produced guns, they went to the military, they had to look to regional industry for guns that were made from parts that were scrounged from were ever they could. It seems that there are no two alike making information hard find. Maybe a sticky would be approriate?
Bernie

 

[James K]

If you good folks don't believe barrels were proved before assembly, you may well be experts in rifles, but not in how they are made. Barrel proving was/is standard practice in almost all arms factories, for the reason I gave. There are other examples; on the Luger pistol, the barrel proof is the small proof on the side of the barrel. In the U.S., the barrel proof on an M1903 was the "dot" in the middle of the Ordnance "bomb", on an M1 rifle it is the letter "P", on an M1911A1, it is the "P" on the top of the barrel. All mean the same thing, and all were done in the barrel shop in a special jig which did not require the time to screw the barrel into the receiver.

If you think a minute, you will realize that the purpose of a proof test is to ensure that weak barrels do blow up. While today a blown barrel is rare, most proof laws/regulations were written when inclusions, otherwise flawed blanks, and heat treatment failures were much more common. So barrels that blew in testing were common enough that no one wanted a failure to destroy not only the barrel but the completed receiver and stock as well.

(If the concept of proving a finished barrel is unacceptable, how about the fact that barrel billets were usually drilled, preliminary chambered and proven before the barrel was even turned to shape; same purpose - to weed out bad billets before time and money was wasted on making them into barrels.)

Jim

 

[mauser99]

THE DOT on the barrel in the bomb on a us rifle is a mark from a Rockwell hardening test.. Not a firing proof.. How can they test fire a barrel without the rest of the receiver and bolt attached ???

 

[James K]

We are getting a bit out of the site subject, but no, the "dot" was not a hardness test, it was a barrel proof mark. As to testing a barrel without a receiver, it was done all the time, using a special test fixture with a breechblock that contained a firing pin. They put the barrel in a slot, put in the proof round, closed the breechblock, shut the lid down, and moved a lever to fire the "gun" remotely. That was a lot faster than screwing the barrel into a receiver, and got the job done.

Hi, Mrfarb,

The document describes proving the barreled action. Previous posters have stated emphatically that NO proof testing was done until the rifle was completed. So there seems to be a discrepancy there. But the document also does not state that no testing was done prior to that test. If barrels were not proved, why would any barrel mark be needed? The proof mark on the receiver should be adequate. As to spare barrels, I have seen several that AFAIK were brand new spare barrels and they did have the small eagle mark. Were they "take off" barrels, or did someone just stamp barrels for the heck of it? But the main point still is, why allow a defective barrel to get to the point where failure will destroy an expensive receiver or even a whole completed rifle? If they didn't test barrels, why didn't they?

Jim

 

[mrfarb]

The Germans inspected barrels, but did not proof test them when not attached to a receiver.

 

[RyanE]

But the main point still is, why allow a defective barrel to get to the point where failure will destroy an expensive receiver or even a whole completed rifle? If they didn't test barrels, why didn't they?

Jim

Most barrels that did fail proof testing likely did so because of bulges or small cracks. Even if the barrel did explode in a spectacular manner, I doubt it would harm a properly manufactured receiver.

Receiver failures and bolt failures were probably a bigger concern. Note what is covered and what is not in that Mauser test fixture.

 

[mto7464]

The dot in the P on a 03 barrel and on the side of a garand barrel are firing proofs, not rockwell hardness testing, done on a completed rifle, spare barrels did not have this and one could often spot a restored rifle using a correct barrel if it were lacking this proof mark.

 

[mrfarb]

There was simply no guarantee that a barrel wouldn't fail a proof test once installed, but it's very uncommon. We do have documentation that complete lots of barrels were scrapped due to failure. In my research I have seen at least one document that shows that a new lot of barrels was tested before the lot was sent to production, but I'm not sure of the exact nature of the testing off the top of my head. However, the Beshusstempel was stamped on the barrel only after assembly to a receiver.

 

[bruce98k]

Barrel Proof Testing At Mauser

The assembly and test process at Mauser is well documented in a protocol document, of which Jon gave me a copy, and of which
a summary is presented in Vol.1 on pages 203 and 204.
The barrel on production rifles was not proof fired until assembly with the receiver - step 2 in the main K98k production protocol.

There were extensive tests on the barrel steel blanks provided by the various steel suppliers feeding Mauser.
These included an analysis of the steel in the billet. Mike is correct in that entire lots of barrel blanks were rejected due to
failing this materials analysis. Mauser may have pressure tested selected barrels using a new lot of steel but only to check
the new steel lot or different steel type. This would have been done not on a production basis but in their materials testing
lab which was a state of the art facility for its time.

 

[James K]

I yield to the vast expertise shown here, and now believe without question that Mauser preferred to blow up a completed rifle rather than test barrels. As to barrel failure never damaging a receiver, that is nice to know, as a little bird told me that the usual result is a split receiver ring.

Jim