I recently acquired an excellent phosphate bcd 4 barreled receiver and I would like to try and put it back as close as possible to it's original configuration. There is only the serial number on the barrel and all of the other parts are a mixture of phosphate and blue stamped metal with no serial numbers. I currently have a matching 214 waffenamt marked bolt and another matching bolt which has what appears to be a 93 waffenamt. I can't find a information on a 93 Waffenamt so I don't know if I'm reading it correct. (old eyes) The latter bolt has the round gas holes. Would either of these bolts be acceptable as replacement bolts or should I look for another manufacturer. I would also like to know which stock would be most correct. Any help or opinion appreciated.
Mauser help
- Thread starter Doucme2
- Start date
- Status
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
Let's see if moving to Gunsmithing helps. 
JT-AR-MG42
Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2010
- Messages
- 872
1944 was a year of transition.
Gustloff production that year was large and without knowing the serial range, the phosphate would make me guess it was latter half of the year.
Of the two bolts, I'd lean toward the Lubeck one with the oval holes.
Stamped and welded front and rear bands and spring and an unstained cupped stock with or without the stock disc is how I would go.
A '93' on the round hole bolt does not ring a bell here. The Czech '63' is obviously close, but since the waffenampt stamps were one piece it does not seem likely to be a mis-stamp.
Does it have the guide rib and how does the bolt sleeve machining compare to the Lubeck bolt?
Maybe pics.
JT
Gustloff production that year was large and without knowing the serial range, the phosphate would make me guess it was latter half of the year.
Of the two bolts, I'd lean toward the Lubeck one with the oval holes.
Stamped and welded front and rear bands and spring and an unstained cupped stock with or without the stock disc is how I would go.
A '93' on the round hole bolt does not ring a bell here. The Czech '63' is obviously close, but since the waffenampt stamps were one piece it does not seem likely to be a mis-stamp.
Does it have the guide rib and how does the bolt sleeve machining compare to the Lubeck bolt?
Maybe pics.
JT
Sorry the pictures are not great. Upon a second look, the lower bolt may well be a poorly stamped 63. The serial number on the barrel (none on the receiver) is 22xxx. Five nembers no letter. The trigger guard is stamped and marked qnw. the floor plate is steel and marked only with a 1. Should I look for a stamped floor plate. Both of the bolts headspace correctly. If I wanted a better match what should I look for?
Attachments
Last edited:
JT-AR-MG42
Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2010
- Messages
- 872
Both the floorplate, that has the Gustloff assigned '1' inspection number, and the TG are close enough for a rifle from that period.
qnw parts are usually found on 1945 rifles.
Ideally, a bcd 4 would have an oval hole bolt with the guide rib and most of the parts marked with an 'e'.
Of the two, I'd go with the Czech bolt because of the later - rougher machining and less polish in comparison to the earlier Lubeck - look to it.
Maybe a shot of the top of the receiver and barrel and one of the left receiver wall? It it a thick side receiver? Tape over the serial for security.
JT
qnw parts are usually found on 1945 rifles.
Ideally, a bcd 4 would have an oval hole bolt with the guide rib and most of the parts marked with an 'e'.
Of the two, I'd go with the Czech bolt because of the later - rougher machining and less polish in comparison to the earlier Lubeck - look to it.
Maybe a shot of the top of the receiver and barrel and one of the left receiver wall? It it a thick side receiver? Tape over the serial for security.
JT
- Status
