DWM P08 Mixmaster, opinions requested

alvin · 03-06-2016, 09:36 AM

I feel WWI wartime made gun does have certain steel quality issues. I've broken two Red 9s in range (1917-1918, late wartime). They were not poor condition ones, both were in excellent collector condition and had near mint bore, obviously not fired a lot in the past. But their "lifetime" to shoot without issue was merely a few hundred rounds. If we think this -- factory and inspector could control dimension parameters, but they could not control steel quality. So, I stopped firing those wartime made pistols -- it could present hazards to operator. In one case, the broken hammer flew back hitting my throat. The feeling was like hit by an ejected case, but obviously it's something heavier than cartridge case. If this broken hammer had hit an eye... you know... Once I thought about why those WWI surplus Red 9s did not show up in Asia in large number (there were some, but volume was small)... one reason could be it did not last long. When operator indeed shot them, they indeed broke. For non-collector market, that's obviously being an issue.

Not sure WWII wartime pistols though. No shooting experience yet.

For WWI wartime pistols, they have interesting historical background. Collect top condition ones, and don't shoot it.

kurusu · 03-06-2016, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alvin

I feel WWI wartime made gun does have certain steel quality issues. I've broken two Red 9s in range (1917-1918, late wartime). They were not poor condition ones, both were in excellent collector condition and had near mint bore, obviously not fired a lot in the past. But their "lifetime" to shoot without issue was merely a few hundred rounds. If we think this -- factory and inspector could control dimension parameters, but they could not control steel quality. So, I stopped firing those wartime made pistols -- it could present hazards to operator. In one case, the broken hammer flew back hitting my throat. The feeling was like hit by an ejected case, but obviously it's something heavier than cartridge case. If this broken hammer had hit an eye... you know... Once I thought about why those WWI surplus Red 9s did not show up in Asia in large number (there were some, but volume was small)... one reason could be it did not last long. When operator indeed shot them, they indeed broke. For non-collector market, that's obviously being an issue.

Not sure WWII wartime pistols though. No shooting experience yet.

For WWI wartime pistols, they have interesting historical background. Collect top condition ones, and don't shoot it.

I will have to agree with Alvin on this one. And that's the main reason I wouldn't use this pistol as a shooter. My 1941 BYF on the other hand has been heavily used by me and it's former owner for the last 18 years with no problems.

It's perfect nonsense, to me, not to shoot a matching late manufactured Luger. And instead happily fire away with a battered 100 year old plus pistol.

4 Scale · 03-06-2016, 11:00 AM

This is a very interesting pistol and thread. Your photos are very well done.

I compared the various frame markings on your pistol near the mainspring, and the markings near the trigger pivot to pages 577-581 of Gortz and Sturgess, which goes into some detail on DWM frame internal/inspection markings from inception of DWM production to 1930. I cannot match any of the markings on your frame to their photos/descriptions of DWM internal frame markings for any time period.

So, based on this admittedly limited research, combined with the fact that the frame does not have the Mauser hump that appears on 1937-on production, my guess is the frame is Mauser production 1931-1936.

As a relative newbie I don't offer this as a definitive dating of your frame, but am hoping more experienced collectors will comment on this approach to dating the frame.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-06-2016, 09:36 AM	#1
alvin User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: US Posts: 3,843 Thanks: 132 Thanked 729 Times in 438 Posts	I feel WWI wartime made gun does have certain steel quality issues. I've broken two Red 9s in range (1917-1918, late wartime). They were not poor condition ones, both were in excellent collector condition and had near mint bore, obviously not fired a lot in the past. But their "lifetime" to shoot without issue was merely a few hundred rounds. If we think this -- factory and inspector could control dimension parameters, but they could not control steel quality. So, I stopped firing those wartime made pistols -- it could present hazards to operator. In one case, the broken hammer flew back hitting my throat. The feeling was like hit by an ejected case, but obviously it's something heavier than cartridge case. If this broken hammer had hit an eye... you know... Once I thought about why those WWI surplus Red 9s did not show up in Asia in large number (there were some, but volume was small)... one reason could be it did not last long. When operator indeed shot them, they indeed broke. For non-collector market, that's obviously being an issue. Not sure WWII wartime pistols though. No shooting experience yet. For WWI wartime pistols, they have interesting historical background. Collect top condition ones, and don't shoot it.

03-06-2016, 11:00 AM	#3
4 Scale User Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 544 Thanks: 194 Thanked 491 Times in 251 Posts	This is a very interesting pistol and thread. Your photos are very well done. I compared the various frame markings on your pistol near the mainspring, and the markings near the trigger pivot to pages 577-581 of Gortz and Sturgess, which goes into some detail on DWM frame internal/inspection markings from inception of DWM production to 1930. I cannot match any of the markings on your frame to their photos/descriptions of DWM internal frame markings for any time period. So, based on this admittedly limited research, combined with the fact that the frame does not have the Mauser hump that appears on 1937-on production, my guess is the frame is Mauser production 1931-1936. As a relative newbie I don't offer this as a definitive dating of your frame, but am hoping more experienced collectors will comment on this approach to dating the frame.