WWI Bayonet

[graf98a]

Clarification; bayonet makers, whether the other Suhl mfg (VCS, Simson, CGH all made the Sg98/05- though with the Suhl consortium they collaborated with one another, Simson apparently less so being out of the loop?) or otherwise often did depend on other firms to finish their contracts (blade blanks in particular, which are often marked, clearly or under the grips), I have never read where this occurred with Simson, they very well could have though- just never read that such occurred with them -many did and is often the reason behind their "failureâ?� to meet contracts which "usually" ended further contracts, Simson continued with theirs (and sought further) and seems more self sufficient than most other firms.

Another, - I would "think" that Erfurt would be the first choice for repair over a commercial firm such as DWM for the P08, namely because of cost? Certainly in Simson's case they were passed over at times for cost savings and work done at the depots instead (the 98b conversion program for instance..) generally the existence of the arsenals were somewhat justified as a counter to the commercial firms, and though not always cheaper (Amberg for instance with their small long contracts).
During the war, areas were assigned to the depots and they most certainly to the closest arsenal, DWM probably did get their fair share but the wastage on the P08 had to be less than rifles so the rules might not apply?

Just random thoughts- from a rifle collector... not always good for P08 collectors.