Announcement

**bodes** · 05-27-2005, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Captain Emo

Gentlemen:

I just picked up my third K98. It is a lovely 1940 337. From my inspection, it seems to be all matching, including screws and wood, and in about 80% condition. It is non-import marked and not an RC gun. While I do not doubt this rifle's authenticity, there are a few things that confuse me.

First, there is no sight hood on this rifle. There is no provision for one either. I was of the understanding that by 1940 they were putting the hoods on the rifles and retrofitting some of the older ones with them.

Second, this rifle has a laminated stock with a cupped buttplate. There stock is waff'd and stamped with the serial numbers of the gun in the channels as well as on the underside of the buttstock. Should this rifle have had a flat or cupped buttplate and when, if we are able to determine, was the change?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Yes, It would've had a flat sheet metal buttplate when it left the factory....It doesn't have the provision for the front sight protector which I believe they started using in 1941.....In all honesty the stock bothers me....IF it was a later upgrade, why didn't they also make provisions for the front sight protector?.....Bodes

**Mike Tahirak** · 05-27-2005, 09:19 AM

Eric,

Off the top of my head, I believe they started adding the sight hood cuts in either '40 or '41. It would not be unusual to find a rifle during the transition period that did not have the cuts installed. Older ones and rifles without the cuts were ordered to have them put in...but only if they came in for depot level repair or overhaul...so if a no cut rifle never went in for that level or above repair, they would never had have them cut. As long as your barrel s/n, and s/n on the front sight base (I believe an early rifle like this would have the last 2 digits on the base) match correctly, I wouldn't sweat it.

I will have to check on the date for the flat to cupped buttplate change, but I believe it too was in the '40 time frame. Remember these "change" dates are very rough, as different manufactures actually implemented them at different times, and even once implemented they would continue to use stocks of the "old" style parts until they ran out. If they had a couple hundred laminated stocks with flat butt plates, they wouldn't just toss them because a new type came down the pipe. That is why during the transitional times there are all sorts of permutations. Again, assuming the numbers on your stock are original and correct, don't sweat it....

If you want a good starting point for all this info, get Law's "Backbone of the Wehrmacht" book. While it is far from perfect, and not to be considered absolute gospel, it does have a lot of good info, and is good for basic guidelines. The biggest thing to remember when looking at the data sheets is they were based on observed rifles, and sometimes there was only one or two "observed" rifles for a particular maker and year, so you don't want to put too much stock in individual data sheets, consider them more of a guideline.

If the book were to be revised today, it would have the benefit of thousands of additional "observed" rifle data sheets.....

**bodes** · 05-27-2005, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Mike Tahirak

Eric,

Off the top of my head, I believe they started adding the sight hood cuts in either '40 or '41. It would not be unusual to find a rifle during the transition period that did not have the cuts installed. Older ones and rifles without the cuts were ordered to have them put in...but only if they came in for depot level repair or overhaul...so if a no cut rifle never went in for that level or above repair, they would never had have them cut. As long as your barrel s/n, and s/n on the front sight base (I believe an early rifle like this would have the last 2 digits on the base) match correctly, I wouldn't sweat it.

I will have to check on the date for the flat to cupped buttplate change, but I believe it too was in the '40 time frame. Remember these "change" dates are very rough, as different manufactures actually implemented them at different times, and even once implemented they would continue to use stocks of the "old" style parts until they ran out. If they had a couple hundred laminated stocks with flat butt plates, they wouldn't just toss them because a new type came down the pipe. That is why during the transitional times there are all sorts of permutations. Again, assuming the numbers on your stock are original and correct, don't sweat it....

If you want a good starting point for all this info, get Law's "Backbone of the Wehrmacht" book. While it is far from perfect, and not to be considered absolute gospel, it does have a lot of good info, and is good for basic guidelines. The biggest thing to remember when looking at the data sheets is they were based on observed rifles, and sometimes there was only one or two "observed" rifles for a particular maker and year, so you don't want to put too much stock in individual data sheets, consider them more of a guideline.

If the book were to be revised today, it would have the benefit of thousands of additional "observed" rifle data sheets.....

Mike, I did just check Law's book and it does indeed say the cupped buttplate was originally drawn up in February of 1940....So yes, it is possible than that this has correct stock buttplate configuration.....As for the sight protector, I believe your right.....They didn't generally upgrade these unless the rifle came in for some type of refurbish job....Bodes

**sszza2** · 05-27-2005, 10:46 AM

Bodes,

Your comments from Laws 'BBOTW' is exactly why that reference cannot be trusted with even nmany of the basics.

I own a completely matching, correct and un-reworked 337/40 in the 'g' range which utilizes a laminated stock, flat buttplate and does not have site hood. I have data on a few later 337's which support that they all utilized flat buttplates and were putting on site hoods by late '40. In addition I own two matching/correct and un-reworked bcd41's. The first is in the 'e' range and has a flat buttplate. The second is in the 'k' range and has a cupped buttplate. I have additional data on bcd41s which further support transition to cupped buttplate within the range I have indicated.

This is just another example of why you cannot trust Law and the single collection / collector / expert he utilized for understanding the major variations (say fantasy bnz40) or subtlties as discussed above.

Scott B

**sszza2** · 05-27-2005, 10:50 AM

Captain Emo,

I would be concerned about the cupped buttplate on your rifle unless there are signs of period rework. Dont worry about the sitehood.

Scott B

**Captain Emo** · 05-27-2005, 10:52 AM

Yes, the numbers match. Most are only the last two digits. In this case, 67. They are stamped, and have no indication of later engraving. The numbers on the stock seem to correct and period. This one came with a sling. If memory is correct, the sling was marked with what looks like two lower case "a"s over "44".

**bodes** · 05-27-2005, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by sszza2

Bodes,

Your comments from Laws 'BBOTW' is exactly why that reference cannot be trusted with even nmany of the basics.

I own a completely matching, correct and un-reworked 337/40 in the 'g' range which utilizes a laminated stock, flat buttplate and does not have site hood. I have data on a few later 337's which support that they all utilized flat buttplates and were putting on site hoods by late '40. In addition I own two matching/correct and un-reworked bcd41's. The first is in the 'e' range and has a flat buttplate. The second is in the 'k' range and has a cupped buttplate. I have additional data on bcd41s which further support transition to cupped buttplate within the range I have indicated.

This is just another example of why you cannot trust Law and the single collection / collector / expert he utilized for understanding the major variations (say fantasy bnz40) or subtlties as discussed above.

Scott B

Scott, I'm merely going by the reference I have....Law's book clearly shows a May 30,1940 (30-5-40) date on the shop print for the Kornschutz (front sight protector)....Although I am unable to decipher the date (Feb.28,1940 according to Law) on the drawing for the cupped Kolbenklappe (buttplate) I have to believe Law was fairly consistant with the dating on the shop prints for the various Mauser parts....I'm in NO position to refute these findings and not sure your in the position either....Bodes

**3371940** · 05-27-2005, 09:13 PM

BOTW, not perfect

I agree with Scott here. While the slotted front sight base and cupped butt plate may have been on the drawing board in 1940 actual implementation is another thing entirely.

Studying true matching examples and their SN range is the bets way to go as far as determining particular characteristics of a rifle.

Of course there are exceptions. There are many pre-41' dated 98k's that have the slotted front sight base in the event they were rebarreled or modified.

FWIW my bolt MM "b" block has a flat butt plate and no provision for the sight protector.

Also, I'd have to check, but most SN's are the full 4 digit.

**Captain Emo** · 05-27-2005, 09:27 PM

My rifle's serial number is four digits, but I was referring to what is stamped on the small metal parts. Only the last two digits. The wood is stamped with four digits.

**bodes** · 05-27-2005, 09:38 PM

[QUOTE=3371940]I agree with Scott here. While the slotted front sight base and cupped butt plate may have been on the drawing board in 1940 actual implementation is another thing entirely.

Studying true matching examples and their SN range is the bets way to go as far as determining particular characteristics of a rifle.

Of course there are exceptions. There are many pre-41' dated 98k's that have the slotted front sight base in the event they were rebarreled or modified.

I agree that it would've been some time before the cupped buttplate and sight protector would've been fully implemented.....Real world scenarios make that a reality.....Just because something is drawn up on the board one day doesn't mean they started placing them on rifles the next....You have to have time designing/building the tooling for such "changeovers"....The one question I have though is why Waffen Werke Brunn (dot) was in the process of implementing these as early as 1940?...We see the G33/40 already utilizing these upgrades.....The Vz33 which was the rifle used to convert into the G33/40 was lacking these features....So one has to believe it was only a matter of time before the other rifle contractors changed over including Gustloff Werke.....How soon this happened, does anybody really know?.....Bodes

**3371940** · 05-27-2005, 09:47 PM

[QUOTE=bodes]

Originally posted by 3371940

I agree with Scott here. While the slotted front sight base and cupped butt plate may have been on the drawing board in 1940 actual implementation is another thing entirely.

Studying true matching examples and their SN range is the bets way to go as far as determining particular characteristics of a rifle.

Of course there are exceptions. There are many pre-41' dated 98k's that have the slotted front sight base in the event they were rebarreled or modified.

I agree that it would've been some time before the cupped buttplate and sight protector would've been fully implemented.....Real world scenarios make that a reality.....Just because something is drawn up on the board one day doesn't mean they started placing them on rifles the next....You have to have time designing/building the tooling for such "changeovers"....The one question I have though is why Waffen Werke Brunn (dot) was in the process of implementing these as early as 1940?...We see the G33/40 already utilizing these upgrades.....The Vz33 which was the rifle used to convert into the G33/40 was lacking these features....So one has to believe it was only a matter of time before the other rifle contractors changed over including Gustloff Werke.....How soon this happened, does anybody really know?.....Bodes

Bodes:

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>

True the 945, 1940 33/40’s have the cupped butt plate. That design (nazi modification) of the vz33 incorporated the cupped plate along with the side plate. Also, the vz33 wasn’t exactly being mass produced like say the vz24 so there wasn’t much of a transition. There are some references to white bolts on early 945, 1940’s but I have yet to see one.

<o

></o

>

Bystricia was making laminated flat butt plates on G. 24 (t)’s in 41.

**3371940** · 05-27-2005, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Captain Emo

My rifle's serial number is four digits, but I was referring to what is stamped on the small metal parts. Only the last two digits. The wood is stamped with four digits.

Captain Emo:

Well you forced me to go down into the safe and check my 337, 1940.

All secondary parts with the exception of the rear sight button and follower have the full 4 digit SN. Keep in mind my rifle is a bolt MM so I didn't check the bolt.

**bodes** · 05-28-2005, 07:38 AM

I have to believe that Waffen Brunn (dot) was merely a contractor that was able to make these changes completely "in house"....What I mean by this is they were equipped with the appropriate presses and dies to manufacturer their own front sight protectors and cupped buttplates.....Therefore as they started building their G33/40 rifles, they were good to go....Other contractors initially had to rely on subcontractors to supply them with their cupped buttplates....Contractors such as 'bpr', 'brg', 'dwc', and 'gqm' were some of the early suppliers of these parts.....whether/not these subcontractors continued to supply these items until the war ended, I do not know....Having said all that, I have to believe that Captain Emo's 337/1940 would've had the conventional "flat" buttplate when it left the factory.....Serial # extensions that Scott and 3371940 eluded to should bear out the facts of this

.....Bodes

**sszza2** · 05-28-2005, 10:41 AM

The point that there is not necessarily any relationship between drawing board timing and manufacture/implementation is well taken.

Given that the G33/40 and K98k are substantially different rifles from an engineering and utility standpoint - I think it is inappropriate to make a comparison. A more accurate comparison would be the K98k and G24t. In that comparison, the rifles are much more similar as is the flat buttplate vs, cupped utilization and timing.

In any case, I suspect that implementation of sitehood use was based on adding a step to the manufacture process of the front site base. I think it is likely that once old assemblies were used up, the new stock of improved site bases was utilized. This is likely how the flat buttplate to cupped buttplate stock was implemented. Retro fitting on the line is not exactly an efficient way to manufacture. Depot reworks and conversions are a different story.

Scott B

Announcement

1940 337 Questions

1940 337 Questions

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread