C96 question - safety lever
 

Greetings ladies and gentlemen,
pardon my temporary abandonment of Lugers..

A question has come to my mind, the SN mark on the hammer indicate 'new type safety', right? On a SN-marked C96 I have, the safety is on when pushed forward.. isn't that strange?



Regards,
Steinar

On Conehammer and Large Ring, the safety is "on" in DOWN position. On all variations of Small Rings, the safety is "on" in UP position.

NS marked hammer is a type of Small Ring, so the safety is supposed to be "on" when pushed forward.

oh.. that's great, nothing "wrong" with the C96 then:) Thanks!

Any idea what NS stands for? Got the info about 'new safety' from here http://www.g6csy.net/c96/proof.html

I heard it stands for "Neue Sicherung". The correct NS safety level does
not have hole on the knob, earlier safety level for non-NS marked Small
Ring has a through hole. But, that's not functional delta. The functional
difference between NS marked hammer and earlier Small Ring is the location
of the cut in front of the hammer, so the NS marked hammer has to swing
back a little bit more before safety level can be applied on in cocking
position.

Safety levels of NS gun (top, 103xxx, "Red 9"), and an earlier non-NS Small Ring (194xxx, "Prewar Commercial"). As shown, they are functionally same thing.

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

Small Ring Hammers (left 35xxx, "Early Small Ring"; middle 194xxx, "Prewar Commercial".... those two have the same cut location, they are actually same except the cut on left one is not through, non-functional delta. right 103xxx, "Red 9" NS, the cut is lower, functional delta)

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

Lock frames (top 103xxx "Red 9" NS, bottom 194xxx "Prewar Commerical", both hammers in cocking position. On the top one, the hammer has to swing back a little bit more to generate the 'pattern' shown in the bottom one.... so safety level can be applied)

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

Interesting information and pictures, wonder why they implemented a safety lever where the hammer needs go back further before safety can be applied..

Btw. The gun in question is Prussian Eagle marked in front of the magazine well, so I beleve it's a wartime 1916 production

I heard a few theories regarding why NS hammer was introduced. Two typical ones.... one from Mr. Schroeder (Gun Report) saying it helps preventing pushing the safety level up "on" when that's not the intention; one from Mr. 'nemo' (1896mauser.com) saying non-NS safety *might* discharge the gun when it's applied on, and NS safety solved that problem.

I am a little bit on nemo's side. The reason is simple.... pushing back hammer to apply safety on feature was cancelled on Modell 1930. Why did not Mauser worry about non-intentional safety-on action anymore? Actually, safety level on 1930 is relatively 'loose', and it does have that issue, especially when shooting by left hand.

Prussian Eagle was supposed to be on *some* late 1918 guns. A few that I have seen having Eagles, s/n are above 100,000. There were also a few earlier samples having Eagle under the trigger guard. More observation needed. Long long way to go.

What's the s/n of your gun?

Hah,

Knew I had it somewhere: From the 1915 manual:

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

I guess that clarify that question! Nice find Gerben and thanks for sharing :)

Alvin, as requested, more observation coming your way! I took a couple of pictures of it this evening, didn't have much light so they came out a bit too dark. Perhaps they put a date on this old broom?
It's quite worn on the outside, but strangely enough, it has a very nice boore still in the 7.63mm calibre. SN is 84707

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/img_6012.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/img_6009.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/img_6011.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/img_60075.jpg

Thanks for the picture. Is it a relined gun?

In 'standard' Mauser theory (as defined by great works like System Mauser, 1896-1936 etc), only three Mausers could have s/n 84707

(1) A Prewar small ring. It's not.
(2) A Schnellfeuer. It's not.
(3) A Wartime 9m/m. It's supposed to be a reworked gun modified to 7,63m/m caliber and the grip panels are replacement. Since the sight ramp looks OK, I assume the caliber was modified by the factory (recently modified guns seldomly do that right).

Although this gun has lost almost all gun blue, it's interesting to notice the residue gun blue in the Eagle stamp. On my gun, which has some gun blue (the one that I posted in the 'Shooting and Reloading' column), there is definitely no 'halo' around that Eagle. Looks like the stamp had been applied in the factory before it was blued.

The broom is clearly marked 84707, a second look in daylight today verified it. I know very little about C96's, but I can't see any evidence of a a reline.. Is there any particular way to tell?
This broom had active rust inside and out after years of storage, had to give it a Kroil soak and 'Big .45' pad rubbing (kindly donated by Policeluger!) before it ended up as shown above. Was surprised to see how well the bore turned out, as my previous brooms where all 'shot out'..

It's matching in numbers except for the grip panels, they have a different number stamped inside. I can verify that the calibre is 7.63mm and not a 9mm..
btw. wish it was a Schnellfeuer ;)

The shape of the "barrel neck" (the taper area between barrel and receiver) indicates the upper was either a late prewar or wartime production. It's not impossible to renumber a 7,63 barrel and install it on a "Red 9" frame. Could you post pix of the muzzle, chamber & magazine follower (with bolt open)?

===
Most C96s imported from China have 'shot-out' or poor bores. Those C96s played the role of regular infantry weapons (instead of sidearms) in the environment lacking artillery and machine guns. Heavy usage + very poor maintenance + corrosive ammo contributed to what we see today. There are many C96s preserved in excellent shape in the U.S., most of them were old commercial (in this context, civilian) guns. Private property has always been taking care of better :) Unfortunately, Schnellfeuer is very rare in the States.

The prussian contract started out as 7,63 and was altered to 9mm at a later date, as far as I understand. I believe the Prussian contract was separately numbered?

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/img_2888.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/img_2891.jpg
Does these show signs of a reline?

:bigbye: Steinar

nope.....

It's interesting to see 4 rifling lines, and so deep. Original Mauser rifling is supposed to be 6 lines. Earlier barrel (before 1910?) has 4 lines, but those barrel also has much steeper barrel neck. I assume it has a liner inside, Quality of work is as high as Walther P-1's liner -- regular workshop could not do so good.

Vlim -- "Prussian Contract" was seperately numbered. I heard no contract paperwork was found, but it's known there was such a contract (Kyrie said in a Yahoo post).

=====

Given the barrel thickness of a 9m/m, the 7,63 liner is supposed to be around this area. It's the easiest way to stay with the 'Bible' and make sense out of this 7,63m/m. I believe it's relined.

As a lot of other things, I don't know much about this :)
But I'm really interested in knowing more about this gun. Perticulary if it's relined or not.. So I'm tossing in another picture of the muzzle, perhaps it can reveal a reline?
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/img_2896.jpg
..the '8' on the upper part is a bit off line, would that be normal?
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/img_2903_copy.jpg

For crown shape and rifling depth comparison purpose, I composed a picture. The one on bottom right is not Mauser, it's a BDM that I bough NIB for self-defense purpose, included here so we have a new gun to compare (the only new gun I have). Others are Mausers.

I feel the crown should be near perfect domal.

I think it's relined, but rather a 7.63 that was relined to 7.63 again.

The serial numbering is supposed to look like it was done by a drunken monkey. Perfectly normal.

..started out as a safety bar question, and ended up with us having a closer look at the opposite end of the pistol. I appreciate the input on this pistol, learn new things here all the time:)

If it's a reline, I have a feeling it's not done in my lifetime.. rifling is strong, but it's not exactly like looking down Flipper's blowhole eighter, find some some signs of pitting and wear in there also.

Please note there is an acceptance stamp on the right side of the chamber. The barrel must be 9m/m cal originally. No other known original 7,63 barrel bears s/n 84707 (or 4707, if we assume the leading 8 was an add-on) and acceptance stamp.... even if we assume that acceptance stamp was an add-on as well (highly unlikely), that shape of barrel taper area is almost impossible to modify and its current shape definitely points wartime production. Also, the shallow relief cut on the top right side of the magazine follower also matches 9x19 style.

Could you also post picture showing the top of the rear sight ramp with slide set to 500? If we assume the sight ramp was modified from flat 50-500 style to steep 50-1000 style, it will be very interesting to see the worksmanship of modification.

Sure thing, just happy to clarify new aspects of this.

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/img_2907.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/img_2908.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/img_2909.jpg

I have only two Lugers and they exhibit the same 'reversed safety' problem. One is on up and the other is on down. You gotta know this means that sooner or later I am going to ventilate one of my shoes while still in it.

Thanks for the pix and I appologize for jumping too deep into the sideway bore stuff. The sight leaf is prewar. The sight slide was installed wrong -- you need to rotate it 180 degrees, so the pushdown button on the slide appears on the right side of the gun. ;) Enjoy the gun! I agree Luger is blue chip. Broom is great fun as well.

Alvin, does that mean this sight is 'right' for a 7.63? Had a feeling that the sight slide was the wrong way on.. thanks for pointing that out! Also I think it's great that you shared some light on that mysterious bore :)

..now I just need to find out how to pick this thing apart.


David, stay safe my friend, never trust the safeties on any gun! You only have 10 of those toes! ..reminds me of a guy I once met, he was working as a carpenter fixing up old military buildings. I noticed he was missing three fingers, two on one hand and one on the other. Asked him how he lost his fingers.. he then pointed towards a circular saw with his little finger and a grin on his face. Out of curiosity I had to ask how he lost fingers on both hands, he then told me that it was actually on three separate occasions! Talk about going down the wrong line of work eh..? ;)

The sight is 'right'.... if it were 1930 (too late) or Conehammer style (too early), I would had assumed it were 'wrong', but prewar 50-1000 sight was close enough. More importantly, the work on sight ramp is excellent as well. It's impossible to tell who did what, I assume it's old work, probably by German in post WWI era. If not, at least it's done by workshop with enough skill and equipment.

====

Disassembly of rear sight is same as Mauser rifle.
http://www.surplusrifle.com/pistolc9...mble/index.asp