[corsi]

Bought this little beauty back in 1992 and was wondering what it's worth now. As you can see it's an all-matching BYF 44. It is non-import marked and retains about 93-95% of the original finish. The wood is solid with no splits or cracks and the bore is bright and shiny with sharp lands and grooves. Feel free to ask question and I'll do my best to answer them. BTW, I didn't get a picture of it, but the front band is welded along the bottom as it should be.

I'm really confused here. I've linked to an image I've posted on my server, but it doesn't seem to be working now...it was a few minutes ago, but nothing now. Here's the link:

http://home.comcast.net/~jcorsi//byf44/byf44.jpg

Thanks for looking.
John

 

[DiehardWWII]

Nice rifle

Seems the way these matched rifles are getting harder to find, I think yours is worth $1000 or more even for a fairly common code and year. Beautiful rifle, I would certainly pay that much for it if it one came for sale. The wood and metal look untouched which makes it a nice desirable rifle to own. I have been trying to get my hands on a few nice original rifles and it's tough but coming along slowly.

Nice to see the pics, the RC's seem to be the majority of what is posted due to availability and price, but you can't beat the original rifles.

Later,
Diehard

 

[rickyracer2]

I have a nice BYF44 and I paid $1000.00 for mine so it sounds about right.

 

[hawaii50]

Corsi do you want to sell it?

Let me know
[email protected]
thanks
Alex

 

[chasdev]

The stock looks a little too smooth, like it was lightly sanded or steel-wooled.
It also may have a layer or three of BLO/Tung/Varnish perhaps..
If so, value is hurt and would come in at just under or just over $1000.00
Original unsanded/untouched lumber would see $1200 to $1500.

 

[tsellati]

I certainly respect chasdev's opinion as he has been collecting longer than I have but IMHO the stock looks right to me. The stock on my all-matching 1937 S/147 rifle which I acquired from the collection of "Bob in Ohio" also shows a smooth, almost dull shiny finish, which is a product of many years of handling during and likely after the war.

I also think that corsi's stock was perhaps not sanded due to the "sharpness" of the edges of the sling cut-out and the bolt recess.

It looks unmessed with to me and should easily fetch $1000 +.

Tim

P.S. - As a note added in proof, check out the stock on spitzenmeister's rifle (http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?t=19321) which he states was sanded at some point in its past. See how the edges of the sling cut-out and bolt recess are more rounded.

 

[chasdev]

Early hardwood stocks were sanded to much higher (read smoother) surface finish level.
I had an early laminate Gustloff that was almost commercial grade sanding wise.
The stock on the rifle pictured should have distinct "grain" to the laminate and and be fairly "dull" as opposed to smooth and polished.
Look at Bob's pictures of later war laminated stocks....you will see the diff.
Sanded does not mean with 80 grit, try some 600 or some 0000 steel wool and you will get the exact look his 44 has.

I looked again and while close-ups of the right rear buttstock area are not included, it looks like the Heer marks are almost gone?

 

[tsellati]

Early hardwood stocks were sanded to much higher (read smoother) surface finish level.
I had an early laminate Gustloff that was almost commercial grade sanding wise.
The stock on the rifle pictured should have distinct "grain" to the laminate and and be fairly "dull" as opposed to smooth and polished.
Look at Bob's pictures of later war laminated stocks....you will see the diff.
Sanded does not mean with 80 grit, try some 600 or some 0000 steel wool and you will get the exact look his 44 has.

I looked again and while close-ups of the right rear buttstock area are not included, it looks like the Heer marks are almost gone?

Yes, looking at Bob's late war laminated stocks I see the difference you refer to. I also took a closer look at where the Heer stamps should be, and although I suspect me eyes are older than yours, I too do not see any strong markings. I think you are right that this stock has been sanded at some point in its lifetime.

I suspect it still would garner close to or $1000 from someone who cannot afford a "more" correct rifle. If I had the money I'd make an offer .

Tim

 

[corsi]

The Stock Finish is Correct.

Sorry guys, but I have to disagree. All the edges on my stock are sharp with absolutely no rounding at all. I've seen byf laminate stocks that look just like mine and were untouched. What accounts for the sheen is the shellac type finish that was applied to these stocks...it is a characteristic on many byf's. I would say that the "dull" byf 98k's that are out there are the ones that have had the shellac type finish cleaned off or they are later blocks where the shellac was not used because of production shortcuts.

As for the stock Cartouche...it is there. The eagle head & wings are deep while the lower body and the Waa mark along the bottom are light. I think a plausible reason for that is the stamp was held against the wood at a slight angle during application.

Corsi

 

[boltactionsforever]

Sorry guys, but I have to disagree. All the edges on my stock are sharp with absolutely no rounding at all. I've seen byf laminate stocks that look just like mine and were untouched. What accounts for the sheen is the shellac type finish that was applied to these stocks...it is a characteristic on many biff's. I would say that the "dull" byf 98k's that are out there are the ones that have had the shellac type finish cleaned off or they are later blocks where the shellac was not used because of production shortcuts.

As for the stock Cartouche...it is there. The eagle head & wings are deep while the lower body and the Waa mark along the bottom are light. I think a plausible reason for that is the stamp was held against the wood at a slight angle during application.

Corsi

"I would say that the "dull" byf 98k's that are out there are the ones that have had the shellac type finish cleaned off or they are later blocks where the shellac was not used because of production shortcuts."


________________________________________________________________________

I can not buy this above statement......Shellac was never used, and if it was please direct me to the source of this info.

I'm with chasdev on this one..stock is not original production appearance/finish (or lack of).

A laminate stock finish will not look like a great quality early production walnut stock--two different animals without a doubt...Your early stock looks picture perfect, but clearly the defects in the late stock have been "fixed-sanded-or whatever you would like to call it"--not original out of the factory production.

Now I will include this for "food for thought"
A "slightly shinny" look can be obtain by hand oils from use, but this is normally seen as shinny/slightly darker area's on the stock around the neck and under the forearm of the stock expecially on early hard walnut examples. Definitely not a uniform coating over the whole gun like this BYF example...If it was my guess, I would say maybe some kind of oil treatment (gun oil) or bee's wax after knocking down the ruff' edges where the stock was worn. This was pretty common in years gone bye--who really knows, but not factory done IMO.

I'm not knocking the gun--it's a really nice find for a reasonable price--congrats!

Unless the stock looks a lot different in person, it's not a original finish BYF44 (or lack of).

BAF

 

[chasdev]

Are you saying that the Mauser Oby factory applied shellac "type" finish to their 1944 stocks?
Tsk,tsk, hold on there pilgrim...no such animal...

 

[Bob in OHIO]

Not piling on here, but not orig to my eye... Still, a matched gun.

 

[corsi]

In my previous post I called it a "shellac type" finish...perhaps a poor choice of words on my part, but to my eyes there is something there.

Take a look on page 197 of Mauser Military Rifles of the World (4th edition). There is a picture of a byf sniper rifle (1942-1943 manufacture). The cose-up view of the scope & mounts shows perfectly the type of finish on my gun. Also page 199 second photo down. This finish is much like mine too. On page 223, there are 2 last ditch VK 98s. The top gun is dull while the bottom is not...which is correct? Now to my eyes there seems be some type of finish on these stocks.

One more example. Here is a JPG of a K block byf 44. Again, the finish matches mine.

http://home.comcast.net/~jcorsi//BYFsample.jpg

Is all this conclusive? No, of course not, but I post them for consideration.

 

[mrfarb]

I will say SOME byf rifles have a light coat of something on the stock, while some are not coated. It's hard to call it shellac or varnish as it is very thin. Sometimes on a gun like yours, it's hard to get a feel from pictures. Your stock does appear extra smooth, but it is an earlier gun in the 1944 production- the pics may be giving that impression. Of course, your gun has a bit of wear which could also cause the stock to smooth out. Here's a pic of a byf45 with the finish I am talking about.

 

[bones92]

FWIW, I am the new owner of the K98 pictured by Corsi. I have looked at it a number of times, and it doesn't seem to have any shellac on it. The photos he posted make it seem shinier than it really is.