1939 is the rarest by far, - rifles "made/assembled" by BSW that is.. most 1939 dated BSW are just BSW made receivers and were not assembled by BSW. You need to look closely at the acceptance pattern.
Just wondering what the production years were for the BSW rifles - I thought it was only one year, but have seen both 1937 and 1939 dated receivers recently... TIA for any info!
Milsurps - like legal crack
"There were 1.5 million people at the inauguration and only 14 missed work." - unknown
3782 posts on the previous G.B. V.3
1937, 1938, & 1939. The production numbers each year were not very high either, thought I remembered 50K a year or so in the beginning but I am sure the experts will chime in on that as well.
They didn't make 50k any year. Not even 1938 (the largest prod. year).
Some of the confusion is that some 1938 BSW receivers worked their way over to Gustloff Weimar’s production in 1939 and all known so far are in the high "d" block, - which again throws off the production for those who do not understand rifle production and acceptance. (this is why a serial study is worthless without finals and acceptance patterns documented)
Anyway, off hand, I would say maybe 90k were made all 3 years combined (almost half in 1938). Unless more examples show up to change this.
Obviously, these comments are based on my observations and it is possible someone has seen a BSW/38 with proper BSW acceptance. Unfortunately I have not seen one, and no study that has one reported bothers to consider acceptance in their study (so no telling where the rifle is made until it is shown or described properly)
A serial study is only as good as the questions asked and collected.
What receiver proofs should be seen on a bsw made/assembled gun?
P.S. I shouldn't have thrown out the 50K estimate, I just meant to indicate they were not popping out 100-400K guns a year like Mauser or others.
However it’s more complicated than this. You have to examine the rifle further.. Obviously a BSW/1938 with e/749 final is a give away that it’s a Gustloff Weimar assemble. Much like BLM, BSW went on to better things... when they went MG34/42 they sent their spares to Gustloff Weimar and the local Luftgaue (LG/4) and you have to examine the rifle, not just the serial (this is true regardless of the code/date on the rifle- acceptance and final is what matters. not the code... biggest problem with Backboner is the author didn't understand this- worse at the time there were collectors that did.)
If the rifle has a Luftamt then it isn't BSW made either.. although it is possible its a re-barrel.
Lots of variables.
These two are all matched but the bolts. Are they full bsw? What else would you need to see?
Sorry, the file order got all mixed up but the wood will show which is which.
Is the meaning of the three receiver acceptance marks..... left to right, acceptance of receiver, acceptance of barrelled receiver, and acceptance of completed rifle, with this final acceptance sometimes placed on the top of the receiver by some makers?
The acceptance on the receiver nearest the butt plate is the manufacturer of the receiver. The remaining waa/# represents different phases of assembly. Not sure which phase though.
Wisconsin, land of cow $hit and beer farts.
Backboner is actually good for this topic (the only section I really like in Backboner is the part that details the steps of assembly as they follow a pattern consistent with P08 studies and is probably accurate).
As I detailed in the May09 MRJ, I believe the stamps can be described as:
1. Number one waffenamt to the left on the right receiver to represent “receiver properly hardened”.
2. Number two “assembly and inspection” of the parts involved before “proof fire” or “test firing”. Corresponding waffenamt on barrel.
3. Number three “final inspection after test firing”. Corresponding waffenamt on barrel, etc.
Generally the 1st position is the receivers maker, although this is less certain as the war progressed.
Checkout Backboner on the details as it is quite in-depth and worthwhile. It also “generally” follows what Walter, Kenyon, Görtz have written regarding the P08.