My First 98K

[Heer Flak]

Thank you all again for the nice comments. I am going to post the picture even though many of you said it was not necessary. However, I am going to post it because I said I would. Besides it gives me a chance to work on my photography skills. You can see in the picture the proof mark "C" and also part of a Waffenamt in the upper right hand corner.

Eric

[Mike Steves]

bcd

I would say original finish too- the pictures decieve the eye, as you took them outside, and the contrast makes the gun look like the finish is even, which it is not- by the way, NICE RIFLE.

[Jarrid Marsh]

I dont know how anyone can say thats reblued, it has every indication of the opposite, not only that I dont think its ever been apart.

Nice gun!!

Jarrid

[graf]

I disagree... I can easily see why someone would think it re-blued, the images do seem to give that impression first glance.
Imo it isn't re-blued, I have examined the images closely and all things considered I believe it is original (only a hands on would make me sure), as near mint as they come for sure & that always gives us cause for initial concern these days.

I have owned 2 very near mint 43 Gustloffs (still do one of them), and 3 mostly matching/ not so mint examples. This one is far & away better than any of them- you just don't see such mint examples & when they do my first reaction is always to have doubts...

I understand the "Gog" view & although I disagree with his assessment this time, I absolutely share his caution regarding the current state of 98k collecting.

[bodes]

Graf, I agree first impressions might give that idea...but if you've handled a few ORIGINAL period blued pieces, you'd know that this K98k is good IMHO....Wear is proper/consistant for one with minimal handling...And people need to realize that the stock is generally more prone to showing use....Bodes

[graf]

where’s my cheese doodles?

Really now, I have owned dozens of "original", matching, & quality 98k rifles, still do matter of fact (Imperial Gewehr98's & especially the Kar98a which are my main interest these days) and have been on numerous boards for years; answered a great many questions detailing my experience with them.
In short I would wager my experience in these rifles against any here- to be blunt about it.
Regarding this rifle, you certainly have a right to your view regarding this particular rifle, I for one share the view it is in its original form & finish- however that said I saw & still see no reason for pounding Gog for his justifiable opinion... that was the only reason I chimed in at all as I thought it pointless to squash a fellows view simply because everyone else didn't share it.
I don’t agree (with you & many others here) that it is so obvious from those pictures to come to that conclusion. Regarding minimal stock wear & associating that to minimal finish wear I even more so disagree- I have owned many rifles with minimal stock wear yet the metal finish shows significant wear. My 85% 43 Gustloff is a prime example, the stock is better than this one, yet the metal is 85% with some areas showing more wear- especially on Gustloffs & Bystricia rifles where the stocks have minimal proofing early on. (imo stock wear or lack there of is a good indicator but alone proves little)

These days there are plenty of fraudulent rifles about, I see them nearly everyday... many use the protection of a quality re-blue to cover such tampering up (some with simple cold blue others with more elaborate efforts.)

Simply put, having a healthy dose of suspicion these days is nothing to be ashamed of.

Graf, I agree first impressions might give that idea...but if you've handled a few ORIGINAL period blued pieces, you'd know that this K98k is good IMHO....Wear is proper/consistant for one with minimal handling...And people need to realize that the stock is generally more prone to showing use....Bodes

[Chet Sowersby]

.