1918 T-Gewehr Bullets

[browningautorifle]

Hard to say. It's been a hundred years after all. Most of those were destroyed in action so how does one come out newish?

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.

[rescuerandy2]

Agreed. That's why I am wondering what's under all that nice paint. Not sure where I caught some text on reproductions coming out of France? Do I have an original or reproduction. Randy

[browningautorifle]

I can't even guess decently about originality on this one. Too rare...

[Patrick Chadwick]

Look closely at the 4th foto. One can see a screw head with a burred slot. The paint is intact on top of the burred metal. The burring action would have produced blank metal at this point.

I therefore deduce that the paint at least is not original. No surprise after a century!

However, the fact that the paint is of later date does not provide decisive evidence about the originality of the metal underneath. It could have been used - repainted - and used again.

If you also come to the conclusion that the paint is not original, then it would not be harmful in the antique-original sense to remove the paint in very small areas to reveal the markings. Although markings are the most obvious features for fakery!

That leaves us with the standard question: does the wear pattern look believable?

As Jim pointed out, we have no objects available for comparison, and the present set of photos leave me with a “could be???” feeling.

More close-ups of the wear points please!

[rescuerandy2]

Gentlemen, more photos tomorrow. I will need the daylight to get at the areas that may give us a better clue. Thanks, Randy

[browningautorifle]

There's such a variation in the bipods too. Seems to be several different types...

[rescuerandy2]

Yes, mine is the early, rivetted version. As I can see on the images of that first version above, there is that green paint. While the paint on my bipod is similar, and has been laid on thick as I have seen on others like mine, it does look like it was painted recently. Images at several auction sites do show these early bipods without paint. In those images, the early bipods seem to have a similar finish to the later model bipods. I am suggesting that the black finish of the second version might also be what was given to or has developed on the first version bipod. This is leading me more and more to removing the thick, newish, green paint. Randy

[Patrick Chadwick]

According to the book "Das Tankgewehr Mauser M 1918" by Wolfgang Kern (ISBN 3-933481-06-6), the bipod in Jim's 1st foto is an original Tankgewehr bipod, made from solid material. There are probably very few of those still around.

The one favored by the PBI who had to carry all that gear was the bipod for the MG 08/15, which was a much lighter "plug-in" replacement. This is the type in Jim's 2nd and 3rd fotos. That is what Randy has got. There are probably considerably more of these around, reflecting the larger quantity of MG 08/15s. And the color of the paint (if it is even original) does not seem to indicate a different version.

The book mentions (P116) that if one had to make a "strategic withdrawal" the heavy bipod was the first thing to be dumped, and also observes that the majority of photos of a T-Gewehr in the field show it without a bipod at all. Many riflemen would have seen little sense in using a bipod (which anyway tended to sink into the muddy earth) and thus be forced to stick one's head out further than absolutely necessary. Resting the beast on the parapet of the trench was simpler - and safer!

Randy, that book is a must! And if anyone knows a better one on the T-Gewehr, please let me know!

[Patrick Chadwick]

According to the book "Das Tankgewehr Mauser M 1918" by Wolfgang Kern (ISBN 3-933481-06-6), the bipod in Jim's 1st foto is an original Tankgewehr bipod, made from solid material - and very heavy. There are probably very few of those still around.

The one favored by the PBI who had to carry all that gear was the bipod for the MG 08/15, which was a much lighter "plug-in" replacement. That is what Randy has got. There are probably considerably more of these around, reflecting the larger quantity of MG 08/15s.

The book also mentions (P116) that if one had to make a "strategic withdrawal" the heavy bipod was the first thing to be dumped, and also observes that the majority of photos of a T-Gewehr in action show it without a bipod at all. Many riflemen would have seen little sense in using a bipod (which anyway tended to sink into the muddy earth) and thus be forced to stick one's head out further than absolutely necessary. Resting the beast on the parapet of the trench was simpler - and safer!

Randy, that book is a must! And if anyone knows a better one on the T-Gewehr, please let me know!

[browningautorifle]

The first pic I posted is a recovered bipod that has been cleaned after being burned...in a fire. The pics of it covered in scale had no bearing so... I agree the bipod the OP shows is original but the paint is likely added. The little markings should be easy enough to verify?