Recently acquired J.P. Sauer & Sohn (Suhl) Sporting Rifle (c. 1912)

[sbakf]

Dan,

Just read your post and appreciate your input. Unfortunately, I can't offer a comment as I'm still extremely naïve on the mechanics of the Mauser action. I've only been at it (studying) for a few days now. My 2 reference books arrived last Friday and I've spent most of my evenings. since, reading them. I have much still to learn, but I'm trying.

From what little I've read, however, it appears that Rigby wasn't much different than other commercial sporting rifle companies. These companies bought their actions from Mauser as either new productions or used surplus (e.g., military). Mauser could either attach one of their own barrels or not. The same was also true with the stocks. Rigby, I'm thinking, was a little more sophisticated in that they added a lot of their own refined touches to the Mauser action before presentation to their customers. In the end, nevertheless, the guts of their rifles were still Mauser.

Keep following this thread, I'm sure others will soon respond directly to your posting.

Steve

P.S.

I truly sympathize with you on the loss of your literary masterpiece. I've had that experience too many times - hit a wrong button or the power goes out. Now I paste real-time copies to a word document file about every paragraph or so.

[Axel E]

From what I've read and tables seen, I can't present any argument(s) to the contrary. Yet, there's more for me to do before I offer that final judgment. I'm always cautious in my assessments (e.g., suggests vs indicates/proves).

That's not my problem, as I have done all the research for about 40 years by now. For instance, finding out about those CROWN-crown/N proofmarks took me some years. They are not mentioned in the atandard literature, especially not the English one. Wirnsberger and Steindler's "The Standard Directory of Proof Marks" doesn't even mention them. Then I came upon a very old and rare book, Otto Maretsch: "Moderne Jagdwaffen", Berlin 1910. This gave the hint as quoted above. A trip to the Göttingen university library for a look into the 1893 Reichsgesetzblatt verified the finding. Of course, you have to have a working knowledge of German to do such research.
My "final judgement" on your rifle is clear: It once was a very early bolt action made by Sauer & Sohn, Suhl, in 8x57I on either a pre-transitional 97 or a transitional 98 standard length action provided by Mauser in1897/98. As usual for the time, it has the "4000 atm" proof marks. It now has a much later, mismatched bolt. It was heavily altered by some American bubba: the elegant original "Schnabel" foreend was cut off and lengthened with a tasteless piece of bone . The original sling swiveels were replaced with bases for American qd swivels. A modern rubber buttplate was added. All relevant information was provided by members of this forum.

UPDATE:
Found a good series of posting on an older thread tonight. I'll read through it again tomorrow, but it seems to clarify the meaning of 172/28. Photos contained in this thread look very similar to my own - even the 58 stamp. Reloading info is also provided. Re: http://forums.gunboards.com/showthre...some-questions
Steve

Nice you have found this thread. I had forgotten about it.
with best regards!
Axel E aka kuduae

[mike ford]

Steve, this is to consolidate or maybe confuse different posts.The different dates of the reciever,proof dates and Sauer serial numbers,seem to be confusing you.The action was made by Mauser in 1898, as evidenced by the mauser serial number, Mauser used the rifle(incl.action)for their own purposes( tests,development,etc) and then sold the action to Sauer; who, at a later date, built the rifle you are studying, with it.This process seemingly took some significant time,resulting in a proof date(estimated)later than the date the action was made.This is not unusual, indeed Axel has documented misplaced pre-WW1 actions being used to build pre-WW2 sporters. The Sauer serial number would be the one IDing the date of the complete rifle.The Mauser number, would normally be of little import, except in this case the Mauser action is rare and very interesting; and has driven a lot of the conversation.As to the markings, the proof marks are those mandated by whichever law the rifle was proofed under. Marks not mandated by law are manufacturer's or supplier's or workman's marks. The makers marks may be informative, but are not required. Except for well known and documented suppliers marks,others are confusing,not verifiable, and really mean little.As you can see, Axel and Jim, as well as others, have invested a great deal of time and effort in researching this, and even they change their minds when new evidence is found.Consequently, a new owner can't expect to learn everything in a couple weeks.Being fully literate in German, Axel and Jim will disagree, but I believe you will learn more about proofs by reading/re-reading Lee Kennett's article entitled "A History of Proof Marks", "Gun Proof in Germany", which is found in the 1975 Edition of Gun Digest, than any other way.
Mike

[Axel E]

Mike, I disagree here.
1.) Martin has correctly dated the Sauer & Sohn serial number 79000 to the 1890s, see Jim Cate's S&S book page 280.
2.) Mauser stamped their own commercial serial numbers under the receiver rings only on actions meant to be sold as "actions only" or "barreled actions " to other gunmakers like Rigby or S&S and so on, see Jon Speed's "Original Oberndorf Sporting Rifles", page 146. On rifles completed by Mauser their serial number is invariably on the left side of the receiver ring, visible above the wood.
3.) The proof marks don't indicate a post-1900 proof, rather pre-1900. The gauge numbers, here 172,28, = .300", were in use in Suhl from April 1893 to March 1912, so no datable hint here. The CROWN-crown/N proofs were used from 1893 to at least WW1, the Zella-Mehlis proofhouse even applied them in the early 1920s, as long as stocks of the "4000 atm powder" lasted? No hint either.
An important hint for dating the rifle is the service load marked: 2.75 gramm GBP. This is still the original 8x57I M88 military load. As the thin M88 brass cases were not really suitable for the then new Maxim machine guns, the German military introduced a new load named "Patrone M88 nA" (neuer Art = new kind) as early as 1893. This cartridge featured thicker case walls, thus a reduced powder space. The service powder charge was reduced to 2.67 g GBP. Civilian ammo production did not follow immediately, but all post-1900 8x57I rifles I know are marked with the new 2.67 g charge.
So the action was sold by Mauser as an "action only", late 1897 or early in1898, either made up from leftover parts or completely overhauled and renumbered ex-test-action parts. Sauer & Sohn started immediately, as shown by their serial number, to build the rifle on that action. The rifle was proofed by the Suhl proofhouse still in the 1890s, shown by the 2.75 service charge.

[mike ford]

Axel,
Of course I will have to accept your assessment, but I couldn't find in my last posting that I said it was proofed post 1900.I wrote it "off the top of my head" and avoided "hard" dates as best as I could, because there were very few hard dates, mostly approximate dates.It was stated that the Mauser number dated the action to 1898(my Rigby is numbered 100,on the left side of the ring and the rear of the mag,and the ring date of 1898 is still existing).Speed's book( as reported in The Bulletin Board Supplement #36)shows a total of 510 commercial actions and rifles sold in 1898. Even if mine was the very first in 1898, that would leave the top number 610, so 871 would likely be toward the end of 1898,if not 1899.I also understand these numbers are approximate, because they don't add up to the total produced(You have mentioned early actions being found and used later).By this, if the rifle was proofed pre 1900,it had to be very close.
Mike

[Jim Cate]

Axel, you are quite correct regarding the commercial Mauser bolt actions being numbered on the bottom 'ring' if they were sold to other companies like Sauer. Having been 'into' German automatic pistols for 50 years I would like to mention that Lugers made by DWM (Berlin) in 7,65mm caliber had the 172.28 marking on all the barrels which were used in the production of these pistols until April 1,1912. The Crown N nitro proof supposively was first used on that date as far as the original German data suggests. Naturally when the war started in 1914 there were very few commercial Lugers available even for DWM customers. When the war was over the Berlin Proofhouse continued using the C/N on their postwar Luger pistols. When Luger production went to Oberndorf the proofhouse there used the Crown U as the final proof. It is of interest to me that the Suhl Proofhouse continued using the Crown B, U & G on many (if not all) rifles that went through their hands; and some pistols for some unknown reasons. Also, a lot of the .22 "trainers" made for the German military in the 1930s also have the Crown B, U & G. The new proof laws were finalized in 1939 and went into effect for all proofhouses on January 15, 1940.
Lastly, the Cavemen used by Sauer in their logo were taken from the official Prussian National Symbol because Suhl was then a part of Prussia and remained so until the end of WWII. This is mentioned in my Sauer book and the Prussian National Coat of Arms with the Cavemen is shown also on page 42. Best regards, Jim

[mike ford]

Jim,
In my often disregarded opinion, the earliest of the commercial Mauser bolt actions were not necessarily numbered on the bottom of the ring, if they were sold to another company.This is evidenced by my Rigby,which has the Mauser number on the side of the ring next to the crown B and U,with the Rigby number(1088) lower, on the siderail under the wood (but also on the triggerguard).It was sold to Rigby as a barreled action, at least, as evidenced by the typical Mauser proofs(bore,groove,twist)as well as serial number(100). I didn't recover the stock, so I can't testify as to the number(s) on it. I suspect the idea to number them underneath came a little later, to avoid confusion.With regard to the confusion of the dates of Sauer Mauser rifles, the Speed Archive book, on page 343 has a copy of a "Running Account Register" for "First Orders from JP Sauer & Sohn". This starts in 1899, wrereas the one for Rigby starts in 1898. Within the register, it shows the first orders from Sauer, as follows:May 10,1 action;June 3, 25 actions;July 29, 50 actions,followed by four more orders of 50 each.This does not agree with dates from Axel and others. Also,the Register for the first order from Rigby(page 342)shows 6 Mauser rifle actions for Nov.24 (remember #100 was barreled).The Rigby records(shown by their letter of Jan, 25,2013)reports this rifle was sold to E.Leslie on September 10th,1898. This would be pretty fast work to sell it before recieving it from Mauser.There is an obvious disconnect somewhere.This leads me to wonder if Sauer and Rigby had another source,other than Mauser, for the first actions/rifles.Do you think it is possible that Spandau sold some to Sauer from the test rifles?The #100 had commercial type proofs, so couldn't come from Spandau.What do you think? Axel, do you have an idea?
Mike

[Dan Patch]

Mike: An early undated Rigby catalog for Mauser rifles in calibers .275 and .303 states they have been selling Mausers since 1897. This catalog carries as a cover illustration a drawing of a Rigby sporter built on a cock on closing action, but the illustrations in the interior pages are of '98s. There is also mention that Rigby is the Mauser concessionaire in Britain, but that wouldn't necessarily mean the 1897-dated actions were received from Oberndorf. Dan

[sbakf]

Hi Guys,

While you're sorting history, thought I'd post some pictures of my barrel's insides. Its a bit dusty, but looks pretty clean overall.

Muzzle end first, then from the other end in my next post.

SteveDSC01907.jpgIMG_0269 (2) - Copy.jpgIMG_0302 - Copy.jpgIMG_0304.jpg

[sbakf]

photos from the other end

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1592[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1593[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1594[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1595[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1596[/ATTACH]

[Axel E]

Mike, the very earliest Rigby I have seen was completely made by Mauser, with a straight grip stock and stepped, military style barrel. that one was at the shop of I.M Crudgington, formerly G.Gibbs, in Bristol, many years before. The "first" Mauser sales ledgers Jon published were rather the earliest Jon found. There must have been sales before these ledgers started, as the first entries are not for actions, but for other parts. Here is a Rigby sold by them before Jon's ledger starts October 3, 1898.
http://forums.nitroexpress.com/showf...e=8#Post218762
Even I have problems to decypher the old "German Kurrent" handwriting, but the "first" orders in the Rigby ledger are : stocks for stalking rifles(this contradicts the wisdom that Rigby stocked their sporters), front- and rear sight bases . The Sauer & Sohn ledger also starts with spare parts: Extractors for stalking rifles, pistol cartridges, pistols, firing pins for stalking rifles and so on. Perhaps the earliest "Rigbys" were completely made by Mauser, with the Mauser serial number on the left side and the Rigby serial number engraved on the triggerguard only. Or your rifle is one that was sent to rigby as a complete "German" rifle. Alas, obviously Rigby needed the stocks and sight bases to alter some rifles to their own taste. Have a look at page 35 of the "Archive": Mauser made several stocks to a pattern by Rigby in 1897, way before the "first ledger" started October 1898.
You cannot get away from the fact that #17 and # 871 are numbered on the underside in the usual Mauser fashion.
The pre-transitional and transitional actions were made by Mauser only. In 1899 the government arsenals Spandau, Danzig, Erfurt and Amberg were just starting to tool up to make the Gewehr 98 military rifles. They never made a small ring action prior to the adoption of the Kar98AZ in 1908.

[mike ford]

Axel,
I think you misunderstood my comment about Spandau.I didn't think they sold Spandau made actions to Sauer, I wondered if they sold Mauser made actions/rifles from the ones made for testing, after the tests were over. My Rigby was sold by them before Jon's ledger(actually Jon's ledger) starts, also. This was what made me start looking.I understand that there are a lot of questions and it is hard to come to a firm conclusion with only one or two examples of data avaliable.I also wondered if Rigby may have bought some in Germany "off the rack" somewhere.It is pretty clear numbers of actions and rifles don't add up. I guess it doesn't make a lot of difference now,over a hundred years later, but in my "work" with construction contracting, things had to add up or something was wrong. It's hard to break old habits.By the way,the Rigby number was not engraved on the triggerguard, it was clearly stamped,and very nicely too as would be expected of them.Later ones may have been engraved. I seems that the only thing that is the same is, nothing is the same.
\ Waidmannsheil,
Mike

[Jim Cate]

Mike, Regarding your statement above: In my often disregarded opinion, the earliest of the commercial Mauser bolt actions were not necessarily numbered on the bottom of the ring, if they were sold to another company. I don't have a problem with that because I have seen Oberndorf Mauser receivers numbered on the left side of the ring and the Sauer serial number on the barrel immediately to the left of the Mauser number. I first noticed this years ago on a U.S. Military Capture Paper. I held the gun in my hand and saw the Sauer number on the barrel, but also noticed the Mauser number on the left side of the ring. The Capture Paper had mistakenly recorded the Mauser number rather than the Sauer (gun) number. Sorry, but I cannot comment on Rigbys as I don't know much about them. Regards, JIM

[sbakf]

Finally took my bolt apart today. As it was my first experience with a Buehler (2-position) safety, I found the procedure to be a pain in the as*. Putting the bolt back together was almost as complicated as taking it apart. It should present no trouble for me next time - having some experience should make such easier.

On inspection, nothing really jumped out at me other than how clean the innards were - near new in appearance. I did note, however, several stamped markings and that the cocking piece had been beveled on an inside edge (for the safety I presume).

I'm thinking seriously about going back to an original style Mauser safety. Are these interchangeable for all 98's? They're pretty cheap on ebay, but I do see that there is some variability in (finger) tab size.

Steve


DSC02098.jpgDSC02097.jpgDSC02107.jpgDSC02101.jpgDSC02111.jpg

[sbakf]

Just some close-ups of the stampings. The one on the cocking piece is quite ornate - must represent something. The one underneath the shroud is script, but would be difficult to identify with my photo - sorry for the quality. I didn't realize how bad it was until after reassembling the bolt. The firing pin is stamped with either a 66 or 99. Are firing pins number matched to the S/N?

Steve



DSC02107.jpgDSC02102.jpgDSC02079.jpgDSC02106.jpg