Would someone care to describe the condition of the bore? Explain what you see and describe - "good, bad or ugly". I need to be educated in case I want to buy another Luger. Usually I see descriptions such as: fair, good, fine or excellent. But the picture shows a lot of detail. I need to correlate the bore detail to the "quality" of the bore (fair, good, fine, etc)

I would call it "good, with fine pitting through out", it is quite shootable. JMHO.

If a bore is bright but worn, you might find it called fair or good but bright and worn.

If as new- excellent; with slight wear no pitting or darkness, very good to excellent.

Again, JMHO, one word won't do it, have to have some ancillary or modifying description to be complete.

Keep in mind the bore is as I received it. Yes, there is pitting, but I have not cleaned it yet, so some of what you are seeing could be dirt and grime. I'll post another picture of it after I've throughly cleaned it with a bore brush and patch.

Since this is a mixed bag luger why not shoot it ? Can't see where it would make any difference. If a part breaks replace it. A shooter is a shooter. You paid a shooter price for a shooter so shoot. I think I got all my shoots in. Bill

Bill's right. If you don't shoot it..the next guy who owns it will.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Thanks for all the input. Here's what I have learnt so far:

The upper is a 1908 First Issue made in 1909. All matching except for the firing pin, which might be Swiss. The magazine is Mexican or the like.

The frame is post-1913 apparently. What tells us that? It is NOT an Alphabet Commercial. No Mauser hump. Grips are matching with last two digits to frame. It is a 4000 series "a" block with multiple inspection marks. The recoil spring has 19 coils, assuming it is original, means it is a 9mm frame. Anyone like to take a stab at when it was made and by whom? WWI military? Artillery frame perhaps? Made by DWM or?

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1682/...b7435206_c.jpg

Thanks again everyone.

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.

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.

I doubt very seriously that "late" WWI P 08s had "steel" problems.

All one has to do is look at their subsequent use by the police, and then throughout WWII, and on into post war by the East Germany, and also as souvenirs and shooters, they keep on ticking.

Alvin,
you had bad luck with a hammer, what about the other Red 9. I would be very reluctant to condem all Red 9 to junk status(only made to fire few 100 rounds) because of two failures.:confused: Again these served the police and also in WWII. The several I've owned and fired over the years had no problems-hence I would reach the opposite conclusion.

If one does not accept the OP pistol as a shooter, then it is relegated to an expensive paper weight and has no more value; so please send all such lugers and any Red 9s that are mismatched to me.:evilgrin:

All JMHO.:soapbox:

On the subject of shooting, per the comments of several it seems there may be increased risk of damage vs. a later production pistol with better metallurgy. However I think the excellent price you paid makes this pistol a shooter candidate. That's because if you were to purchase a later production Mauser in comparable condition for shooting, it's going to cost at least what you paid for this gun. Phrased differently, purely from a risk standpoint, paying an additional $800 or more for another pistol, to prevent damage to an $800 pistol, does not make arithmetical/financial sense.

I know some collectors will say, "but what about the history that could be lost?" I respect that view but address the issue in a different way. In my opinion, all original Luger production - from complete matching pistols down to individual parts - are historic artifacts. I also think shooting is part of the reward and motivation for ownership and careful preservation. So I view it as a cost question - lower cost pistols are acceptable to shoot, but as the cost of the pistol goes up, shooting makes less sense.

The frame is DWM. It does not have the Mauser "dimple" in the stock lug groove.

Even industrial quality control is done via random test. The only questionable part being this: for large production volume, the sampling space of 2 sounds too small. Probably test a few hundred will give more reliable result. But this still reveals certain issues.

Finish on wartime production is usually lower. People could understand that finish being secondary at wartime, so finish was sacrificed. That makes perfect sense. But there is an assumption -- "this was controlled lower". But in late war time, (1) quality did not have to be still under control; (2) quality issue may not limited within finish only. If saying "I still have control on everything, but I just lower finish alone to fit wartime volume", that's simply too ideal. In real world, quality is a systemic thing. It's regarding the quality of the whole supply chain, not a single factory. In theory, lower wartime quality actually makes sense. Combined with today's random test in practice... what else can we do to make conclusion more sound...

As usual I agree with Bill again, if it were a rare collectible I would be the first one here to tell you to keep it in the safe, but it is not.
They say that "Nowadays we tend to love things and use people, while probably we should love people and use things", in other words use that flipping thing it's a gun so it's ment to be shot, just have common sense and avoid heavy loads.
Enjoy your Luger and shoot safe! :thumbup:


Best.

If post-1913, not 1920 Commercial and not Mauser, can we infer that is a DWM WWI production frame? Also like Jeff, I am curious as what you see to make your post-1913 frame assessment?

It has a stock lug.

Again, thanks for the input. I find it all really fascinating. I do plan to shoot it, but only on rare occasion, I seriously doubt I'd fire more than 50 rounds thru it a year. It not something I'd take to the range every trip for sure, but being able to fire it with the history is amazing and doing so with proper respect for its age.

To me 50 rounds a year doesn't count as shooter status. That's just making sure everything works fine.:thumbup:

It is your Luger, so you do what makes you happy, we do. I might add, that once you do shoot it, you may find that shooting Lugers can become addictive!! If you do your part, they are scary accurate, even with poor condition bores.