New member needs help identifying Gustav Genschow small caliber gun

[Tom]

Hallo I am a new member and I could need some help and information about a gun that I own.
The gun is made by Gustav Genschow from Berlin and shows the Geco trademark.
The gun is marked on the breech" Deutsches Sportmodell" and looks like a small caliber K98.
Could someone tell me if it was made as a trainings rifle for the German army?
It is a single shot rifle and the barrel is marked 5,4 mm and the barrel and breech have both 2 proofmarks a crowned U and a crowned B.
Are these blackpowder proofmarks or nitro proofmarks?
A .22LR bullet fits perfectly in it.
Does anybody knows when these guns were manufactured?

I'am happy with every information I can get

Kind regards Tom
IMG_3268.jpgIMG_3266.jpgKnipsel.JPGKnipsel2.JPGKnipsel4.JPG

[Axel E]

This rifle is,as it is inscribed, a Deutsches Sportmodell, in short DSM 34, in .22 lr. The DSM 34 was originally a Mauser design, but also made by many more companies during the 1930s. Jon Speed in his book "Mauser Smallbores" (see the GGCA bookstore, B062) lists these makers: Mauser, Suhl guntrade(marked "Waffenstadt Suhl"), Zella-Mehlis guntrade ("Thüringen"), J.G.Anschuetz (JGA), Simson/BSW, ERMA, Menz and Geco. Jon estimates the Geco production at 20000 units.

[Steve Whitley]

Tom,

I am completing work on a book about these and other training rifles used in Germany in this era which should go to print this spring. You have a Deutsches Sportmodell (DSM), designed by Mauser at the request of the C.d.A. (Chef des Ausbildungswesen, or chief of training/development) of the SA in 1933 and which entered production in early 1934. Your rifle exhibits the modifications which were introduced in 1936 by only a few of the makers of the gun (gas port, elevated extractor position, enlarged and beveled loading port, larger wing safety). The model was replaced in 1938 as the "official" trainer, although some few were still made from existing parts inventory for a while.
Geco did not make the DSM themselves, but had these made for them and marked with their logo on the receiver by AT LEAST three other firms of the 12 firms and two consortia who did produce the model. They were also gladly willing to supply their customers with a DSM from ANY of the manufacturers who had contracted manufacturing rights from Mauser to produce these. A closer estimate of the number of Geco-marked DSMs (by ALL makers who added the Geco logo to the receiver) is around 12,000 total. If you have any further questions on it, I will gladly do my best to answer them for you.

Steve Whitley

[Steve Whitley]

Tom,

Obviously, these were intended to resemble the military K98k, and were used for pre-military, paramilitary, and police training. The idea was to familiarize shooters with the 8mm standard arm, but also to be one of the "acceptable" small bore rifles for use in the widespread competition shooting matches and for general marksmanship training. This was part of the "Gleichschaltung" or standardization of shooting occurring at that time. Restrictions from the Versailles Treaty prevented it from openly being referred to as a "military trainer" nonetheless. It also provided an opportunity for some of the gunmakers who were struggling from the economic depression to participate in a "bread and butter" project to help them stay productive for the forthcoming build-up of military arms and the re-establishment of consortium production of the same. They were sold commercially, and also purchased directly from manufacturers by SS, SA, and other government entities. Not until the Klein Kaliber Wehrsportgewehr replaced this design in 1938 was the reference made openly of this being for a military trainer, but there is no question that it was indeed that---and much more. Other makers of the DSM in addition to those named by Axel were Bernhard Paatz, Carl Walther, Franz Schmidt (of Zella-Mehlis---not the one in Suhl), C.G. Haenel, Heinrich Diem, Hermann Weihrauch, and Bolte und Anschutz.

Steve Whitley

[chapmen]

This gun brings an question back in my mind. Why .22s are not stamped with the nitro proof?

[Tom]

Thank you all for the information.
You all have been of great help.
I have just one more question.
If I understand it right the gun has proofmarks for blackpowder but it is intended for todays ammo(nitro powder)?
The bore of the gun is in good shape so it should be possible to fire todays .22lr?

Tom

[Steve Whitley]

Tom,

Today's .22 long rifle ammo is a slightly hotter load but will perform well and with complete safety in your rifle. You may find rounds landing high of center if the sights are on factory settings.

Steve

[chapmen]

its still an mystery for me that these are not nitrostamped. I have about 25 pre 1945 smallbores. Only the ones after 1939 are showing the nitro proof.
There must be an reason for this, i dont think that they are only blackpowder proofed.

[Axel E]

its still an mystery for me that these are not nitrostamped. I have about 25 pre 1945 smallbores. Only the ones after 1939 are showing the nitro proof.
There must be an reason for this, i dont think that they are only blackpowder proofed.

Up to the 1939 proof law, marking a gun with a Nitro proof stamp was not mandatory. The Germanproof houses followed different habits.
First, up to 1911 (Zella-Mehlis), 1912(Suhl), a crown/N smokeless proof stamp was used only with the CROWN-crown/N proof with the special "4000 atm" proof powder, according to the special rifle proof rule of July 23, 1893. From 1911/12 on the word "Nitro" was marked on shot barrels, while mst early smokeless proofed rifle barrels still show the CROWN-crown/N marks. The crown/N mark combined with crown/B, crown/U and crown/G was used regularly only from 1923 on.
Take, f.i., the Oberndorf proofhouse: Commercial Mauser sporting rifles were marked with BU only up to 1924, sometimes much later, up to 1931 at least. As all M98 actioned rifles were chambered for smokeless cartridges (N) using bullets (G), the Oberndorf proofhouse deemed it unnecessary to mark the obvious. From 1924 on the crown-G (Geschoss = bullet) stamp was added, but still no crown/N, that was marked from 1934 on only.
As the .22lfB = lr smokeless loads produced even less pressure than the blackpowder loads, the proofhouses apparently thought it unnecessary to mark .22lr guns with a Nitro stamp.

[chapmen]

As the .22lfB = lr smokeless loads produced even less pressure than the blackpowder loads, the proofhouses apparently thought it unnecessary to mark .22lr guns with a Nitro stamp.

Ok, thats an point i have already thought of.
But because we are in germany i thought that there is an "official" record about this circumstance.

[Steve Whitley]

The DSMs which were proofed in Zella-Mehlis typically DO bear the nitro proofing.

Steve

gh1.jpg

[mike ford]

Steve,
Is this for all Z-M proofed rifles, or just after a certian date?
Mike

[Steve Whitley]

Mike,

It seems to appear consistently on all of the DSMs (produced from April 1934, up until at least late 1938) that were made in Zella-Mehlis and proofed there. That includes the consortium, Weihrauch, Paatz, Bolte und Anschutz, Diem, the Franz Schmidt of Z-M, JGA, and even Walther.

Steve

[Steve Whitley]

I should add, for the sake of the original question of this thread, that this proof mark issue is further evidence that this particular Geco-marked rifle was sourced from one of the makers in Suhl.

Steve

[Axel E]

Steve, I disagree here. Habits of proofhouses changed, not only over time, but for models too. That the Zella-Mehlis proofhouse applied the crown/N stamp on the DSM34s from 1934 on does not mean they did so earlier. There were some changes in proof rules in 1933 as to marking. The Suhl proofhouse was allowed from then on only to apply their "Suhl" stamp.