So, there I was, grilling some steaks, pondering why so many bcd coded G43s seem to have lightly sanded stocks.
It seems to me that the bcd coded G43s almost always have a sanded stock, more so than the other makers.
Is this observation correct?
While the standard explanation is postwar modificaiton, I was thinking there may be a more reasonable wartime explanation.
According to Weaver's book, Gustlaff was making these guns with parts from other makers. In the case of recievers, these were made well before the gun was actually assembled (a '44 dated gun with "early" milled reciever).
Lets say the wooden stocks were acquired from elsewhere as well, perhaps they were doing the sanding to remove some existing marks, kind of like arsenal renumbered magazines in the world of P.08s.
Seems reasonable to me.
It seems to me that the bcd coded G43s almost always have a sanded stock, more so than the other makers.
Is this observation correct?
While the standard explanation is postwar modificaiton, I was thinking there may be a more reasonable wartime explanation.
According to Weaver's book, Gustlaff was making these guns with parts from other makers. In the case of recievers, these were made well before the gun was actually assembled (a '44 dated gun with "early" milled reciever).
Lets say the wooden stocks were acquired from elsewhere as well, perhaps they were doing the sanding to remove some existing marks, kind of like arsenal renumbered magazines in the world of P.08s.
Seems reasonable to me.
Comment