Marc,

Your grandfather was probably closer to the german techniques than you may realize:

The basis for German norm-based engineering and production was laid by Ludwig Loewe in the late 1880s. He had a Sewing Machine factory in Berlin and went to the USA to study the American mass production techniques that came into being around the civil war.

Armed with his knowledge of American mass production techniques, coupled with his own ideas on enforcing quality control he returned to Berlin and started changing his company production methods. Loewe's norm approach was the basis of the German DIN norm, and it also laid the foundations of the mass production of complex engineering designs in Germany, of which the Luger pistol is still a very good example. Loewe quickly found that there was more money in arms than in sewing machines. Sadly for Ludwig Loewe is that he died relatively young. His brother Isidor Loewe would turn the company into a larger conglomorate.

Loewe stood a the cradle of DWM and owned DWM until 1928. The Loewe company was forced to merger with AEG in the late 1930s, but regained it's independance after the war. It celebrated it's 100th anniversary in 1969 and lives on as part of DIAG to this day.

Just an observation,

But the Eurfurt appears to have no machine marks, looks like untouched casting, is this normal? is this just my eyes???

Sorry, I ment untouched forging.

I noticed this as well, and I was thinking that perhaps they sandblasted the interior in order to smooth out the milling marks.

The Erfurt is so smooth and square, and the end of the area is so abrupt, I though they must have used some kind of shaving or plow tool. My Erfurt was refinished at some very early point, probably when it was reworked as a police gun (It's marked to the Magdeberg district).

The Simson shows vertical marks in this area.

Marc

Hi Marc, As my contribution to this research, here is a photo of a 1937 Krieghoff. Regards, Norm

Later in Mauser production..... 42 BYF 7837g. Note mark in the middle somewhat different from the 1940 42 code but apparently stamped there for some reason.

Norm and Dave, Thank you for your contributions.

This area, normally not externally visible, appears to be telling more about the workflow and process focus than other areas of our Lugers.

It looks rougher and done more quickly when there was probably more pressure on productivity in the factories.

Expedient as always, as long as the strength of the frame and adequate clearance was milled, the inspectors probably focused less on appearances here.

Marc

There is an excellent write up and pictures of these differences in Randall Gibson's Krieghoff book. Bill

I recently bought a copy of The Krieghoff Parabellum by Gibson. It is has a great series of comparison analysis discussions between manufacturers. These include photos of this frame area.

I hadn't seen it when I started this thread. I just noticed the differences and hoped the information was useful here...

Marc

Norm, Thanks for the Krieghoff picture! Looks like they broached the inside frame edges and rear before milling the center channel.

Here's a 1936 Mauser P-08 in the "i" block:

http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/a...rFrameRear.jpg

This is consistent with the process at the end of production in 1942. These look like the center channel was milled followed by the rear and side broaching.

Marc

Marc
Didn't mean to negate any of your study with the Gibson reference. I'm sure a lot of the collectors do not have his book. Your pictures are better anyway. Thanks Bill

Bill, no issue here... I'm just glad that I can contribute something useful!

I read this thread some time back but didn't think I had anything to add...but I was looking at what I've always thought was my 'commercial' P08, particularly at the big relief area between the frame ears (which has no purpose), and I noticed that the cutter mark was odd...It looks like whoever ran the mill ran the cutter into the frame at the end of the cut...but the mark doesn't look like an end-cutting end mill... :confused:

(And although the receiver has the C/N, the frame serial is 6782/n)... :rolleyes:

See the article on the Vickers Luger by Dr. S.C. Sambrook in Vol.4 No.1 of the Journal of the Historical Breechloading Smallarms Association which discusses the new evidence from the Vickers Board of Directors' meeting Minute book, presently held at Cambridge University Library, Department of Manuscripts and University Archives, ref. GB 012 MS.Vickers

http://archiveshub.ac.uk/data/gb012ms.vickers

Rear Frame of 1906/24 Swiss
 

This is the rear frame machining on my 1906/24 Swiss Luger manufactured by Waffenfabrik Bern in 1923...

In reading this thread I noticed a reference to the Mauser production of the late sixties/early seventies. Perhaps you have seen the following linked article, perhaps not. I found it of some interest.

Scroll down the page to 'The Parabellum Story' and click on the page to download the article in PDF format.

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/earl...loading-pistol

Mauser Interarms Luger 10.002185
 

Here's the milled rear receiver area of Interarms Mauser 06/29 Luger sn 10.002185. It's a .30 Luger (7.65) caliber pistol. Made in 1971.

A recently posted forum discussion included this picture of a M1900 American Eagle s/n 8372 frame rear area:

http://forum.lugerforum.com/attachme...1&d=1345903203

Marc

That particular manuscript doesn't appear to be accessible online, only in person...

It may be that there are digital copies available for the archives that you are intersted in, but that they are not displayed on or linked to from the Hub. You would need to contact the holding repository to find out more. Click on the link to 'Contact the repository' from the top of the description.

Would you have a digital copy of this document???