Well, I'm going to have to somewhat revise my statement to include the loss of craftsmen and post WWII sourcing, which between 1949, which saw the division of Germany, and 1953 lead to a dip in quality and I think is what gave post WWII examples a bad name due to the fact that the sourcing of the West had become non-existant and the fractured group of Suhl craftsmen "made do" with what they could find and expending existing stock. There was a revolt by the German craftsmen, and I'm sure Suhl was strongly in the mix with the revolt being founded on the fact of not being able to deliver a quality product which was tradition and expected by the Suhl craftsmen, in 1953 which was brought under tight control by the folks in charge and Russian took full economic control of Suhl, and I'm sure East Germany/DDR. So taking control also meant providing sourcing possibilities or components. So in September 1955
Izhevsk crucible steel grade 50A was substituted for Krupp steel and Izhevsky introduced the "Four Rings" to distinguish the two. I think the Izhevsky "Four Ring" steel had an elastic limit at 50 kg/mm^2 and a failure at 80 kg/mm^2. There numbers are accurate but I'm not sure about the description of the limits.
So let me say that I think that the bad press stamped upon post WWII German arms wasn't due to the craftsmanship per se, but actually to the inability of sourcing quality components. And I believe this to have occured between 1950 & 1953. As always I entertain any and all info or opinions.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
