1934 Banner Mauser

[Patrick Chadwick]

Exactly as I described. Rather neat, the way the M is looped round in a circle. And a very clear marking.

[krebin]

Anyone with knowledge about the renumbered bolt? That part really puzzles me. Also any value guestimate?

Kinda off topic, I may regret the day I went to a gun show with a buddy of mine and relized that I just HAD to have one - maybe two old rifles On the other hand it's kind off a neat hobby

Anyone going to the antique arms show in Vegas next week?

Thanks
Kris

[Badger]

Take you rifle completely apart and look for serial numbers on most (if not all) components. Compare individual parts of your rifle to the 168 photo montage of the all correct example in the MKL…

The serial number should be on top of the bolt flat, not stamped along the bolt handle. It's kind of hard for me to tell, but it looks like a number font that's more modern, but perhaps not.

It should also be marked with Crown "B" and Crown "U" on bolt flat and serial number on all other bolt components.

Crown "B" = single definitive proof with blackpowder proof charge.
Crown "U" = inspection after proof.

Besides the two markings above, on the receiver side it should also have:

Crown "G" = indicates firearm firing a bullet.
Crown "N" = indicates proofed using smokeless/nitro powder

I'm not sure what the RZ marking stamp is, but perhaps it's the result of the rebuild in some arsenal someplace after the war?

Pics extracted from Knowledge Library example in earlier link ....

(Click PIC to Enlarge)(Click PIC to Enlarge)

Regards,
Doug

[Patrick Chadwick]

I'm not sure what the RZ marking stamp is, but perhaps it's the result of the rebuild in some arsenal someplace after the war?

Doug, with all respect to your knowledge, which is in general undoubtedly greater than mine, I not only explained the RZ mark, but actually forecast exactly how it would appear, i.e. RZ within a looped M, before even seeing a photo. It could, of course, be faked, as so many of these marks are which are especially valued by collectors. The bolt could have been a replacement renumbered by a gunsmith post-war.

There are indeed markings on the flat top of the root of the bolt handle, below the original number, and a clear view of these would make it possible to narrow down the date range when the bolt was manufactured. The "crown over" U mark, for instance, was abolished with the 1939 proof law.

[Badger]

Hi Patrick .....

My apologies if I confused the issue, as I missed the earlier post....

I was trying to say, albeit badly, that I personally had never seen the RZ marking on 1934 Banner before. So, I incorrectly assumed it was some kind of later rebuild marking. I should have been clearer in separating personal experience and opinion from research data.

Regards
Doug

PS: you are far more experienced and knowledgable an I am with these pieces.

[Calif-Steve]

A rather neat and clear stamping on a sanded stock? Receiver appears buffed and re-blued to me. Not too sure what I am looking at.

[krebin]

Again thanks for all the input, it's highly appreciated!

@ Doug and Patrick. I'll take the rifle apart to check up on all the internal numbers.

@ Steve. The stock appears very authentick, it's hard to see on the pic's but it has what appears to real patina and is more "worn" than sanded. The receiver may, but I doubt it, have been reblued.

Kris

[jmoore]

A rather neat and clear stamping on a sanded stock? Receiver appears buffed and re-blued to me. Not too sure what I am looking at.

It is hard to tell for sure from the photos whether the metal's been reblued and the stock scrubbed, but your suspicions are valid. The few Banner Mausers I've seen have had higher degree of polish than usual on the action and bands. A little edge rounding, but it should be of generally high quality. The stocks seem to also to have had a bit more rubbing, but the edges should be even and the grain well filled. Could probably tell in under a minute if the rifle were in hand whether it's been redone. There's certainly enough clues in the photos to be wary at this point.

[Patrick Chadwick]

There's certainly enough clues in the photos to be wary at this point.

Calif-Steve and jmoore. I know what you mean. After all, one of my favorite precautionary sayings is "if it looks too good to be true, then it probably is ... too good to be true".

The other is AFAICTWAHTOIMH:
As Far As I Can Tell Without Actually Having The Object In My Hands

With these reservtions in mind, I agree that in the end the barreled action has to be removed from the body. After nearly 70 years, just about every rifle that has not been kept in the wrap since manufacture will show a difference at the "waterline" where the barrel channel starts. Even if it's just a shading in the bluing. And whether, for instance, bluing goes across worn edges (indicating rebluing after the wear) is another feature that requires examination under an eyeglass.

[jmoore]

Looking at Badger's linked MKL example does help. Again, the raised grain in the grasping grooves is of concern. The condition of the crossbolt and surronding wood. And the hint of darkness behind the sling on the RH side of the butt just forward of the takedown boss- along with the sanding marks there. So,...more wood concerns than metal at this point.

Limitation at this point is the detail of the rifle in question. Might be good news in the end or the vultures might pounce. But it is what it is.