T & S arrived. Chamber cast.

[ellenbr]

What perplexes me is the length of 74 1/2mm. I don't think the proofhouse would have measured in 1/2 mm increments unless the intended cartridge for the sporting arm was denoted as such. But as Ford says once you fire-form the brass it doesn't really matter what you call it.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[Axel E]

Mine is only marked 8.9 without case length but has proof load, so I guess its pre 1912. I PMed Jim Cates the serial #,but haven't heard back from him with a closer date

Mike,
as I stated above, the only certain date with the Suhl proofhouse is April1, 1912, when they changed from gauge numbers to millimeters. As your gun is marked 8.9 it was proofed after this date. The changeover from powdercharge marking to bullet weight took place during the following months. As your gun shows that mixup of markings, I am quite sure it was proofed about mid-1912.
Sauer & Sohn serial numbers are about useless for close dating. HF studied the S&S factory records at the Suhl state archive. Apparently S&S assigned the serial numbers right at the start of making a gun. Already numbered guns were often kept in stock in some stage of completion until an order came in. He told me that some numbers remained in the inventory for more than 10 years, while others with much higher serial ## were were marked "completed/shipped" almost immediately. That fake "H.Goering" ou double rifle recently sold by Julia is an example: It was listed for many years as being in stock in the white, but there is no note that it ever left the factory before 1945.

[ellenbr]

April 1st, 1912 for sure is a hard and fast date for the Suhl rules change but empirical data as well as info from authors in GGCA articles note that the Suhl proofhouse began stamping the mm dimension as early as 1910. The proofhouse seemed to take a great deal of liberty and I've heard Ford say that a change was not abrupt and it would be possible to see a plug gauge stamp post April 1912, if I remember him correctly. Did H. Freuhauf just take a passing glance at the S&S archives or it he commit it to memory? Also did he note the makers of any other ledgers in the Suhl State Archives?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[Axel E]

What "empirical data" and which "GGCA articles"? Zella-Mehlis used mm stamps before 1912, adding date and ledger number. Suhl did not use a date stamp until 1923, so how do you know a gun proofed in Suhl in say, 1910? If there is a proof date it was not proofed in Suhl, even if it bears a Suhl maker's name. Many Suhl gunmakers bought in a lot of cheaper guns from the Zella-Mehlis guntrade, already proofed there. Especially the making of Schützen target rifles was most often left to the Z-M specialists. BTW, Hendrik has copies of the S&S books and of some others, and he has studied many guns, so I rather believe him. German serial numbers in general are not to be relied on for dating a gun. There is a well-documented case involving two identical guns. As it turned out, the one with the lower serial number was sold much later. The gunmaker, Oskar Will of Z-M, had assigned number blocks of 100 each to the different independent outworkers who actioned guns not only for Will, but for other gunmakers too. So it was possile that one actioner, who had better paid jobs to do, had not yet completed his batch, while another was working on guns several hundreds higher numbered. Further, new gunmakers avoided to stat their serial numbers with "1", as few customers wanted to serve as guinea pigs, so they started with a higher number. Some, like Sauer, numbered all their production in one series, rgardless of types and models, wile others started a new series with each model. On the other hand, Mauser had many sporting rifle barrels marked with both gauge numbers and millimeters well after gauge numbers were obsolete in Germany. In fact, all Mauser .22 barrels up to 1945 are marked with the gauge number 459.

[Axel E]

To see the futility of trying to date a German gun by serial number, you need not go back to the original Sauer & Sohn files. Just have a look into Jim Cate's book, pages 267 -333, where he lists serial numbers and proof dates, if available: FI just the following numbers and proof dates from page 307: #225377 = dated 3/28, 226061 = 3/24, 229470 = 6/26, 231627 = 11/27, 232103 = 1/25, 232590 = 7/28, 233821 = 4/25 and so on.

[ellenbr]

I'll address your last post 1st. The futility lies with holding with either the serialization or final pass proof date. Unless it was like circa 1990 here in the U.S. of A. where a block of steel was issued a serial number in order that it may be completed at some date post the then new gun law, a sporting arm had to be issued a serial number for a reason: order, etc. So if you distinguish between the issuance and the final proof date the issue dissolves. I do not see how one cannot hold with sequential serialization. If not, just draw numbers out of a hat and stamp them on the frame? Yes, you do need to go back to the Sauer & Sohn files that Hendrik Freuhauf apparently has viewed a couple of times to remove the exceptions to the sequential serialization completion range. Otherwise you a just guessing a completion date outside of the sequential serialization completion range.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

Interesting tangent on the Mauer 0.22" tubes. I'll have to dig to find the couple of articles & I recall the gist of the article to be centered around a trip to the Suhl Museum. Authors that come to mind were either Laborde or Spencer and Axel you might have been in the lot, but I don't think so. From memory it was stated that the use of the plug gauge fell out of favour circa 1910. One article is found in GGCA Autumn 2000, Volume 3, Nr. 3, on page 15 of the "No-Name Drilling" Article by John Laborde under the image of a tube with 118/35 stamped vertically is a note that the plug gauge mark was used until around 1910. I'm sure the authors were parroting what they had gleaned at the Museum. Redact, recant, capitulate, etc. and it matters not to me, but it appears that someone needs to get their story straight. The empirical data is a derivative of those pesky marks found on the tubes, Axel, the tubes. They form an ensemble and tell a story. Then coupled with peripheral data, a probability can be assigned and a group of sporting arms possibly with or without the same peripheral data will point to a date range. The story in the form of a model is going to point back to a small pool of talented mechanics, who are going to be the basis for sourcing and I'm sure family relationships are going to be one of the keys. This will also set the foundation for a quality model, which until now was pretty much noted by the name of a maker as well as having an eye for quality. Even the Brits and their wares aren't going to be able to turn a blind eye to such a model in their realm as begrudgingly they are going to have to admit that they too sourced.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

Zella-Mehlis used mm stamps before 1912, adding date and ledger number. Suhl did not use a date stamp until 1923, so how do you know a gun proofed in Suhl in say, 1910? If there is a proof date it was not proofed in Suhl, even if it bears a Suhl maker's name. Many Suhl gunmakers bought in a lot of cheaper guns from the Zella-Mehlis guntrade, already proofed there. Especially the making of Schützen target rifles was most often left to the Z-M specialists. BTW, Hendrik has copies of the S&S books and of some others, and he has studied many guns, so I rather believe him. German serial numbers in general are not to be relied on for dating a gun. There is a well-documented case involving two identical guns. As it turned out, the one with the lower serial number was sold much later.

You can believe who you want as that is your prerogative. But without a copy of the entry of the ledger for a specific serial number, I for one would tread lightly. Sure the mechanics sourced the craftsmen in Z-M. But it has been stated that more was accomplished with a Z-M address when submitting to the Z-M proofhouse and a Suhl address when submitting to the Suhl proofhouse. And yes they began applying a date earlier and I've seen some examples there were a little after 1900. Also for a short time from say Sept. 1923 to April 1924 the Suhl proofhouse did use a ledger type number.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[mike ford]

To quote the King of Siam, in The King and I, it is a "puzzlement". All this is why I try to avoid the minutia of the marks on the barrels,other than the proofmarks,themselves( incl caliber).We all depend on different sources for information and have different experiences with the application of the information. Sometimes mistakes are made, even by "authorities",which are "picked up" by others and passed on further.Indeed, confusion was the reason the prooflaws were improved in 1911-12 and changed in 1939-40. To quote Lee Kennet (my main source of info)"But gun makers continued to agitate for a new and comprehensive proof law. The project was taken up in governmental circles several times after WW1 but in the unsettled conditions of the 1920s, none of these projects was translated into legislation." Also to quote Kennet, speaking of the 1891 law (with 1911-12 improvements) "All of these practices seem to have been left up to the individual proofhouses, whose customs varied." Just as an aside, when they stopped marking caliber as a gauge and started using milimeter, they still made the measurement with plug gages, just marked differently, so they didn't fall out of favor. Also I have seen several cases where the caliber marked in guage was misread as a date(some of which made no sense anyway). Still a puzzlement?
Mike

[Axel E]

" A sporting arm had to be issued a serial number for a reason: order, etc." Order or orders, that's what S&S did. It makes little economical sense to machine actions or other parts one at a time in the sequence orders come in. So they made batches to save on machining time, even if actual orders were only for one such gun or a few. They completed them to either a "Gesteck" or in the white stage, registered them with the serial number and put them in storage. So, if an order came in for such a gun, they could easily look up their list if such a gun was in store, send it to the proofhouse (why spend the proofhouse fees before it is necessary?), complete it as to grade or custom details as ordered and sent it out. This saved a lot of waiting time for a customer, a prime requisite even then. Why not enter those parts assemblies held in stock mark with the final serial number to keep track of them? Remember, we are in pre-computer times here. BTW, the examples of out of tune proof dates are just some examples from one of 29 pages in Jim Cate's lists of S&S serial numbers. About 20% of the proofdates listed are out of sequence with the serial numbers!
" If not, just draw numbers out of a hat and stamp them on the frame?" Yes, we can do! several years ago I had a country master gunsmith, with the licence to actually make guns, put together a .308 Norma magnum bolt action for me. He asked me for my birth date. when the rifle came back from the Suhl proofhouse, it was signed with his address and the "serial number" 100248. German gun laws require that a gun submitted for proof be signed with the maker's name or his known trademark, caliber and a registration number that allows identification through the gunmaker's ledger.
"Interesting tangent on the Mauer 0.22" tubes." See Jon Speed's books "Mauser Smallbores" and "Mauser Archive", page 213.
" I'll have to dig to find the couple of articles & I recall the gist of the article to be centered around a trip to the Suhl Museum. Authors that come to mind were either Laborde or Spencer and Axel you might have been in the lot, but I don't think so." Yes, I was involved, see page 7 of that publication. I served as an interpreter for the Americans, so I plead guilty for that misinformation, lol. On our tour through the Suhl proofhouse then we were shown the old plug gages, already mm size. Someone asked when the changeover from gauge numbers to mm took place. The proofmaster answered something like "well, I don't know, but must have been somewhere around 1910". Not knowing any better then, I translated "About 1910". John then used this rough guess to date his drilling and published this inaccurate date . This is the way myths are born. Well, that was 12 years ago and we have learned a lot during the past dozen years. We now know from the original order that Suhl made the changeover from gauge numbers to millimeters April 1912, while Mehlis made the change in 1911. Even before Mehlis marked proofdates and ledger numbers, together with gauge numbers, on rifle barrels even earlier. Learning and gathering knowledge about German guns is the purpose of the GGCA and it would be a sorry state of affairs if older half-knowledge and guesses were not replaced by new findings. Even standard reference books contain errors or lack important information. FI Wirnsberger's "The Standard Directory of Proof Marks" fails to mention the CROWN - crown/N proofmarks that are found on most pre-WW1 Suhl and Z-M made bolt-action rifles. Z-M used the marks even into the 1920s. These denote smokeless proof using the "4000 atm powder" according to the rule of July 23, 1893. BTW this book was certainly not improved by the translation to English.
If a proof date is stamped on a barrel I rather take that officially applied number instead of other markings by barrelmakers or mechanics. Barrels and tubesets are only parts and may have been in stock for some time before the gun was completed and proofed. Take f.i. my Lovena dr drilling: As you noted on another forum, it was finally completed in Czechia and proofed by the Prague proofhouse in 1963, but the tube set was made by Louis Kelber, Suhl between 1940 and 1945, as they show the German eagle/M material proofmark too.

[mike ford]

Axel,
What can you tell us about other proofhouses- Oberndorf, Berlin?-Spandau?, Munich?
Mike

[ellenbr]

Good to know the source of the 1910 date error. I haven't looked but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned 3 times in GGCA publications. I agree that new, correction info needs to replace old, antiquated info. True components are stamped but mechanics had a limited window of operation and some mechanics with the same initials may overlap in time. But the minutia of the mark for the most part can be solved and we are on the cusp developing protocol that will point back to the mechanics as well as the time frame. I don't think 20% is a representative number while the outliers are probably 1/2 that as you don't consider the difference in completion time for run of the mill models which just roll of the assembly lines and the top rung offering which might consume a year. Another item that needs to be considered in the difference in time lines is War. Some may have initially began prior and finished later or pre-War parts were consumed post War as there was a lack of materials. All of these items and more need to be considered in the models. Z-M did proof earlier and as far back as 1902 or 1903 if I remember correctly.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

Speaking of antiquated, by September 1908 articles on the plug gauge note it being obsolete and it seems many are glad to transition to mm as soon as possible.

"Schlimmer jedoch als dieser Reichtum an überflüssigen Beschussstempeln ist beim deutschen Beschussgesetz die aus den englischen Bestimmungen übernommene, veraltete Kaliberbezeichnung. Statt den Durchmesser des Laufes in Millimetern anzugeben, schlägt man eine Kalibernummer auf, welche selbst für die meisten Fachleute unverständlich ist und in vielen Fällen das Kaliber nicht einmal genau festlegt; so bezeichnet z. B. die Zahl 141,95, dass der Bohrungsdurchmesser des Laufes 8,13 mm beträgt. Hierzu kommt noch dass die moderne Waffentechnik kleinkalibrige Läufe herstellt für welche eine genau passende Kaliberbezeichnung in den Beschusstafeln nicht enthalten ist.

Bei den Schrotläufen hat man ebenfalls an der Kaliberbezeichnung statt der Millimeterangabe festgehalten; auch hier wäre es empfehlenswerter, an Stelle der ungenauen Kalibernummern die wirklichen Durchmesser aufzuschlagen, und zwar für das Patronenlager den Durchmesser des vorderen Randes, für die Laufbohrung den Durchmesser auf 22 cm vom Kammerende, sowie denjenigen der Mündung. Hierdurch erhält man ein genaues Bild von der wirklichen Laufbohrung und kann aus den Zahlen für den eigentlichen Lauf entnehmen ob und in welcher Stärke eine Würgebohrung vorhanden ist."

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse