blitz99 wrote:

---

Incorrect information by "experts" . Storz is wrong , same as all the other incorrrect information that has been published [and republished] about Gew-88's . JPS's is just a copy of the one in the book . There are also 2 different types , 88/05/14's and 88/14's . There is existing documents in Germany that state 88/14's were shipped to Turkey . Gew-88/14's are not very rare if you know what you are looking for .

blitz99 wrote:

---

The bad information about Gew-88's started from published works . Alot of it is clearly wrong if you just look . The notch was cut for the longer "S" round , just put the P-88 and "S" cartridge next to each other and you can see this is not correct . The original bores were .318 , again just look at a real bore . It goes on and on . Back to the 88/14 . The only "proof" is a photo in ONE book , and that rifle contradicts what the WWI German armorer's manual has in print.

True, Hans-Dieter Götz ( Die deutschen Militärgewehre und Maschinenpistolen 1871 - 1945) does make some mistakes, but as discussed in the thread on Gunboards linked in my above post says, most of the "incorrect information" that people complain about in his work can be attributed to an at best clumsy translation. As far as only one book having an illustration of a true 88/14, that is a fact, existing 88/14s are rare with, as far as I know, only 3 examples that I am personally aware of existing. The fact that one is in the Bavarian Army Museum and that it is called by the museum an 88/14 adds weight to the title. I find it difficult to believe that Storz and other knowledgeable German historical arms researchers whose native language is German and have life-long experience speaking and reading as well as doing research in period manuals and documents could make the boneheaded mistake that you, a non German language speaker, accuse them of. As I said earlier, name the manual and it can be found. It was not a rare book in it's day and is still available somewhere. This will allow a person fluent in German technical terminology to explain the problems you are having with the language so that you will better understand them.

Here are the technical , mechanical and common sense reasons that rifle is not a 88/14 . The manual clearly states the easiest way to identify one is the GEW-98 type thumb cut out for loading . It also tells of the different style magazine parts .

Both of these things were discussed and explained to you in the linked thread. There are variants of the "thumb cut out", and they are easily identified. Deep is a relative term. The Mauser style cut out that you feel represents an 88/14 is a post-war Turkish modification. There is no proof that this was done to the rifles while in German service, at least none that I am aware of. The "deep cut out" that is mentioned in the manual is discussed in the thread and is simply a variant of the cut out done on the earlier 88/05, not the Mauser style Turk-done cut out often see on Turk Gew 88/05 rifles and some later Turkish modified 88/05/35 rifles. The magazine variant that you mention is shown clearly on JPS' matching triggerguard assembly, indicarting that it is indeed an 88/14.

The blob weld for a clip guide does not match the German discription which says " TWO parts melted into one" . That is not a blob weld, which is not a part . Also there are mechanical reasons why they would not do that. First it would be much harder to do and take much longer than just spot welding two metal tabs on . Second that much heat would tend to warp the thin rear receiver and then you would have to file or cut the guide cuts into the weld. The real stated difference between the 05 and 14 guides was the type of welding. The 05 was gas spot welded , the 14 was electric welded . Electric welding was made common place in Germany in 1914 in armament manufacture . Also if you look at a 05 you can see the heat circle left by the gas heat required to do that type of weld . On a real 14 that circle is not there as electric spot weld is quick and does not spread heat .

While I am perhaps not as familiar with welding practice as you are, I am aware of the fact that spot welding can certainly be done by an electric process, it is not a gas only process. I also can not see how the spots can consistently be so perfectly round (often exhibiting brass brazing around the circle of consistent roundness and size) and I am aware that spot welding is not as strong as proper edge welding done by an electric process which the Gew88/05 does not show. Maybe that is the reason why the 88/14 was changed from the flat plate charger guides?

The notion that the 05 was riveted is from a technical mistranslation . The term rivet was used as a verb to mean attach two parts together, not as a noun as in a actual rivet . Again all you have to do is know how a rivet works and look at a 05 to see it CAN NOT be riveted, there is no hole on the under side . The receiver is too thin there for anything but a weld . Plus I did knock a guide off a 05 receiver and it was clearly welded .

As asked before, can you show us the weld that you exposed? The pictures that you showed us then were of another destructive test that you did and did not really mean a lot. Really now, your questions on the other thread were asked and answered - ad infenitum. You have yet to give the source of the information that you were quoting so while it can be taken seriously as your word, it can not be analyzed accurately since there is not an accurate translation done by a German speaker who is capable of understanding the technical terms in both their modern and correct early Twentieth Century context. Your translator may or (more likely) may not understand these terms correctly. As to the use of the translation of the German "rivet" as translated by your source, it may or may not be correct. I personally see those round shadows on the 88/05 charger blocks as possibly, even likely being screws that have been dressed down after installation or, indeed, rivets. Both are possible, the metal of the receiver is definitely thick enough for either., I do not see them as spot riveting marks. Also, as an example of how language can vary over time, you used the term "plug rivet" during the earlier discussion, but now they are spot welds?

The Germans fielded the 05 and the 14 as the same weapon , it worked the same as far as a soldier knew . Only an armorer needed to know the differances in parts to work on a rifle . There would be no reason to seperate the two, other than in production records , in German use or when sending rifles to the Turks . Also there are 05/14's , as I have a few and it is clear where the 14 update was done over the 05 update . The blob weld is much cruder than anything the Germans ever did, workmanship , or mechanical . Who did the rifle in the book ? , I do not know . I could only speculate . It is clearly a barn quaility bit of work , was it done to "update" a Gew-88 after the war for the internal fighting? The fact that JPS's rifle is an exact copy of the one in the book proves nothing other than that . I have a Belgian post WWI made Gew-88 sporter that the gunsmith made his OWN clip guides and magazine conversion , so it was also done by others .

I can not see the 88/14 in John's possession being crudely done as you claim, it is certainly not what you call "barn quality work". Having examined the one in John's collection as well as one in the collection at Great War Militaria, the work is not at all crude, it is neatly done and well finished with no seams or roughness. It is very sturdy looking and well finished in fact. It seems that you are simply using the statements in the earlier books, something you correctly say should not be done. Examine an 88/14 up close and you will agree. May we see pictures of your Belgian sporter to compare the real 88/14 to the Belgian barn gun?

I have a Gew-88 that really looks to be a late war German 14 conversion for many reasons . The receiver is really pitted [ like a battlefield recovery ] , it has a German proofed birch stock , a new German bolt release , A Gew-98 barrel cut down to fit and there is NO pitting in the thumb cut out or bullet clearance notch . That tells me the Germans did the cutting , as they clearly put the other parts on . That is why I think the "14" in the book may be a very rare rifle, but not a 14 .

Please show us pictures of the rifle in your collection that shows the crudity of this conversion as well as indication that it was done to a battlefield pick up so that we can see that they Germans were doing this work on badly damaged rifles. They did not do such work as they were never in the position to need to do it. During the early wasr period they were short of arms but were still able to field and equip a very large and effective force using modern German arms (including the Gew88"S", Gew88/05 and Gew88/14) as well as captured foreign arms of modern design. Even their second and third line troops were equipped with effective arms without resorting to rusted out hulks that had lain on the battlefield long enough to be heavily rust pitted. By 1917 they were not only manufacturing enough new Gew98 and Kar98a for their own needs, they allowed the Mauser plant at Oberndorf to turn over their entire production of modern, front-line Gew98 for Turkey. No need you waste time and personnel on reworking rusted out relics dropped early in the war and left where they fell. Even if that were true, what has this "example" got to do with an 88/14?

All of the German documents are still out there, you just have to find them . The 14 question is just like all the other incorrect " facts " that were spread around by people not doing any real research , just repeating what was in a book . In the 1400's the fact that the world was flat was in all the books , so sometimes it does pay to look at the real item . Everything " proving " the rifle in the book is a 14 itself has no basis other than the book says it is . People who are technically or mechanicaly ignorrant can interperate something they read incorrectly by not realizing that it just can not work like they think . Just because a guy works at a museum does not mean he is a technical expert , the guy on the Military Channel who is from a museum is one of the most armament ignorrant people I have ever seen . He just repeats what ever he has heard and adds more to it making it even worse . He is entertaining though as we are always calling each other up and laughing about his latest amazing statement

As to the last statement, I can not see Walter, Gotz or especially Storz as "ignorant". Al three are highly respected and will probably be the first to say that their works have mistakes, knowledge is a growing thing and changes over time. You need to realize that everyone makes mistakes and that what is "known" today will change tomorrow. If you can show evidence that you are correct and others are wrong, then give out the sources that prove your point and let the chips fall where they may. All will benefit from it, no one is trying to steal knowledge from you or your source, it needs to be shared or it is wasted.

blitz99 wrote:

---

Then there is this:
................................. Information does get taken , I have seen much of what I have shared by posting [ to the word ] show up in other peoples articles with no credit . My German translator has a German masters in the language . ........................................

Okay, I give up. You do not answer the question asked over and over again - what is the source of your information? That is fine. I understand that you are guarding the source of your information for possible future use in an article or book to be published in the future. Of course that was first mentioned 5 years ago and we have still not seen it but these things take time, I'm sure it will be THE definitive work on the Gew88 and all of it's variants relegating Gotz, Storz and Walter to the dustbin. However, be sure to use more than one translator, you will need one who has the German language skills (apparently you have that) and one that knows the language usage of 100 years ago. Also find someone who has a working knowledge of engineering and machinist terminology of the pre-WW1 era as used in Germany at the time, it is doubtful that the average American MA will have that knowledge, especially since you accuse Storz, a Ph.D. and a man whose native language is German with a lifetime of research in his native language and resources you haven't dreamed of available to him,of not knowing what he is talking about when he says that the example in the Bavarian Army Museum (where he is curator) and the example owned by JPS are, indeed, Gew88/14. This is my last post on the subject, I simply wanted to link the article at

http://web.archive.org/web/20050307110513/www.gunboards.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=22828

so that all could see an example of this rare rifle and read and learn from the information posted there. No reason to accept the unsupported and possibly incorrect information that you had posted earlier. This is not a "barn gun". (BTW, we still have not seen the two examples that you claim to have - the late war conversion of a rust pitted Gew88"S" to your version of a Gew88/14 and the Belgian post-War conversion). Why not start a new thread with those examples?