Reichswerke Erfurt 7mm Rifle

[kammerherren]

The bottom plate

IMG_0837_lite_zpsvcoqv8lc.jpg

[mike ford]

I always believe in saving these old warriors from the scrap metal pile.
Mike

[algmule]

Hello

I agree with mike ford.

kammerherren, you have a pm from me.

EDIT: it has the military bird
0a.jpg
EDIT2: I'd love to see if the military bird is stamped on the barrel as well.

Kind regards
Peter

[algmule]

Hello

Badly needed are somewhat larger cups of coffee and a re-think - again!

0aErfurt.jpg

Pirschbüchsen, I genuinely believed that sporter rifles marked RwE were earlier than December 1919 and that the civilian proofs on some of them were to be explained by manufacture outside the former Königlich Gewehrfabrik. I could never find a good reason for keeping the marking RwE, though. Back to the drawing board.

Kind regards
Peter

[mike ford]

Peter,
What you called the "Military bird", I believe is the Imperial acceptance mark. I believe this would date the action to earlier than 1919. I had thought they used unfinished actions for the sporting rifles, but it seems unlikely that an unfinished action would have an acceptance stamp. I don't think they "accepted" actions only, but complete rifles. I guess, at least, some sporting rifles were made from completed military rifles. It makes sense that they would have done so.
Mike

[sharps4590]

Heck yea it's a keeper! It has side panels, is anything else required?.......

[algmule]

Hello

I received an email today - from a kind person in Erfurt. Apparently the end date for Reichswerk(e) Erfurt was 24, July 1920. It doesn't fit with anything I got but for now I'm going to opt for it anyway as it gives me an idea how to continue another one of my researches. In the email was included a source giving there was Jagdgewehr manufacturing (among other things) in Erfurt in June 1922 (Deutsche Werke AG).

Kind regards
Peter

[Axel E]

I still hold that there wasn't any "legal" 98 receiver manufacturing in Erfurt after late August/early September 1919 until October/November 1920. There must have been enough receivers there already after the armistice 11 November 1918 to go around, and I really don't believe that receivers were manufactured in the period 11 November 1918 - late August/early September 1919 either.

Also1: rifle manufacturing in November 1921 must mean they have civilian proofs. I sure would like to know what Jagdwaffen they were, that is, if they weren't the .22 rifles. The conversions with DW medallions carry civilian proofs.

No, I don't believe RwE did not make "any 98 receivers" 1919 to 1920. Here is a photo of an very early Remo II shotgun, serial number 45, now in Flintenkalle's collection. It is clearly inscribed Rw.E.. BTW, it is a "Jagdwaffe", as are GEHA shotguns. As it is also marked "D.R.P.a." = patent applied for , it was made between September 20, 1919 (date of application) and October 28, 1920 ( DRP 328 446 issued). It shows not the slightest trace of a cartridge retainer "welded on". Instead, the retainer is obviously an integral part, machined from the same rough forging as the rest of the receiver. Remember, at that time, 1919-1920, welding techniques were far from the state today, tig welding not yet invented. Welds then usually show as some discoloration at least.

BTW, July 1920 may have been the end of "Reichswerke Erfurt" in so far as they were reorganized as Deutsche Werke AG.

[algmule]

Hello

I have two Remo II's with the marking RwE, both are 16 gauge. On one of them there is tiny crack between the shellguide and receiver. That crack is not visible on the inside but is from the outside. On my other Remo II there is nothing visible either from the inside or the outside. Both are marked D.R.P.a. as well. As all the RwE marked shotgun conversions I've seen have the "welded"/ soldered/ glued/ put there by magic shell guides and my Imman Meffert marked shotgun conversion with a Pieper Bayard receiver also has the "welded"/soldered/glued/put there by magic shellguide I conclude that it was also converted at the former Königlichen Gewehrfabrik in Erfurt when it went under the name Reichswerke Erfurt and that would also mean that the shellguide on it isn't an integral part of its receiver, unless the people at Erfurt manufactured receivers with the "welded"/soldered/glued/put there by magic shellguides and then marked them with Pieper's "Mounted Knight".

Source for the ending of Reichswerke Erfurt in July 1920 is Limbrecht's book. I received a copy of the page where this claim is. Now, if the person that claimed that Reichswerke Erfurt began in April 1919 would cough up a source we would all be very happy.

Also: I very well know that they didn't glue on any shellguides or put them there by means of magic. I just got fed up with the bickering.

Also 2: here is another one of those "integral part of the receiver" shellguides. Marked RwE and Remo II and D.R.P.a. http://www.lauritz.com/sv/auktion/ja...-16/i2850411/# and also marked Imman Meffert on the barrel.

EDIT: my Imman Meffert shotgun conversion is not a Remo II but a Remo 1. So we now have three conversions with the not integral part of the receiver shellguide. One with a Pieper Bayard marking and and two with visible cracks between the receivers and the shellguides. The score is now: Peter 3 - Axel 1. Well, really it's 3-0 as Flintenkalle's conversion doesn't have an integral shellguide either. I'm convinced of this.

Also 3: note the qoutation marks on welded. My point being that the shellguide is not integral to the receiver and I'm not so sure about welding techniques in the 1920's as some other people are. Pity my dad passed two years ago. He would have known.

Also 4: as Flintenkalle's shotgun conversion is marked Rwe it is manufactured before Reichswerke Erfurt ended. The D.R.P.a. and the RwE on his gun only show that it was manufactured by Reichswwerke Erfurt while the patent was still pending. The period for his gun is April 1919 (still waiting for and expecting a source) and up to July 24 (if Limbrecht is correct). That the patent was still pending after Reichswerke Erfurt shut down has nothing to do with his gun. This last paragraph is me being in the wrong. Sorry. Noticed it now that I've cooled off, 9. July 2017. What I mean is that Flintenkalle's shotgun is manufactured in the period 20. September 1919 - 24. July 1920.

Splittinghairs.jpg

Kind regards
Peter

[chapmen]

At this time soldering was usual in the manufacturing of guns, especially softsoldering.
I don't think that it is welded, if it was done from someone who knows how to weld and rework after welding you wouldn't see the fine line, even around 1920.
Do you have an pic from the inside?
Also the material of the receiver is not real good for welding operations and needs rehardening etc. after welding.

[algmule]

Hello

chapmen,

the image is the one from the link. As I got a bit heated I felt I had to enhance it and post it. When I can find time I'll snap images of my Remo II with the crack. Both from the inside and the outside and images from my Remo II without any crack.

The article writer Mr. Greenbaum told me the conversions went through re-hardening, or if it was reheat treatment, I can't really remember. I would have to go through my notes and as I still live in moving boxes I'm not to keen to unpack. Best would be to find Mr. Greenbaum. I've no idea where or what he went off to. Even though we disagreed on most things in the end (friendly disagreement) he was a constant source of food for thought. As I remember, though (may remember incorrectly), it was the fact that when the receivers (which, apparently, according to Axel's view, they first manufactured before reaming them. I would have thought that manufacturing them to shotgun receivers from the start would have been better, which, as it turned out, didn't happen, and it would then have been enough to harden them without any prefix re) were reamed out it generated heat and that was the reason for reheat treatment/re-hardening. I know nothing about any reheat treatments or any re-hardening, all I know is that the shotgun conversions were manufactured from large ring 98 receivers. Prove me wrong and I'll admit, apologize and try to put things right to the best of my ability. In that order.

I again apologize to the OP for straying from topic.

EDIT: Axel, I believe you once sent me an ad which was earlier than the Ausgegeben date on Gebrüder Rempt's patent and that the ad claimed the Remo was D.R.P. Taken from memory, 4. October 1920?

Late EDIT: let's hope I'm in the wrong and Axel is right. Not because I enjoy eating humble pie but because it would explain a couple of things. If receivers were reamed out in Erfurt with integral shellguides it would explain why the Hengelhaupt conversion used the screw-on shellguide. If perhaps receiver manufacturing stopped at the same time as when Reichswerke Erfurt became Deutsche Werke this would explain why the Geha conversions have the screw-on guide. This would then explain why there was this patent infringement and patent negotiation table I've heard so much about. Axel being right does not however explain why they stopped receiver manufacturing in Erfurt in mid 1920 (if there had been receiver manufacturing up until then and indeed it was stopped) and it doesn't explain why Gebrüder Rempt didn't use the screw-on guide from start when it was there in their patent application, nor does Axel being right explain why there are cracks between the receiver and shellguide on at least two conversions. Axel being right also does not explain the Pieper Bayard marking on my D.R.P. marked Imman Meffert conversion. If nothing futher pops up I'll go for the "welding"/soldering/optional.

Kind regards
Peter

[mike ford]

At the risk of getting everyone mad at me, I will offer my two cents worth in this discussion. The thread started with discussing rifles and somehow got around to shotguns. I have no experience with the RWe rifles , and only one shot gun. The shotgun was a Geha and the shell guide was held on by screws. It came to me without a bolt head, so I had to make one. Mine was a 12 ga. and it seems the ones in the above posts are all 16 ga. To make the 12 ga. conversion, so much metal had to be removed( by reaming /drilling/grinding/?/, none of which would generate enough heat to require re-heat treatment. The original heat treat was a surface treatment in specific locations, not a through hardening.)that the locking lug recesses were removed, for all practical purposes. These conversions, then, depended on the "safety lug" for lock up. To make 16 or 20 ga conversions, less metal had to be removed, and some vestige of locking lug recess was left. I don't know if it was enough to depend on for lock up in these conversions. When I made the new bolt head, I discovered that it was so large in diameter that the bolt had to be inserted into the receiver, then the head attached to the bolt. It is my completely unqualified opinion, then, that the extra shell guide was required in 12 ga. conversions, but for 16 and 20 ga. conversions, there was enough metal in the action lefthand sidewall, that the shell guide could be formed without adding an extra one, at least in the rough forging. This opinion is based mainly on the experience with making the bolt head. Of course, I will accept differing opinions.
Mike

[Axel E]

Peter, I did not say ALL Remo shell retainers were machined as an integral part of the receiver. I merely noted the early, serial number 45, RwE made one is. Later ones by RwE and all the Suhl made ones, Meffert or Rempt, certainly have added on shell guides, as the Suhl guntrade never was capable to make M98 receivers themselves. So they always relied on receivers supplied by others, Mauser, Pieper or state factories. Of course they had to attach the shell guides to these by some means as an afterthought. So, have a look at the serial numbers of RwE marked Remos too. Note that the Gebrueder Rempt patent DRP 328446, applied for September 20, 1919, shows a shell guide applied by screws, while actual Remo guns have integral (#45) or welded/soldered on shell guides. While Remo guns were still made in Erfurt by RwE and the DRP was still pending, Emil Hengelhaupt applied for his patent DRP 337013 on August 12, 1920. This patent was for the more simple and easier to make Geha conversion. Here the patent drawings show an apparently integral shell retainer. The text does not mention a specific kind of attaching it, it merely mentions it as a "known feature". Emil Hengelhaupt came from the Zella – Mehlis families of gunsmithes, but he worked, at least during WW1, at the Gewehrfabrik Erfurt, later RwE. All his 1920 – 22 patents, numbers 337013, 372082, 374949, 379193, give his address as "Erfurt". IMHO he got the idea for his simpler Geha action when he was involved in making the more complex Remo at RwE. By 1924 he is listed in Zella – Mehlis (again?).

[Axel E]

When I made the new bolt head, I discovered that it was so large in diameter that the bolt had to be inserted into the receiver, then the head attached to the bolt. It is my completely unqualified opinion, then, that the extra shell guide was required in 12 ga. conversions, but for 16 and 20 ga. conversions, there was enough metal in the action lefthand sidewall, that the shell guide could be formed without adding an extra one, at least in the rough forging. This opinion is based mainly on the experience with making the bolt head.

Mike, this is exactly the assenmbly/disassembly procedure described in Emil Hengelhaupt's "Geha" patent, regardless of gauge:
"As the bigger shotshells need a larger bolt head than the military cartridges, the bolt head must be removable so the bolt may be pulled out of the action for cleaning. …. the bolt head is held to the bolt by a lip on the extractor, going into a groove of the bolt head. The bolt had is detached from the bolt by pulling the extractor outwards and detaching the head. Now the bolt may be removed as usual. The separate bolt head may be picked out of the receiver with the fingers."

[algmule]

Hello

Axel, is your last post a semi-change of opinion as regards the “welding” bit? If so, please don’t as I may (keyword may) have had a reconsidering on the receiver manufacturing in Erfurt after the armistice (new info arrived today, still have to interpret it and verify it) but unfortunately I don’t believe it’s about receivers with shellguides. If (keyword if) I reconsider I may also have to apologize to you for painting you a mug. Me? I was always a mug.

I’ve been in and out of the two patents so many times you just can’t imagine and you and I have discussed them before via email. If you can prove that some of the Remo marked RwE receivers have a not “welded” but integral shellguide and that those receivers were manufactured in the former Königlichen Gewehrfabrik in Erfurt no one, believe me, would be happier than me. I believe I’ve proved that some Remo II’s do NOT have shellguides that are integral to their receivers, and on top of that I’ve proved that my Remo 1 doesn’t either. Yes, I know of the Hengelhaupt “known feature”, and the rest on him as well. As you once pointed out it’s the patent claims that are of interest and yes, only the Rempt patent claim mentions a shellguide (the screw-on version).

Did you find the ad I mentioned in an earlier post? If you didn’t fib me when you sent it to me, and if I remember correctly it was a DRP ad for the Remo before 28. October 1920.

Also: I have it in my mind that there would have been no reason for Imman Meffert to “weld” any shellguides on to any receivers as the link I provided show they had acess to receivers from Erfurt. Admittedly, the three Imman Meffert Remo 1’s I know of are DRP so they came later than the the RwE Remo II’s with DRPa (to my knowledge two RwE DRP's exist). Here’s a link to a Remo 1 with no Meffert marking but marked DRPA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZtN9iQUDDk so the Remo 1’s and the Remo II’s excisted within the same time frame. WHY then, has my Remo 1 Pieper’s Mounted Knight on the receiver? I still believe the shellguides were “welded”. Possibly converted between 24. July 1920 and date of ad you sent me. Keyword is converted.

The three to me known Remo 1’s marked Imman Meffert are
1) My own Remo 1 with Pieper’s Mounted Knight and with a shellguide that was probably put there in some mysterious way by German druids, planet unknown.
2) Twin to my gun. Same visible markings. Not known whether it has a Pieper knight and also not known if the druids were involved in attaching the shellguide. I’d say “welded”.
3) Same as 1 and 2 only another gauge, 12. No knowledge of any Pieper marking. I tried contact the owner but that forum is infested with a virus. No images but description points to it being the same as the above two.

Also, Axel, disagreeing is far better than agreeing as it will be a way forward. I’m not one for sitting in cozy corners. So, I’ll continue to poke at you with my welded-together stick until you prove me wrong, or until I prove myself wrong. Only then will I admit I’m in the wrong on the shellguides. By the way, thanks for reminding me of Emil H. being in Zella-Mehlis in 1924. You wouldn’t happen to know which one of the numerous Hengelhaupts that died in a work place accident in a Karl Walther shop (Zella-Mehlis) in 1922?

One of us is bound to have to humble himself. To posterity our disagreement will then be known as the Rumble in the Humble!

Kind regards
Peter