Luger Frame Tooling Marks Study
 

Here's a very quick study on the tooling marks found on P-08 and LP-08 Luger frames.

It's clear that the toolings built by DWM and by the Erfurt arsenal were different, utilizing different milling techniques.

The DWM Equipment that went to Mauser used the same milling technique.

The Erfurt Equipment that went to Simson used the same milling technique. I expect that Krieghoff frames would show the same.

Here are the photos in order of year of manufacture:

http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/a...P08DWM1916.jpg

http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/a...Erfurt1917.jpg

http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/a...P08DWM1917.jpg

http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/a...Simson1928.jpg

http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/a...Mauser1940.jpg

- - - -

I wonder what the Swiss and Vickers tooling looks like here?

Marc

Nicely done, good pictures, although I had a heck of a time trying to figure out where it was taken (I can see the ears, but wheres the mainspring?)

The first Krieghoff markings would be the same, until they had used all the parts; krieghoff always stated that they made their own tools (see Gibson)


There is NO vickers tooling, since they were DWM parts?


Ed

PS: Put them altogether ;)

Ed, Here's a wider view of the Erfurt...

The recoil spring lever is just below this area...

http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/a...rt1917long.jpg

Marc

ahh, its amazing how I get easily confused "late" at night ;)

Thanks!

Here is a picture of my Dutch Vickers frame for your study.

Tom, thanks for the Vickers update. Round like DWM...

Marc

Thanks to all. I learned something new today!

FN

Post-war Mauser Parabellum on the left,
Swiss 06/29 on the right.

Ed,
Here is something from Simpson's site that I find interesting and would love to know the source of their information;
"Recently discovered documents prove that Vickers manufactured these guns from scratch in 1920"

Which does not fit the claim by former Mauser and DWM executive Dr. Holl, who was in charge of the Vickers deal in those days, that they (DWM) provided Vickers with DWM parabellum parts and some minor tools that were needed to finish them.

I have a question regarding wear on/in the area between the ears on the Luger frame. Looking at the photo submitted by Tharpo of his Dutch Luger in this post, there are the ears. Counting from left to right, begining with the left ear, there are eight stations, flats or elevations. I hope this isn't a dumb question, but when I bought my first Luger, I was told to pay attention to those stations I'll call 4 and 6. The seller mentioned that I should note the amount of wear caused by the toggle recoil. I guess he was refering to the areas being rounded off. Can anyone explain what causes the rounding off and how to minimize it?

Newluger

Vlim, thanks for your posting.

Looks like the Swiss tooling used a round tool for the cut like the DWM tooling. Is the area above the rounded cut flat or curved up to the back wall of the frame?

The post war Mauser (1960s-1970s?) has the more regular and uniform look of CNC equipment, possible a mill that can change tools automatically.

Interesting that the rear of the receiver is flat, lacking the two vertical inner "ears", in both the late Mauser and early Swiss.

Was the post war tooling based upon the Swiss design?

Marc

I had heard this also, and would love to see these documents...

Marc,

The Swiss 06/29 curves upwards. The center of the milled out portion is marked with the SIG logo (as SIG produced these frames).

CNC tooling was not used during the post war Mauser production. The cutouts were made by several horizontal and vertical milling/cutting machines. Although the drawings and jigs were based on the Swiss design, all tools, jigs and production steps had to be redone, because of differences in standards, calculations and production methods. Only a handfull of Swiss jigs and gauges found their way into the Mauser production process.

Mauser used relatively standard cutting, drilling and milling tools for the job.

The deletion of the two vertical 'inner ears' makes sense. They are completely pointless anyway :)

"It's clear that the toolings built by DWM and by the Erfurt arsenal were different, utilizing different milling techniques."

"The Erfurt Equipment that went to Simson used the same milling technique. I expect that Krieghoff frames would show the same."

Actually it looks like the difference is not in the tooling, but in the order in which the final milling strokes were made. DWM practice appears to have been to finish the sides and back inside the frame first, then to make the final center routing stroke.

Erfurt practice seems to have been to make the center routing first, then finish the sides and back, intersecting the upper arc of the center stroke. Considering the origin of the Simson tooling, the similarity of machining makes sense--one can imagine the instructions for use coming along with the tools.

Actually, the rear frame Krieghoff finishing follows the pattern of DWM.

Here is a picture of my Dutch Vickers frame for your study.

As was mentioned, Vickers was supplied with sufficient tooling to finish work the parts. The most logical conclusion is that the inner frame machining characteristics represent Vickers finish craftsmanship.

The deletion of the two vertical 'inner ears' makes sense. They are completely pointless anyway :)

I'm not so sure they are pointless. They provide the only critical lateral positioning guides for the rear toggle piece--rather than depending on the manufacturing tolerances of the inside of the frame ears plus the manufacturing tolerances of the receiver extension widths.

--Dwight

Dwight, interesting but I'm not convinced.

A bit of play between the toggle, receiver and frame ears is not that exciting. Accuracy of the gun is based on the fit between the areas where rear toggle rests against the receiver.
The toggle pushes against these flats during recoil and if both sides impact at different times, the gun will either pull to the right or to the left, influencing accuracy a great deal.

As a result, during post war Mauser Parabellum production these were the only parts that were physically matched to each other (that is why the rear toggle was marked with the gun's serial number), the rest was produced with such tight tolerances that 'in the white fitting' could be skipped altogether.

It would be a nice test to shoot a DWM P08 with the 'inner ears', then remove them and repeat the test. My bet is that you will not notice any difference whatsoever. :)

Brother, I will await your testing with baited breath ;) Surely there are extra lugers just lying around the old DWM factory? :p

There must be someone out there with a beat up frame and some spare time :)

...and a milling machine Gerben? :eek:

this is a GREAT educational thread and I will make it a Sticky... Thanks to the original poster mrerick for contributing such neat information.

Dwight, Its good to hear from you. Hope things are better than the last time we spoke... Your in depth knowledge of machine tools and machining is quite surprising considering your chosen vocation... maybe you should have been a pistolsmith eh? It is never too late.

kind regards, -John

John, I'm very happy that this discussion is proving useful. Perhaps someday it will help with accurate identification and elimination of fraudulent activity.

I would enjoy learning more about the fabrication processes the factories developed for constructing our Lugers. I've ordered a copy of Gibson's Krieghoff book.

My grandfather was a Swedish trained machinist working in the Chicago area in the 1910-1945 period. He made commercial sewing machines (Union Special) and must have followed practices that were similar to those used in the German arms industry.

He had a great aptitude for analyzing and improving processes. He even fabricated special tooling for his own personal use. The resulting efficiency and accuracy helped him stay employed through the 1930s depression.

There must be similar stories - perhaps mostly lost - of the artisans that made our Lugers.

Marc

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???