![]() |
my profile |
register |
faq |
search upload photo | donate | calendar |
|
|
#1 |
|
User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 213
Thanks: 17
Thanked 10 Times in 2 Posts
|
hallo friends
after a long a time , back again pls have a look is this correct ? Infanterie Regiment 64 1 Kompanie ? this was located in Brandenburg an der Havel thank you sirs thomas |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Byron, Georgia
Posts: 1,749
Thanks: 834
Thanked 1,810 Times in 597 Posts
|
Although it doesn't appear to follow the regulation marking instructions, I would also read it as Infantry Regiment 64, Company 1.
|
|
|
|
| The following 3 members says Thank You to Doubs for your post: |
|
|
#3 |
|
User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 213
Thanks: 17
Thanked 10 Times in 2 Posts
|
hallo doubs
what is wrong with this markings ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Byron, Georgia
Posts: 1,749
Thanks: 834
Thanked 1,810 Times in 597 Posts
|
Markings were done by unit armorers who didn't always follow the marking regulations so there are many variations in the manner in which items were stamped.
However, after looking at entries in Jeff Noll's books, the markings on your Luger are consistent with many others and are not wrong. What is unusual is that it doesn't have a weapon number such as "J.R.64.1.K.7." to indicate the 7th weapon in that unit's inventory. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 526
Thanks: 0
Thanked 439 Times in 166 Posts
|
It sounds like a unit stamp that was stamped during the Great War. What´s the date of the Luger, 1916 or even later?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 80
Thanks: 0
Thanked 65 Times in 31 Posts
|
Looking at the photo, might there have been a weapon number, but it has since been erased through corrosion and wear? There's something just past the last marking.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|