|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 members (KDGJ, 1 invisible),
476
guests, and
22
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,573
Posts546,474
Members14,424
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,774 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,774 Likes: 1 |
No, Jani. I saw many German Suhl guns made for officers, but without proofmarks. All of them bear caliber markings first of all.
Geno.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,917 Likes: 201
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,917 Likes: 201 |
It may well be a Suhl frame but the finished product still whispers "Ferlach" to my ears. Lack of indicators is yet another indication in this direction.
As I see it, one possibility is that it was made for a high ranking Allied (British?) officer in occupied Ferlach, possibly circa 1947, before the formal production was restarted (circa 1948?). He could afford to skip the formal proofing - if it was operative at that early date at all.
Jani: I hadn't considered that but I do know of a couple instances up into the 1960s where a couple cartons of cigarettes, a Russian machinegun barrel and a Mauser action, could get you a finished rifle as well as re-fitted/retro fitted examples going back to the U.S. of A. "somehow skipped the proofhouse stage". I will concur that it has elements of a Ferlach example but still I think the resemblence reverts back to a Suhl origin. But then again I am not at all familiar with the occupation of Austria. I think it was in Mr. Cate's book that a Sauer example in the 380k range was made for General Curtis Lemay in early 1950, but it wears proofmarks. Kind Regards, Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,763 Likes: 8
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,763 Likes: 8 |
"No" what, Geno? What you say is supporting my theory in one important respect (lack of proof marks), and there were certainly some differences between Suhl and Ferlach procedures under post WWII occupation. As far as I know (without checking sources) Suhl was occupied by the Russians/Soviets, and Ferlach by the British.
With kind regards,
Jani
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,917 Likes: 201
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,917 Likes: 201 |
Raimey, for post war East Zone or GDR that's impossible, moreover thats impossible for Buhag.
I can't see s/n, but my guess to check it with Meffert prewar serials. Geno: What is "it" that is impossible. Post WWII up thru 1949 things were all 6s & 7s/upsidedown in Germany and during this time about anything was possible. BuHaG more than likely wouldn't have peddled it but the existing craftsmen who had no other choice but to stay could easily have made it, either using stock on hand or making every component, which would have been a requirement of this example. Kind Regards, Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,774 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,774 Likes: 1 |
I don't know about Ferlach occupied by British, but I know about Suhl, Buhag, Eastern Zone and GDR. Buhag just finished guns made by Merkel, Simson, Sauer departments. They never made something unusual. When Buhag came to life all GDR production had to be certified.
BTW. I've been told Fanzoj family made something rather like.
Geno.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
