Research assistance requested ........

[Ian Skennerton]

Hi from Australia, 44-40.
Very interesting, I've never seen one like this before, especially from the Anglo-Boer war.
To be a bullet channel, the rifle would need to have been held vertical. Or could it have been a piece of shrapnel?
Thanks for the contribution,
Ian Skennerton

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[P-07ShortLee]

JMoore, interesting stuff there.

[Ian Skennerton]

There are a few threads with interesting photos, examples and comments. My original post and inquiry for a study of battle damage did not comprehend such a wide range, including machine guns. Water jackets are prone to damage, moreso than other parts of the gun.
Ian Skennerton

[P-07ShortLee]

Could have been "dropped", laying on it's side.

---------- Post added at 10:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 PM ----------

Or leaning (stacked?) in a near vertical position.

[jmoore]

The following isn't So much damage as wear and possible finish degradation due to exposure in "battlefield" conditions. Worn wood at the toe seems to show up w/ some degree of regularity on "experienced" weapons.

The areas normally protected by the "dust covers" on the two rifles shown demonstrate that they protect the weapon from more than "dust":

A matching "mum'ed" Type 38 rifle:




Note the very uneven wear of the wood on the toe of this rifle. Buttplates themselves seem to be little worn. Interesting, no?


Whilst on Type 38s, here's some uglies on a carbine fore stock. Nothing earth shaking, but Maybe from field use?:



Und now, a Gew98 previously photo'd in a small thread in the Mauser Forum (it's "feeling less lonely", now!):


Significant wood is gone from the toe, but in a more even manner than the above Type 38 rifle.


Note the lovely sheen of the metal protected by the cover.

Note the bluing that's still on the underside of the cover.

[Harlan (Deceased)]

Hello Ian,

This is a very interesting thread. Respectfully, I would completely disagree with the assumption that any damage/marks would likely have occurred during wartime days given their extensive exposure in private hands.
(At least in the case of milsurp weapons in the USA).

These rifles have been in private ownership for decades, and most were very inexpensive when they were surplussed out of our government armories care, or imported from foreign nation's armories.

They were put into open top wooden barrels at hardware stores and such, and people banged them into each other as they rummaged through them to pick out the one they wanted. Sadly, great numbers were 'sporterized' and turned into inexpensive hunting rifles, and many more were used as a 'utility gun' on a farm, etc because they were so inexpensive.

They were so abundant for a period that few people imagined that they'd be valuable as collectibles someday, so it was common to see them abused -
Many were stored bare behind, or under, pickup truck seats with bare metal floors, or used for 'plinking' and the stocks resting on rocks, against trees, ect, and simply took general beating.
Even when cared for, many have been handled for years, often by family members who didn't have any knowledge of firearms (or care about them), so dings and scratches are inevitable.

Even 'kill notches,' ect would have most likely been carved into stocks years after WWII, and they've had ample enough time to 'age' so it's impossible to ascertain if they were carved by a GI with time on his hands, or a young person to make it look interesting.
(And in more recent times marked in many ways to counterfeit in an effort to cheat people; but this is a different subject)

The few very interesting examples so far shown of catastrophic damage do sound much more probable to be a result of battle to me.
This type of damage is rare - It's very improbable someone would shoot or 'blow up' a rifle for fun!

My contribution is not 'battle damage' but it's the best (possible) 'wartime marking' I can come up with on any of the guns I have.
(I always look for guns with as little damage as possible)




There again, there's no way to know when this was actually done.
It ads no value, and it's an odd date to carve in a pre-WWII made gun so I would think it's probably period.

[Ian Skennerton]

Sure, in a country where so much surplus was available and virtually every shooter had the opportunity to buy ex-service rifles at basement prices, there was a much higher incidence or storage marks and dents, even abuse. The increasing numbers of years these rifles have been available makes it harder to judge what might have been done in service too.
Perhaps my reply was a little casual and could be misleading, but I am sure you can understand the point.
We've had an ample supply of SMLE rifles available as surplus in Oz but there were no Hunters Lodge, Century Arms, Interarms and the like in Australia or En Zed, nor in England and Europe with their more stringent gun laws. So Americans can count themselves fortunate in that respect!
Good luck,
Ian

[jmoore]

I think that, like cafdfw, most random marks are likely not battle damage, esp. on otherwise good condition weapons. It's a bit of an investigative puzzle, the whole package must be viewed. I also think that there are going to be very few allied weapons floating about that haven't been rebuilt after having seen extensive field use. That leaves the unground mum Japanese rifles, certain German and maybe a few Italian rifles (WWII only for Italy), and a few Korean and Vietnam era Soviet weapons, all most likely sent back as war trophies. Tough to find, but do-able if you work at it!

[jmoore]

I just remembered a thread started by "read6737" concerning a very interesting M1 Garand:

The Found M1

You might contact him for some photos of what's very likely an original as they get WWII M1. It was very likely used during the retaking of France. But who really knows?

[P-07ShortLee]

Don't forget French and Polish rifles from pre WW2.