1940 337 Questions

[bodes]

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

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

I agree that retro fitting while manufacturing will only impede the process....Not to mention,I think it's safe to say the Third Reich had its share of "bean counters" in its hierarchy.....They were more concerned with getting quotas filled.....Numbers of weapons produced was far more important to them than whether/not the rifles have a flat buttplate or a cupped one....Numbers on a data sheet was all they were concerned with....Bodes

[bodes]

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.

Scott B[/QUOTE]

Well seeing that the G33/40 was implemented using the older Czech Vz33 technology, it's general design was already there....the Germans merely "Germanized" or reconfigured it to their own standards.....And the front sight protector and cupped buttplate was part of that....And as for using old supplies before using new ones,that wasn't always the case.....IF you look around you'll see plenty of later war pieces using earlier made parts.....It was not unusual for earlier milled parts to be used in lieu of more modern stamped parts...Bodes

[sszza2]

Bodes,

We are speaking of production during '40-'41. Late production is not an accurate comparison and is more representative of an anomoly. Anything goes last ditch as any parts new or old reject were utilized. Walnut stocks and Gew98 bolts are perfect examples.

Scott B

[bodes]

Bodes,

We are speaking of production during '40-'41. Late production is not an accurate comparison and is more representative of an anomoly. Anything goes last ditch as any parts new or old reject were utilized. Walnut stocks and Gew98 bolts are perfect examples.

Scott B

Scott, Unfortunately I think that's a bit of an "old wives tale" that early parts utilized later were all factory rejects.....I had a Mauser (byf44) semi-kriegsmodell that had an earlier milled front band that was still completely functional....Only thing was it was left in the "raw"....outer skin wasn't machined smooth...I also currently own a Waffen Werke Brunn (dot44) semi-kriegsmodell that has a fully funtional earlier milled floorplate while all other parts including trigger guard are sheetmetal stampings....And lastly, I own a K43, qve45 which has the earlier milled action cover with the internal dust cover.....I believe these were the ones used on the earlier G41's.....Bodes

[airbiscuit]

Listen to SSZZ. I have never before in my life seen a 1940 date Kar.98k with a cupped butt plate that was factory original. BOTW, while a good overall general text is flawed. I can also state that the various versions of that book have included fakes and cobbed together rifles, as is true of most reference works. They are references, not bibles. How about some detailed pics?

[bodes]

Listen to SSZZ. I have never before in my life seen a 1940 date Kar.98k with a cupped butt plate that was factory original. BOTW, while a good overall general text is flawed. I can also state that the various versions of that book have included fakes and cobbed together rifles, as is true of most reference works. They are references, not bibles. How about some detailed pics?

Airbiscuit, Go back and reread the end of post#14....Thankx, Bodes

[sszza2]

Bodes,

Re-read my last response-I said new or old reject. Not every milled component utilized was old reject stock. I believe in many cases they were NOS. I am not sure you completely understand K98k and their components manufacturing, inspection and assembly. Parts were rejected early on for various reasons some of which would not effect ultimate functionality. Based on the point you are trying to make with your examples, I am not sure that you understand each manufacturers specific build and component characteristics.

Scott B

[bodes]

Bodes,

Re-read my last response-I said new or old reject. Not every milled component utilized was old reject stock. I believe in many cases they were NOS. I am not sure you completely understand K98k and their components manufacturing, inspection and assembly. Parts were rejected early on for various reasons some of which would not effect ultimate functionality. Based on the point you are trying to make with your examples, I am not sure that you understand each manufacturers specific build and component characteristics.

Scott B

Nor do I believe you are the supreme authority .....In an earlier thread you alluded to the notion that the Germans used up "old stock" in factory before moving on to "new stock"....Your argument was in reference to the front sights.....Factory manufacturing just doesn't always work that way.... Parts are manufactured until their raw materials are exhausted.....They do not manufacture exactly 10,000 identical parts, assemble 10,000 rifles and then you're done.....It's just not that way....What than do they do with excess parts.....They hold them back as reserve stock....They then draw upon the stocks as needed.....Once converted to a newer design, they back off using the older stock.....It's not always a case where factories use up all of one item before moving on to something new.....In an Utopian world perhaps, but not in real world scenarios......Bodes

[gew98]

Bode ; This is an old subject for longtime 98k infomaniacs. The documentation noted on the authorization of the changes - to include buttplate and front sight hood were dated for december 1939. The caviat to this as it was in the first war with changes to the gew98/kart98a in 1916 was that manufacturers were allowed to CONTINUE manufacturing "old pattern" parts until they could effect tooling up for the changes WITHOUT affecting production of the 98k rifles. Basically they were given the green light to drag their feet for economic and production reasons..... just like in the great war. So the germans did not simply drop the tooling and retool meanwhile storing all the old pattern bits. They made and used as much as they could before the tooling was in place and ready.
There are parallels of this "induced lag time tool up" across the board in german arms production throughout WW2, and yes WW1 as well.

[bodes]

[QUOTE=gew98]Bode ; This is an old subject for longtime 98k infomaniacs. The documentation noted on the authorization of the changes - to include buttplate and front sight hood were dated for december 1939. The caviat to this as it was in the first war with changes to the gew98/kart98a in 1916 was that manufacturers were allowed to CONTINUE manufacturing "old pattern" parts until they could effect tooling up for the changes WITHOUT affecting production of the 98k rifles.

I think if you go back and read post#16, you'll see I mentioned the Nazi hierarchy was concerned with filling weapons quotas.....The bottom line was numbers......This was one of the way some higher ups stayed in good graces with the party.....This is not unusual, it happens in every day life....Bodes

[bodes]

So the germans did not simply drop the tooling and retool meanwhile storing all the old pattern bits. They made and used as much as they could before the tooling was in place and ready.
There are parallels of this "induced lag time tool up" across the board in german arms production throughout WW2, and yes WW1 as well.

I agree that they would not stop production merely to initiate drawing changes.....But in "real world" scenarios, it's not at all unusual for factories to manufacture excess parts in plans for upcoming factory changeovers.....This is to ensure a steady flow in weapons production....And in doing so, it's also not unusual for the remnants of the unused items to sit until called upon again when needed...That's why I stated before the three examples of earlier parts being pushed into service on later made rifles....Bodes

[sszza2]

Bodes,

Apparently you do not like people to disagree with you. Sorry if I didnt catch that rule on this forum.

You are speaking as if every manufacturer utilized parts produced in house. Obviously this is not correct. Did you ever consider that sub contractors and manufacturers had excess capacity which was sold throughout the system and then utilized as needed. This would account for NOS parts being pulled randomly from stock and utilized in assemblies until they ran out. It also explains some mixed features later on. However salvaged G41 parts as utilized on your QVE45 represent another issue.

Scott B

[bodes]

Scott....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.....Post#14

.....Bodes

[gew98]

I agree that they would not stop production merely to initiate drawing changes.....But in "real world" scenarios, it's not at all unusual for factories to manufacture excess parts in plans for upcoming factory changeovers.....This is to ensure a steady flow in weapons production....And in doing so, it's also not unusual for the remnants of the unused items to sit until called upon again when needed...That's why I stated before the three examples of earlier parts being pushed into service on later made rifles....Bodes

Bodie ; You seem not to have studied the german depot system. In both world wars the germans dumped large quantites of "old pattern" parts into the depot system when such major changes were in fact incorporated into production.
It it is quite common to find salvaged and repaired 98k's that utilized the earlier pattern parts . Late war rifles that legitimately sport earlier pattern parts are most likely to have utilized REJECTED parts that those frugal germans simply did not toss away.

[sszza2]

Bodes-No kidding on the subcontractor parts? Throughout all of your posts you demonstrate that you are master of the obvious or at least 'BBOTW'. The simple fact is that no K98k manufacturer was completely self sufficient during wartime production. All manufacturers relied on subcontractors for parts to varying degrees. So whats your point?

Bill - The G98 and G98 rework comparisons are spot on in this discussion especially when you consider the use of RC parts and assemblies.

Scott