Waffen Honold

[Nathaniel Myers]

I own a very nice rifle with this marking on the barrel. I did a brief search on Google to find more information but alas, my google skills are pathetic.

Was this a brand? A arms house?

[Axel E]

Waffen Honold was a gunshop in Ulm, Hafengasse 19, owned by a Georg Honold, died 1928. Shop and name taken over by a Vinzenz Huber. Waffen Honold retailed your rifle and had it engraved with their address, a common practice in Germany then. Knowing type and proofmarks under barrel may give a hint to date and real maker.

[Nathaniel Myers]

Axel, thank you for the information. I will post photo's later today. The rifle is built on what appears to be a mis match construction of Imperial marked 98 parts. The external fit and finish is of very good construction. Internally, the machining, filing, and fit is very crude. The rifle functions well and is comfortable to shoot even with heavy loads. As you will see the claw rings are a US made replacement, rather simple but functional.

I look forward to hearing anything additional the membership will add. I will have pictures up soon.

[Nathaniel Myers]

Could this be a makers mark?

[Nathaniel Myers]

Manufactured in Suhl, February of 1942 ? Looks like it was originally 7x57 perhaps by mistake and re stamped 7x64.

[Nathaniel Myers]

[Nathaniel Myers]

[mike ford]

The barrel shows tell tale signs of having been removed from another rifle( see barrel/reciever ring junction)and installed in this one.It was likely rechambered at that time.In my opinion this invalidated the original proof marks since I doubt it would pass a "View" proof in that condition. It could have been corrected, but is seems not to have been. This doesn't mean it's not safe.
Axel may have a differen't opinion, if so, accept his.
Mike

[Nathaniel Myers]

Mike, this is just my opinion, which has been wrong one or twice, I suspect the person chambering the barrel messed up. Having chambered a significant number of barrels and having made a few mistakes over the years, I tend to suspect that is the case.

I have not had the barrel off to confirm or deny, as it shoots very well and I don't want to disturb anything. As it headspaces correctly, I further suspect that the headspace was blown and the barrel set back. As the barrel was already machined, timing is critical and the .083 or 2.108mm dimension was ever so slightly missed. I would guess the headspace was missed a second time, and the decision was made to open it up to x64.

Any input on the makers mark or if there is one?

Would there be marks anywhere to determine if it was re barreled or reworked? I don't see any other proof marks, but maybe I am over looking something.

[mike ford]

Nathaniel,
I didn't really have an opinion, it was really just a suspicion.I too have had the problems you described,thankfully, mostly with barrels that had not already been profiled. When the barrel came from another rifle, however, a miss makes your heart jump up into your throat. If it happened either way, it would leave the same signs.I don't really know if it would be passed or sent back for reworking after view proof. I would like to know, maybe Axel can find out.I think if it had been rechambered after having been proofed, it should have a repair proof(R if before 1939); if before proof, I guess not.
Mike

[Axel E]

That double trademark is most likely a barrelmaker's mark. I can not identify it positively, but it may be the one of W. Richard Jaeger, Gustloffstr. 34, Suhl, one of the 4 barrelmakers still active in Suhl in 1945 (the others: Louis Kelber, Wilhelm Kelber, Max Stoll). The mark is doubled as both rifling and chambering was done.

Mike, I agree the rifle was put together from old parts, but with an unused barrel then still on the barrelmaker's shelf, originally intended for the then "outmoded" 7x57. But I disagree with your Statement: " I doubt it would pass a "View" proof in that condition. It could have been corrected, but is seems not to have been.". The rifle shows all the correct post-1940 proofmarks on barrel, receiver and bolt. So I believe it being duly proofed as a 7x64 in 242, February 1942, well into WW2. The ill fit and peening of the barrel-receiver ring joint is of no cosequence on a Mauser M98 action for passing view. Other than the earlier M96 Swede or the ill-designed American copies, Springfield, Enfield, Winchester, the M98 action has a collar inside the receiver ring. The breech end of the barrel has to be srewed tightly against this collar. Fit of front of receiver ring to barrel reinforce is insignificant, just for looks, on a M98 action. If the barrel is screwed tight against the collar, the fit of receiver ring to barrel reinforce is unimportant and difficult to achieve, especially on a ribbed octagon barrel that has to be indexed upright when assembled.

[mike ford]

Axel,
I can accept the assessment that such workmanship could pass the "view", I didn't know,so I asked your opinion. From the markings,how can we know that the barrel wasn't on another rifle and changed to this one, without a trip to the proofhouse? Since it had proofmarks, no one would know to alert authorities. Having installed several "take off" barrels with iron sights on 98s( I fit to the inner ring too)I can say it is as hard to index the barrel on the inner ring.On the outer one, it is pretty easy to make the shank(the threaded part) a couple thousanths short and when forming the shoulder, withdraw the tool with the compound slide(mine is usually set at 29 deg. for threading), instead of the cross slide.This leaves it slightly undercut and easy to "crush" against the reciever.I do admit that this requires I square the reciever ring and measure each one for precise dimensions, which makes extra work.If the American Springfield and Winchester, as well as the English designed Enfield, are ill-designed; does that mean the Swede M96( German design)is also ill-designed? We have to admit that the 98 has it's own design faults, but overall it is a fine design, as are the others.
Mike

[Axel E]

The switched barrel idea here seems to be unlogic to me: A barrel, pulled off a rifle proofed in February 1942, mated to an action of a rifle also proofed 1940 - 45, why? Was the original barrel, proofed not earlier than January 1940, completely ruined within two years? And, was the action proofed with the barrel Feb 1942 beyond repair a few years later? I would dig the "switched barrel" theory if the components bear different German proofmarks, f.i. BU on Receiver and bolt and eagle/N on barrel, or vice versa. But parts of two rifles, both made within the few years 1940 - 45, amidst WW2, mixed up for what reason?

The M96 was an evolutionary step in the development of the Mauser action, quickly superseded by the transitional and M98 actions, both with the collar inside receiver ring. But the American made actions with their coned breeches and the inferior gas handling? Why didn't they copy the M98 collar, the flat barrel breech end enclosing the case to the rim, and the one piece firing pin of the 98 too? Let alone the M70 esthetic design blunder, the hinge of the magazine floorplate hanging out of the stock. Granted, all are quite good actions, but they could have been better imho.

[Nathaniel Myers]

Axel, I appreciate your insight. I will attempt to get you better pictures of the double stamp in a short while. There condition being what they are it may be difficult. Do you have a reference for these barrel makers marks?

This brings up a curious discussion that I would love to continue, I only question whether we should start another thread so that we can discuss it at length.

[ellenbr]

I've chased the mechanic for a time and have seen many touchmarks, mainly braces. He was a sub to E. Schmidt & Habermann. I'd lean toward Jung.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse