Wide Gas Ports were Retroactively Added

[mauser1908]

I think we might have made a significant break through today. Chris, Cyrus and I were kicking around the idea that there are some original bolts on early gewehrs that were retrofitted with wide gas ports.

It was always thought that this process would have been too burdensome to implement and track, so early bolts and firing pins were scrapped when significant wear of the early components was evident. In many cases, this is undoubtedly true. Now we’re starting to think there were three paths. Path 1: early components remained as long as they didn’t show signs of wear. This is true due to the number of surviving original examples. Path 1 is also corroborated by Storz. Path 2: Per Storz, components with substantial wear were replaced. Path 3: A working theory, bolts that were likely to fail (caught during gaging) were retrofitted when possible. In an effort to keep skilled workers employed, path 3 may have been associated with the known reworking effort that occurred between 1908 and 1914.

The Evidence:
According to Storz, depot work of any significance required the surname initial of the supervisor who approved the work. Note rear sight retrofits and throat reaming.



Now we have evidence of this on bolts. This rifle is my 1900 Danzig. This one has had a barrel replacement. The font difference in addition to high steel lot number proves this. I always assumed the bolt was a replacement, now I’m convinced it was retrofit. The bolt and receiver fonts are the same. The bolt body, firing pin, and cocking piece are all marked with an ‘S’, this is the only time I’ve ever seen this. I’m now under the impression that the ‘S’, is the surname initial for a supervisor that approved work completed on this bolt.



I welcome thoughts and discussion, I’m interested in hearing ideas on what else the ‘S’ markings may represent.

 

[chrisftk]

In an effort to keep skilled workers employed, path 3 may have been associated with the known reworking effort that occurred between 1908 and 1914.

That would certainly make the most sense. I think you are on to something with this Sam.

The wide gas ports on a 1900-dated rifle with the original bolt would have been a headscratcher if the "S" wasn't there. The presence of the "S", combined with an anomalous trait would lead me down the same path that you are going regarding retrofit. It's clear this was not universally done, but given that the rifle was re-barreled, that would have provided ample opportunity for additional work to be done-- particularly if associated with a peacetime initiative of retrofitting rifles already in for other work.

Is the rear sight sleeve 200 or 400m? I know it was rebarreled, but just curious.

Nice work in noticing this and putting your idea out there for discussion.

 

[mauser1908]

That would certainly make the most sense. I think you are on to something with this Sam.

The wide gas ports on a 1900-dated rifle with the original bolt would have been a headscratcher if the "S" wasn't there. The presence of the "S", combined with an anomalous trait would lead me down the same path that you are going regarding retrofit. It's clear this was not universally done, but given that the rifle was re-barreled, that would have provided ample opportunity for additional work to be done-- particularly if associated with a peacetime initiative of retrofitting rifles already in for other work.

Is the rear sight sleeve 200 or 400m? I know it was rebarreled, but just curious.

Nice work in noticing this and putting your idea out there for discussion.

Thanks, Chris! They retained the original 200 meter base even with the rebarrel.

 

[PrayingMantis]

This is a fascinating theory and a great example bolt, Sam. Hard to say for sure until we find more examples, but it seems quite plausible based on what we know about how rear sight components were updated.

 

[Cyrano4747]

That's really neat. Agreed that more evidence is necessary before anything concrete can be said, but it makes sense as presented. It's something people will need to start searching for to see if more examples can be found.

 

[mauser1908]

Wanted to add some additional info that points toward the theory being correct. I began messing around with my old pattern and new pattern bolts. The 1900 Danzig has an ‘S’ on the cocking piece, if the theory proves correct, this represents a modification. I found out tonight that an unmodified, old pattern, cocking piece will not index on a modern firing pin; resulting in an inability to reassemble the bolt. In other words, old pattern cocking pieces are not interchangeable with updated firing pins.

 

[Fal Grunt]

If your bolt was re-machined, they would have had to add the cam ramps for the new style firing pin. The larger gas ports were not larger, because they needed to allow more gas to escape. They are gas ports, however the narrow earlier slits function just fine for their intended purpose. The "large" gas ports are large because they are clearance cuts for the mating cam ramps for the firing pin. I have been researching this topic in one of the German archives, trying to find original source documentation, but it has proven difficult. It's a working theory because at the moment, I do not know how the cam ramps were cut. It could have been an internal broaching tool, purpose built, and I'm completely wrong about this. The addition of the cam ramps for the firing pin, along with the shroud lock, and the redesigned cocking piece were a "package" of sorts. I will have to take a look tomorrow, but there should be some tell tale details remaining that would show it is a rework.

On a sperate note, I have not had the experience of the cocking piece not working on other firing pins. That is to say, specifically early to late. Firing pins and cocking pieces, generally speaking, are one of the least interchangeable parts on Mauser's, from the 1871's to the K98k's. Having made cocking pieces and firing pins, they are quite difficult to make, and make them fit nicely, and have them interchangeable.

One last comment about manufacturing, often times it is more costly, in time, to rework a component, than it is to produce new. In this case, the number would be thousands, tens of thousands, and setting up a small line to make the necessary modifications to the bolts, a team of gunsmiths fitting, assembling, and numbering, could be a cost effective approach. Mauser was involved in rework, and at certain slow periods seems to have relied on some degree of outside work. In 1908 they reworked 24,000 Gewehr 88's to 88/05.

Clay and I have discussed the topic of early bolts because specifically Sauer uses a lot of "early" bolts, in Mauser supplied actions, for a surprising length of time. There are two key points here. First, the German gun trade NEVER threw something away. Gun components that were "scrap" from the military industry was reused in commercial rifles. That is, worn, defect, out of spec, etc. In this case we have a unique situation where a manufacturer (Mauser) had NEW stock available, but was obsolete. Mauser (as bad as any!) seems to have never emptied the shelves of old or slow to move inventory. Second, it shows that there was a rather large supply of bolts on hand, new, and available. It would have been feasible, logical, and economical (maybe? sometimes it is more economical to make new), to recut this large supply of bolts. Instead of reworking them, they were consumed and sold as parts or actions. Those two points to me seem contradictory. If a system to rework the bolts was established, why wouldn't large quantities of new bolts also be reworked? It may also have been a regional decision. While one may have the budget to purchase new replacement components, another may not.

Excellent topic, and I will post some more tomorrow.

 

[chrisftk]

Great discussion Nathaniel-

Firing pins and cocking pieces, generally speaking, are one of the least interchangeable parts on Mauser's, from the 1871's to the K98k's

I'll agree with this, particularly with armorer's spares. I've generally speaking at better luck with getting "used" pins and cocking pieces to mate, but it's not 100%.

First, the German gun trade NEVER threw something away.

^This. The Germans were nothing if not frugal. I feel like it only gets worse in the interwar years. I remember talking to Clay a while back about the incidence of early bolts showing up on JPS guns. Knowing my boy Clay, he was probably trying to twist my arm into finally caving and buying a JPS sporter with cool observations like these

It may also have been a regional decision. While one may have the budget to purchase new replacement components, another may not

I think you've hit the nail on the head with this. I've no doubt that Sam's bolt was reworked. It's the original 1900 bolt but not as it left the factory. This was also clearly not a common modification, or at least in my own experience. I've examined hundreds of Gew98s and this is the first I've seen so modified. I also think intuitively that this was not a wartime rework--

So, broadly speaking this was either 1) a very limited run/experimental/feasibility test (probably associated with a specific facility) or 2) it was more common than observations would indicate, just had a low survival rate. I lean toward the first, but we'll see where conversation takes this.

As always, glad to have you here, Nathaniel.

 

[PrayingMantis]

I have an alternate theory: after looking at the acceptance on the bolt under discussion for some time, it occurred to me that it is the same as the 1906 Spandau Matt bought from Mike. Photos are attached. I believe that Spandau made the bolt then later an armorer put in Sam's Danzig. The armorer would have had to make sure the parts fit, hence the S stamps. This could have been pre-war bolt replacement procedure, wartime it was simplified with the armorers stamp only on buttplate. What i am less sure about is whether it was a new bolt or a blank spare bolt. There might be marks underneath the 4s on the cocking piece and pin, but i'm not certain. There doesn't seem to be any stamps below the full serial number on the bolt body.

Additionally, i believe Spandau did the work, based on the S. The updated rear sight slider on my 1901 Spandau is also marked with a S.

 

[chrisftk]

Cyrus, you raise excellent points. I think it's compelling stuff. The reworking of the bolts seems to be red herring. It's interesting because it seemed to fit rather nicely initially, though the 1906 was a nice Rosetta stone to really take the conversation in a different direction. Bottom line, we still reach a likely explanation for a previously undiscussed marking and we got to stress test a few theories. That's what I like about this place.

Sam, thanks for putting your idea out there and supporting with good evidence for your hypothesis. May not be the end result we thought initially, but it's better than staying silent and only speaking up when you know the answer. Looking forward to further discussions.

 

[Fal Grunt]

Mauser did indeed use the gas vent to machine the firing pin cam, thanks to Jon Speed for this amazing document!

 

[chrisftk]

Mauser did indeed use the gas vent to machine the firing pin cam, thanks to Jon Speed for this amazing document!

Thanks Nathaniel-- and of course Jon!

VERY cool document.

 

[mauser1908]

If your bolt was re-machined, they would have had to add the cam ramps for the new style firing pin. The larger gas ports were not larger, because they needed to allow more gas to escape. They are gas ports, however the narrow earlier slits function just fine for their intended purpose. The "large" gas ports are large because they are clearance cuts for the mating cam ramps for the firing pin. I have been researching this topic in one of the German archives, trying to find original source documentation, but it has proven difficult. It's a working theory because at the moment, I do not know how the cam ramps were cut. It could have been an internal broaching tool, purpose built, and I'm completely wrong about this. The addition of the cam ramps for the firing pin, along with the shroud lock, and the redesigned cocking piece were a "package" of sorts. I will have to take a look tomorrow, but there should be some tell tale details remaining that would show it is a rework.

On a sperate note, I have not had the experience of the cocking piece not working on other firing pins. That is to say, specifically early to late. Firing pins and cocking pieces, generally speaking, are one of the least interchangeable parts on Mauser's, from the 1871's to the K98k's. Having made cocking pieces and firing pins, they are quite difficult to make, and make them fit nicely, and have them interchangeable.

One last comment about manufacturing, often times it is more costly, in time, to rework a component, than it is to produce new. In this case, the number would be thousands, tens of thousands, and setting up a small line to make the necessary modifications to the bolts, a team of gunsmiths fitting, assembling, and numbering, could be a cost effective approach. Mauser was involved in rework, and at certain slow periods seems to have relied on some degree of outside work. In 1908 they reworked 24,000 Gewehr 88's to 88/05.

Clay and I have discussed the topic of early bolts because specifically Sauer uses a lot of "early" bolts, in Mauser supplied actions, for a surprising length of time. There are two key points here. First, the German gun trade NEVER threw something away. Gun components that were "scrap" from the military industry was reused in commercial rifles. That is, worn, defect, out of spec, etc. In this case we have a unique situation where a manufacturer (Mauser) had NEW stock available, but was obsolete. Mauser (as bad as any!) seems to have never emptied the shelves of old or slow to move inventory. Second, it shows that there was a rather large supply of bolts on hand, new, and available. It would have been feasible, logical, and economical (maybe? sometimes it is more economical to make new), to recut this large supply of bolts. Instead of reworking them, they were consumed and sold as parts or actions. Those two points to me seem contradictory. If a system to rework the bolts was established, why wouldn't large quantities of new bolts also be reworked? It may also have been a regional decision. While one may have the budget to purchase new replacement components, another may not.

Excellent topic, and I will post some more tomorrow.

Thank you, for the excellent commentary, as always, Nathaniel! Your knowledge in this realm is unmatched.

I have an alternate theory: after looking at the acceptance on the bolt under discussion for some time, it occurred to me that it is the same as the 1906 Spandau Matt bought from Mike. Photos are attached. I believe that Spandau made the bolt then later an armorer put in Sam's Danzig. The armorer would have had to make sure the parts fit, hence the S stamps. This could have been pre-war bolt replacement procedure, wartime it was simplified with the armorers stamp only on buttplate. What i am less sure about is whether it was a new bolt or a blank spare bolt. There might be marks underneath the 4s on the cocking piece and pin, but i'm not certain. There doesn't seem to be any stamps below the full serial number on the bolt body.

Additionally, i believe Spandau did the work, based on the S. The updated rear sight slider on my 1901 Spandau is also marked with a S.

I think you hit the nail on the head, Cyrus! Really an excellent observation. While I turned out to be way off base, this discussion was still valuable from the process Cyrus identified.

A bit more on the rifle, I assumed this rework was done by Danzig due the Bismarckhutte supplied blank; but this barrel was 100% applied at Spandau. The acceptance matches perfectly against your 1913. I was never able to place the barrel font until now. The bolt font is more of an enigma but as you pointed out, the acceptance is Spandau. I can only conclude these were done in stations with separate die sets rather than one armorer(s) doing the whole job from start to finish.

 

[gew98]

When it comes to depot salvaged gew98's all bets are off. I have encountered rebuilds using a multitude of early parts on later war dated guns. It was a typical frugal german thing to reuse what was functional. Neatest gew98 along those lines I had was a 1917 Danzig that was built entirely out of armorer spares - to include receiver and all numbered to match the salvaged bolt used in it's build. I traded that off before 2015 so its still out there .

 

[PrayingMantis]

When it comes to depot salvaged gew98's all bets are off. I have encountered rebuilds using a multitude of early parts on later war dated guns. It was a typical frugal german thing to reuse what was functional. Neatest gew98 along those lines I had was a 1917 Danzig that was built entirely out of armorer spares - to include receiver and all numbered to match the salvaged bolt used in it's build. I traded that off before 2015 so its still out there .

That's fascinating, Bill. How was the armorers receiver marked? one surfaced on social media about a year ago marked WMO, apparently it was among the spare parts sent to the Ottomans.