E-Ed,

Pete is right on the money. Fwiw I have one of those made-up Artilleries--a 1911 Erfurt which has had a commercial artillery barrel (GERMANY marked) put on it, with a standard rear sight--a very weird bird.

I'm not trying to suggest that there is anything "wrong" with your pistol, there is every possibility that it is originally an LP-08 rebarrelled with a fresh artillery barrel. This is an interesting gun, and it affords us the practical opportunity to learn more about commercial rework practices in Weimar Germany.

--Dwight

Ed,

I lightened up one of your photos.

Question : From looking at the right side of the elevated Arty sight, it appears from the photo that some TIG welding may have occurred to attach part of the sight to the chamber area of the receiver...just ahead of the arty notch. Is this the case or just something I think I see in the photo ?

Here is the area I am questioning :

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/arty_1_copy1.jpg

Doesn't look like that at all under normal lighting...between having a shutter speed just this side of a second and being in a poorly lit area..and me off-balance and moving around..it looks like it a bit.

I'll take some better photos later this evening which will hopefully clarify the matter!

Ok, took a few new photos...shadows were killin me out there!

Click on photos for a larger version thereof.


Showing rear toggle...sorry, shadows, but hopefully enough detail exists to make it out...

http://www.misplaced.net/~obremski/l...0324-small.jpg

Showing right side of rear sight...the crud on the bottom of it was just that, crud, soon swabbed off with a q-tip. Notice the number under the sight? I didn't see it until I swabbed the oil and grease off....it has "39" on one side of the screw, and "u" on the other???

http://www.misplaced.net/~obremski/l...0329-small.jpg

The other side of the rear sight...

http://www.misplaced.net/~obremski/l...0332-small.jpg

Frank,

Correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but my 1917 Arty is definitely WITH suffix: 2972 B. It is all matching and correct. Were you (and Jan) referring to something else? I didn't look at Jan's book before my reply.

Jack Hiles

Frank,

After re-reading and thinking about your quote, I decided it could be interpreted two ways: the way I did: as in NONE; and the way you meant it as in: in addition to suffix labled, no suffix were also available. Am I now correct in my translation of your quote?

Jack