Witness Mark and Barrel Questions
 

A recent discussion has gelled some of my questions about witness marks. This can be found in the Navy Luger section, entitled "A Learning Experience..." I am starting a new thread here because I want to follow up a particular topic which is not limited to Navy Lugers, and because the previous discussion was already two pages deep.

Whatever the original purpose for witness marks, it may be that they are diagnostic of a Luger's condition and authenticity, and this is the avenue I wish to explore--how reliable are witness marks as a deteminer of authenticity, and what can they tell us about our Lugers? Are they useful as an indicator of originality of a barrel mated to its proper receiver?

In order to completely understand what they may tell us, we need to know something about the witness marks themselves. Does anyone actually know at what stage of manufacture witness marks were applied, and what purpose they serve? When a Luger was rebarrelled as part of an armory repair or an official reconditioning, was it a practice to strike new witness marks? I am looking for documented answers here, or first-hand knowledge or anecdotal evidence. Speculation or WAG are interesting but ultimately not satisfying.

Without actually trying to answer my own questions, I have seen witness marks which make me question their originality, but am not confident of drawing conclusions. The illustration presents a selection of witness marks. I am curious to know what conclusions about the Lugers they mark anyone might draw from them. Observe critically, and comment candidly.

I have presented only witness marks in these examples, in order to focus attention on them removed from the context of other markings. I have other questions about Luger re-barreling, and will identify some of these more fully as examples then.

Examples 04 and 07 are the witness marks which started this train of thought.

--Dwight

http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/CompositeSmallb.jpg

Dwight, A very nice effort in starting a reasonable discussion. Thanks

I will respond after I have pondered these further.

Hi Dwight.

Really excellent... Just as a datapoint, and I'll try to answer any questions folks have about samples in my collection - your pictures had me take another look-see at my Kriegs. Most have no witness marks, with the exception of a "36" and an "S". The rest are without any witness marks at all - even the others in the "S" range are without witness marks. I'll try to post later if I find if Gibson writes about where in the production cycle they were applied for Kreig and/or Ku production.

Really terrific, Dwight - my thanks for taking the time in assembling these photos - excellent...!!

John D.

I have a 1917 Dwm reworked, barrell has been replaced.It has the s-42 stamped on it which I have been told means its a replacement.I read this post and looked.the replacement barrell has the witness mark as does the reciever,but they dont match up.I hope that helps.
Ed

Here is another point, as I just finished reviewing the previous thread, where there was some discussion about whether the witness marks were applied when the receiver and barrel were joined together - or whether they were applied as the TDC (well - actually BDC (bottom dead center)) as separate operations, which would facilitate them being indexed when assembled.

As I recalled, Gibson stated that infrequently - Krieghoff would use Mauser production barrels. So, I took a look in his book for a photo that might show a Mauser barrel installed on a Krieg. receiver. On Page 97, there is one such photo, which appears to be the base as best I can tell - and shows that the Mauser bbl. did not have a witness mark when installed by Krieghoff. That would lead one to believe that the witness marks were not applied as separate operations (once to the receiver and another to the barrel), as the Mauser mfg. bbl. had no witness mark when joined to a receiver that has no mark...

Anyway - just another observation...

Dwight; was the witness mark proof of headspace with the original barrel?
Lonnie

Lonnie, I wouldn't call the witness mark proof of headspace... only that a barrel had been installed that met the specifications for applied torque, and with the front sight centered within tolerance. Headspacing (by finish reaming the chamber) could not occur until these specifications were met.

Just my
http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/2cents.jpg

I have looked carefully at witness marks on Imperial Lugers only (No Mausers), but doing so leaves very little doubt that barrel and receiver were struck simultaneously by the same tool.

Luke

Maybe some of our members in Germany could do some serious research and find some people who actually worked in the factories and know from first hand experience what the marks are for and when they were applied. That generation is getting old and is disappearing very quickly. No one younger than about 75 years old has any first hand knowledge of how these guns were built. When they pass away a great deal of experience will be lost forever. Just a thought.

Perhaps I have opened the can of worms that can never be recanned?

Tom A.

Yes, but very interesting to read Tom!

I guess someone like Dwight should compile everyone's info.

I'll send him mine tomorrow <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Heh, seems like I have been volunteered <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Actually, there's more to come on this topic...

--Dwight

Steve,

I recall reading in Fred A. Datig's book that when he went to Germany in the late 1950's, he met August Weiss and Herr Weiss still had his personal set of factory records and documentation from the DWM days.

Does anyone know if Mr. Datig happened to "secure" this documentation and records ? This sure would be a good source of information...and it might answer these types of questions...

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

Hi Tom A! An opened can of worms can always be recanned....it just takes a larger can! As I look at the example pictures above... it is clear to me, that there are two completely seperate and distinct reasons for the marks. The first is to witness or index an assembly that is factory mated... to both, show if this assembly has ever been disturbed, but more, and most importantly, to provide a reference point to which the components can be returned to if disassembled or replaced! I would have to think that the witness marks were applied in a fixture that allowed for the marks to be stamped at exactly 180 degrees, for the correct front sight base location... so, if you go for this much of my theory... you will quickly realize that all witness marks will be relatively close...if not perfectly (to the naked eye) aligned... the true telltale answer to the question of origionality of the complete assembly... is not if the marks are aligned.. but if they are of the same tool strike.... as to why they would be misaligned, we can only guess!! If I was asked to verify the origionality of the barrel to receiver marks based only on the above pictures 04 & 07, I would say they are correct, as it is evident that the same tool was used to bridge both parts in the assemblies! I guess perfect is for another discussion, at another time! till...later...GT

Gentlemen,
Torque of straight threads arrested by two parallel surfaces using precision tools with which to apply the measured torque will results in varying degrees of alignment of witness marks. This is not conjecture, but fact. The initial application of torque will fatigue and stretch the metal. The second time that measured torque is applied to the barrel and receiver, the results will be misalignment.
Additionally, original factory witness marks will have the bottom of the mark occupying a common plane on both receiver and barrel.

Hi to all! This is pretty interesting! I decided that I had some pretty good examples right in the old gun safe....so, off to the safe I went, and the results are interesting... with my trusty little magnifying glass... I determined that out of three original untouched Mauser examples, two 39's and one 37, one of the witness marks could be considered right on, one was ever soooo slightly misaligned, and one, a vet purchase, known history pistol... was close, but obiviously missaligned!! What does this tell me... along with the reference pictures above, my conclusion is that the barrels and receivers were indexed, or marked, and then disassembled at some later point in there manufacture, only to be reassembled back to their original reference point.... for what reason I don't know?? But from a machinist point of view, I'd bet a lot on it!
I would also think that the torque applied to the assemblies was well within there design parameters and could be repeated several times with out any substancial fatigue... By the looks of the alignment, I would guess they had rather large and strong fixtures, and could apply the correct leverages with complete ease and impunity to any resistance... you got to get past the mental image of a gun shop type barrel wrench, they may have been assembled in huge fixtures with almost unlimited leverage.... they were making them by the thousands, not just one or two a day... they probably messed with each assembly for a few seconds, certainly not more then a minute... can't think like a collector here, got to think like a machinist, assembly line worker, or some type of employee that probably thought he would puke if he saw another luger that day! I'm thinking Mr Simpson has seen a lot of Lugers, and he knows more then we think he does.... I believe that he is correct in his statement that they were removed and reinstalled, for whatever reason....I still don't have a theory for that! Thats all for now! till...later...GT

One of the problems so far encountered in this discussion is that no one has been able to document what the construction practices for Lugers actually were. I'd like to know where Bob Simpson's information came from.

The speculation thus far advanced is interestng. It seems clear that if witness marks are struck as proof of barrel/receiver mating this can be used as a positive indicator of the authenticity of a Luger. If witness marks are alignment marks for barrel removal and reassembly, then misalignment is not necessarily an indicator of barrel replacement. And what can be deduced from witness marks such as those in the examples above which are aligned but seem not to be struck at the same time or by the same instrument?

The original manufacturing principles are crucially central to this topic.

--Dwight

Hi,

Checked the witness mark on the barrel of my Dutch M11. Sligth misalignment visible, appearing like picture #10.

Interesting fact: Barrel and frame are one 'KOL' set. Barrel is stamped with crown-n mark and serial number. Frame 2-digits match the barrel.

I'd go for Wes' interpretation on this one.

Could an invitation to join this thread be extended to Mr. Simpson by someone familiar with him? His participation on this subject will save us a lot of ink.

I am enjoying this pursuit of the unknown. One line of thought that hasn't been addressed much is - can anyone pose a legitimate reason for removing and reinstalling the same barrel on a Luger? I am refering to a manufacturer/arsenal RAR and not a private gunsmith (or basement bubba).