Carl Stiegele info

[erich]

Hello all,

I am trying to get more information on a Schuetzen rifle I have. I am not sure of any of its history, but from what I understand it is supposed to be chambered for 8.15x46R. Not sure of .318 or .321 (the dies available for that cartridge). The forend is definitely not original, and is something that looks like it was made later just as a place holder.

It is marked 'Carl Stiegele Hofgewehrfabrik Munchen'

Also on the barrel are the following markings:
Top:
"Elektrik Stahl"
"Roeckling"
"8.46 Norm"

Bottom:
7,6mm
7/24

The action is marked:
"DRGM
SYSTEM
STIEGELE
263."


Any information on this maker or marking is appreciated.

Thank you ,

Erich

[mike ford]

Erich,
Your rifle was proofed in July of 1924, with a bore(not groove or bullet) diameter of 7.6mm. Other rifles I have seen ,with this bore diameter had a groove diameter of .312-.313". Cast bullets are usually sized at least a couple thousanths larger than groove diameter.However, the 8.15x46R rifles are very often encountered with barrels that seem to be very tight for the caliber. Generally, if a bullet will fit easily into the neck of a fired case, you can use it , even if larger than groove dia.This is especially true of cast bullets, and your rifle was intended for lead bullets, usually swaged, but cast are ok. The "school solution" would be "slug the bore" to determine the groove diameter, but of the two die sets you mentioned, I would select the .318".
Mike

[ellenbr]

The tube steel is Röchling Electrik from their Rochling-Rodenhauser Electric Furnaces which were pressed into service circa 1908. It had a plug gauge diameter of 7,6mm when in the final state it passed thru Suhl proofhouse in 1924. Looks to be an Eagle over Crown over B on the action. Curious what the DRGM number might be. Lovely stock work.

Ford, seems you were posting while I was typing.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

[erich]

Yes, the action has an Eagle over Crown over B. There is also a smaller Crown over U just under it to the right of the DRGM number. The underside of the barrel also has the Crown over B Crown over U stampings. Am I right in thinking the DRGM number was a king of patent registration? I need to find some decent books on these.

It is missing the rear sight, I'm trying to see if either a rear sight or scope and mount can be sourced.

Thanks again,

Erich

[mike ford]

erich,
A scope mount usually means "hunting", and rifles in this form are not very useful for hunting( the cartridge is useable, but barely). Dixie Gun Works has,or had, rear sights that were often used by adapting them to the bases on these rifles.The sights as well other necessary tools for these rifles were stored separately and were often retained when the owners were forced to turn in the rifles for destruction. The chances of reuniting a rifle rescued from the tank treads or fires are pretty slim. BTW there is a good chance that the forearm was removed when the rifle was turned in,as a final act of defiance, rather than being lost in shipping. It was pretty common to encounter War Trophy Firearms missing forearms(I have a couple).In the case of rifles such as yours, it is easier to have a good forearm made than for a drilling,double, combo, etc, where the forearm(iron) is necessary to make it work.
Mike

[Axel E]

From The Waffenzeitung, Suhl, 1904
DRGM (protected design) # 217361: " In line with the bore axis, a deeply hollowed out rear wall of the original Martini receiver, filled by the elongated breechblock, for better cleaning. F.W. Kessler, Suhl in Thuringia." Sorry, nothing more. Up to the 1930s the expired DRGM papers were simply thrown away after ten years.

[ellenbr]

Gebrauchsmuster Nr. 217361 - Systemkasten Rückwand ufw. Carl Stiegele München Maximilianstraße 33. 19/12.03 - K. 20617 - 11/12 06

He obtained protection on December 19th, 1903 and paid forward for protection till December 11th 1906, typical 3 year period and then he opted out on an extension.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

From The Waffenzeitung, Suhl, 1904
DRGM (protected design) # 217361: " In line with the bore axis, a deeply hollowed out rear wall of the original Martini receiver, filled by the elongated breechblock, for better cleaning. F.W. Kessler, Suhl in Thuringia." Sorry, nothing more. Up to the 1930s the expired DRGM papers were simply thrown away after ten years.

Axel:
Something seems awry with the verbiage & DRGM number in your post. I believe you are one number off and that F.W. Keßler with DRGM Nr. 217362 for February 4th, 1904 piggy backed on Karl Stiegele's DRGM Nr. 217361 of December 19th, 1903. I'll have to dig a bit more to see if I can locate DRGM 217362.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

[sauerfan]

Axel:
Something seems awry with the verbiage & DRGM number in your post. I believe you are one number off and that F.W. Keßler with DRGM Nr. 217362 for February 4th, 1904 piggy backed on Karl Stiegele's DRGM Nr. 217361 of December 19th, 1903. I'll have to dig a bit more to see if I can locate DRGM 217362.

Raimey,

Axel is absolutely correct with his quote. Kessler’s DRGM #217361 is mentioned/shown on three pages in the 1904 volume of “Deutsche Waffenzeitung”: pages 39, 113 and 117 (see images).

Now to answer Erich’s question:

Am I right in thinking the DRGM number was a king of patent registration? I need to find some decent books on these.

Well, not quite. A “Gebrauchsmuster” (usual pre-war abbreviation is DRGM, which means "Deutsches Reichs-Gebrauchsmuster") is a specific German type of a "petty patent" . The most important difference is that a "Gebrauchsmuster" was not examined but only registered, it was cheaper but the maximum validation period was only six years (patents: 15 years till 1923, then 18 years). It is also known as "poor man's patent" and was used mainly for smaller inventions, like pistol holsters, rifle slings, sighting attachments or the like. So, a DRGM is a little bit like a patent – but it is no patent.

Best regards

Martin

[ellenbr]

Thanks Krause:
Mine comes direct from: Patentblatt: herausgegeben von dem Kaiserl. Patentamt, Volume 30, Part 2

So which one controls? Was there a possibility of an amendment to the DRGM & filed a few months later?

Now it was not for 6 years but 3. One had to pay an additional fee for the 2nd 3 years.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

I've seen info that gives that DRGM Nr. 217362 for February 4th 1904 was issued to F.W. Keßler, so your source could easily have a typo. Or there could be some other simple explanation.


Cheers,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

Here's some conjecture/a guess at what actually occurred. Karl Steigele, Jr. sent a wire to F.W. Keßler for an order and off the cuff mentioned, hey have you seen my new novel designed hatchback target arm which I filed for protection under Nr. 217361 dated December 19th, 1903? I paid forward for the 3 years of protection and let's see if it catches on. Keßler replies, that's I novel design & fits well with my production so I tell you what. I'll either purchase the novel design DRGM Nr. 217361 or I'll consider your current order paid in full in exchange for the rights to DRGM Nr. 217361. Then Keßler, with or without Steigele, filed for protection, either amended, or under DRGM Nr. 217362 on February 4th, 1904 for what y'all have put forth. Steigele solely filed for DRGM 217361 and possibly Keßler obtained the rights. Even though he owned the rights to DRGM Nr. 271361, Keßler may have not wanted other to know that he didn't file it seeing he had filed for DRGM 217362. So the authors who penned said articles on the hatchback didn't have the facts and assumed that Keßler had filed DRGM Nr. 271361 when in fact he did not.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

[sauerfan]

Hi Raimey,

Mine comes direct from: Patentblatt: herausgegeben von dem Kaiserl. Patentamt, Volume 30, Part 2. So which one controls? Was there a possibility of an amendment to the DRGM & filed a few months later?

I've seen info that gives that DRGM Nr. 217362 for February 4th 1904 was issued to F.W. Keßler, so your source could easily have a typo. Or there could be some other simple explanation.

Well, typos can’t be ruled out. Can you please attach an image of the relating entry in “Patentblatt”? Thanks in advance.

By the way: I searched for Kessler relating patents and DRGMs some 20 years ago (my father owned a Kessler drilling at that time having either a “D.R.P.” or “D.R.G.M.” marking, but without a number). For this purpose, I went through all dusty “Patentblatt” in a library. Unfortunately, I did not make photocopies but only hand written notes. My notes still are present. And what is there: December 19th, 1903, DRGM No 217361 – but no 271362. And according to my notes, #271361 did belong to Kessler.

Hum, so I like to see a copy of the Patentblatt entry you mentioned.

A possible explanation: in the Patentblatt you mentioned isn’t published the registration, but the trtansfer of the DRGM. I mean: if the owner changed, this change of ownership also was published. Therefore, I really like to see a copy of the relating publication.

Best regards

Martin

[ellenbr]

Maybe Stiegele to Keßler or was it Keßler to Stiegele?? Can't tell but Keßler's name does not appear in the text.

Änderungen in der Perlen des Inhabers Eingetragene Inhaber der folgenden Gebrauchsmufter find nunmehr die nachbenannten Verfonen:

72a - 217361 - Carl Stiegele, München, Maximilianstraße 33.


Cheers,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

Krause:
For your view pleasure:



Although possible, I wonder why Stiegele would desire the protection instead of a manufacture like Keßler?

Cheers,

Raimey
rse