Approximate value of JG Anschutz Drilling (1941?) & Cape (also 1941?)

[JohnES]

We have had very little sucess determining value of our two pre-WWII JG Anschutz guns; one drilling & one cape. Grandfather brought them back from WWII. Many proof marks, symbols & numbers. JG Anschutz has no records of pre-WWII guns since all documents were lost in the war. Is there anyone out there that can help us find someone who knows a great deal about these guns?

[mike ford]

John,
While I don't usually estimate the value of someone else's guns that I don't have "in hand", if you post photos of the guns and all the markings (including all proof marks), maybe we can help with other information.
Mike

[JohnES]

Photos of guns

Thanks Mike. I have some photos & will work on getting them posted tomorrow. Many of the symbols are hard to see so if the first batch of photos aren't good enough, I can try putting chalk in the marks and re-take them.

[JohnES]

Drilling Photos

Some photos of the Drilling.

[JohnES]

Cape photos

Some photos of the Cape

[mike ford]

John,
The main problem with the photos is several are out of focus and do not show all the expected marks, although the chalk wouldn't hurt anything. My impression of the drilling(based on incomplete info) is that it is of a style and chambered for a cartridge that are normally found in pre Apr. 1940 (effective date of 1939 proof law) guns. At the same time, however it seems to have a post 1940 provisional proof(eagle over M) but focus is a problem with the mark. The rifle caliber (8x57R/360) is usually found in earlier guns also.Without clear photos of all the proof marks, I can't tell if it was reproofed (for repair or voluntary reproof under the new law).
The "cape gun"(BF) is made in a more modern style and would be typical for a post 1940 gun,however about the only mark I can make out seems to be the "house mark" of the Zella-Mehlis proofhouse ( Pine Tree).
In making new photos, be sure to include the marks on the barrels, themselves( this is where the chalk may help), and make sure they are in focus. You didn't say what you intend to do with the guns, but if they were my grandfather's, I would keep and use them. We can also help you with loading ammo for them( I recently found a 1931 drilling in 8x57R/360, myself, and am starting to work out the procedures to load for it. These procedures would apply to yours as well).I will try again when you post new photos, and others, more knowledgeable than I may correct any mistakes I make.
Mike

[Jim Cate]

Mike....Re: your statement, My impression of the drilling(based on incomplete info) is that it is of a style and chambered for a cartridge that are normally found in pre Apr. 1940 (effective date of 1939 proof law) guns. The effective date when ALL German proofhouses started using the Eagle N proofmark was January 15, 1940. This has been noted in several articles written by me and others, and is referred to as X- Der amtlich Beschuss durch die Beschuss - Amter, das Einschiessen und die Schussleistung. Lastly, I would imagine a customer could order the 8x57 (360) in 1940 should he wanted to do so. Best regards, Jim

[mike ford]

Jim,
If you read the last sentence in my post,you can see I am open to being corrected, so I didn't say I was sure it was made before 1940. "Articles" written by others show dates other than you stated.I usually use Lee Kennett's article in the 1975 Gun Digest, entitled"A History of Proof Marks, Gun Proof in Germany", as my reference because it has the best and easiest to understand explanation of the background I have seen to date. In this article (which is pretty well footnoted) he gives the following dates for the 1939 law: June 7 1939, approval date; July 8 1939,implementing regulations issued; April 1 1940, effective date of the law.I guess this means they couldn't use the new law until July 8 1939, and were required to use it on April 1 1940.Of course, between these dates,different provisions were likely implemented by different proof houses, on different dates and times.From the reference it was required to be done by the fixed date of April 1,consequently this is the date I usually cite.Of course this doesn't mean I am correct, it only means I have a legimimate reason for citing it.As far as being able to order an 8x57R/360 in 1940,I guess all things are possible. It was my understanding that with the implementation of the portions of the 1939 law having to do with barrel and chamber dimensions, there were several old cartridges that were no longer allowed. My German gunsmith friends told me that this was because the Reich Jaegermeister(der Diche)(?) thought they were not powerful enough.At the time, he could have his way. I can't document this however. If clear photos of all the proof marks are posted, we can see if the drilling was proofed prior to 1940 and reproofed afterward.I will admit there is a chance the action and barrel bundle could have been made before the law, and not proofed until after, under some "grandfather"theory.
Best Regards
Mike

[ellenbr]

Ford, it was the 8x57 IR that was made illegal as I recall but examples show it too was still available.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[mike ford]

Raimey,
I recently saw a 1941 Meffert, that looked new, and was clearly marked 8x57IR and "nicht fur S". I guess there were always exceptions, that is why I left an opening for "grandfather" guns. The type cartridges I was talking about include 6.5x48+58R,8x48+58+57/360R, and 9.3x57+72+82R.You may recall in the 3 part article I wrote about loading 9.3x72R, I talked about my forester friend whose BF barrels ( the gun came from his father)had come loose. I took him to Walter Grass, but he couldn't have the ribs put back, because I wouldn't pass the view proof, he couldn't install a new 9.3x72R barrel because they were not allowed(the then new law mirrored the 39 law); he could and did install a new 8x57IRS ( IR also not allowed)barrel. My friend gave me his remaining 9.3x72R ammo, and that is what started me on that caliber.
Mike

[Jim Cate]

Mike, Article X of the new firearms regulations for the entire German Reich last sentence so states: Es klaffte also eine bedenkliche Lücke, die durch einzelne Verordnungen nur notdürftig überbrückt werden konnte, bis dann endlich das Gesetz vom 7. Juni 1939 Wandel schuf, das am 15. January 1940 in Kraft gefreten ist.

I usually use Lee Kennett's article in the 1975 Gun Digest, entitled"A History of Proof Marks, Gun Proof in Germany", as my reference because it has the best and easiest to understand explanation of the background I have seen to date. In this article (which is pretty well footnoted) he gives the following dates for the 1939 law: June 7 1939, approval date; July 8 1939,implementing regulations issued; April 1 1940, effective date of the law.I guess this means they couldn't use the new law until July 8 1939, and were required to use it on April 1 1940

What you have referenced is NOT the day the new law became effective, but a demand of the new proofing laws that it HAD to be used by April 1, 1940. I can assure you from collected Sauer serial number data and Proofhouse dates on barrels of sporting/hunting guns made by Sauer that the NEW Eagle N was being used in January, 1940. I can almost tell you to the serial number when the change took place in January.

I usually use Lee Kennett's article in the 1975 Gun Digest, entitled"A History of Proof Marks, Gun Proof in Germany", as my reference because it has the best and easiest to understand explanation of the background I have seen to date.

I can assure you that Kennett's info is NOT up to date. The April 1 "mistake" also exist in Wirnsberger's book THE STANDARD DIRECTORY OF PROOF MARKS along with a few other "German" mistakes printed therein. Lastly, there is ample evidence that Mauser, Walther and other firearms companies also started using the Eagle N nitro proof mark on January 15, 1940. This is evidenced by proofhouse dates, manditory dates on the chambers of Lugers, commercial P.38s, and Walther PP and PPK pistols, as well as other sporting/hunting guns. If you would send me your email address I will be happy to send you an actual copy of Article X. Our hobby is a great one, but we have to rely on old and NEW information as it surfaces. With best regards, Jim Cate

[mike ford]

Jim,
First of all, my previous post was not to argue with you, rather it was in explanation of why I had said what I did. The fact that I accept you as the "Sauer"expert should be evident from the number of times I have referred others to you for the correct information.I appreciate your offer to email a copy of Article X( however my German is very poor),and I think my email address should already be in your address file since I have emailed you in the past.If you can't find it PM me and I will send it again. I don't believe what Kennett and Wirnsberger said actually contradict the information you have.If the law required it to be used("had to be used")by April 1 1940 but the proof house actually used part of the law on January 15 1940, they were within the requirements of the law. In otherwords your information does not replace theirs, it adds to it ( a valuable addition, by the way).
With best regards,
Mike

[Jim Cate]

Thanks, Mike! I believe we are on the same team. There has been a lot of information regarding German proofing that has been accepted as the "almighty truth" that it continues to bother me and other collectors. As you know it is very difficult to correct printed mistakes that have existed for years and years. We have to accept the absolute fact that the German firearms industries began using the Eagle N nitro proof on January 15, 1940. I know of none that waited until April 1, 1940. On another note: I have tried to get SIG-Sauer (recently moved to another location in Germany) to forward inquiries to me regarding pre-1946 Sauer guns because I really got tired of them telling the world that all the original records were destroyed by bombs during the war. The truth of the matter is they didn't want to take the time to answer the inquiries; didn't have the answers; and didn't care. Suhl and Zella-Mehlis were never bombed!! Small arms factories were never primary targets for the USAAF during the war. So far I have received no inquires from SIG-Sauer! Members of our association have to be willing to provide the answers and resources for the next generations who will someday own our collections. If we don't, we have failed and failed badly. JIM

[mike ford]

Jim,
You didn't say if you found my email address.
Mike

[Jim Cate]

Mike, I changed internet providers (email also) nearly a year ago. An attempt was made to transfer everyone in my email directory, but it was incomplete to say the least. So, no, I don't have your email address......Sorry, JIM