any information about this 1917/20 unit marked erfurt would be appreciated
 

I recently purchased this firearm and I'm having one hell of a time trying to find out any information about the unit markings and the unique date stamp, any information would be greatly appreciated.

Ive linked the Flickr gallery where you can see all the pictures.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78590475@N03/

The Flicker gallery is not accessible without a password/sign in. The date stamp is not unique. There are many Lugers with what is erroneously called "double date". Actually your Erfurt was manufactured in 1917, but it was still in service after WWI during the Weimar era. The "1920" marking is actually a property marking applied to prevent government property from being sold commercially. You will see lots of Lugers and other firearms, usually those in police service, marked with this "1920" property stamp.
You will need to post photos here on this forum for us to help you identify the unit marking.
Ron

Its not stamped 1920 over 1917 it is stamped 1917/20

Same thing, just a non-regulation variant in marking. Marking like that is not often encountered so it is not surprising that you had difficulty in finding information. There is a similar type marking but for a different purpose...there are a few Lugers with a 1917/18 marking on them which probably indicates a piece manufactured just at the end of one year/the beginning of the next.

sorry trying to get a larger photo to upload

[img=http://s7.postimg.org/f4i5u0frr/20140626_140539.jpg]

unit markings [img=http://s29.postimg.org/jlqbjne03/20140626_140139.jpg]

3./R.R.16.53.

There is an Xed out 6 after the 3

https://www.flickr.com/photos/78590475@N03/


You should be able to view all the pictures now.

Reiter Regiment 16, 3. Eskadron, Waffe No. 53.

Nice pistol.
Interesting holster. It looks like the gun has been with it a while.
Are there any markings on the holster?

Do you any info about where the Luger came from?

I was told the holster is an original German shoulder holster, commonly unmarked(which would fit since this was a Calvary gun). There are no markings on this holster. I have zero information on the history of this gun. In my hours of research I have found very little information on the 1917/20. The only thing I could find was "Receivers from reserve stocks, where the year of manufacture does not correspond with the year of completion of the weapon, will receive a 2.1mm high correction for the year of completion behind the manufacture-year in fractional form." No information as to why it would have been in reserves, or why it would have been completed after the treaty of Versailles but lack the 1920 Weimar republic property mark.

Ron Wood already answered your question. As I am sure you know the shoulder holster was never a German issue. Probably a private purchase. Hard to tell when. Nice luger. Bill

Pity, I'm sure it has an interesting past. :)

jbf22:

Some info on Reiter Regiment 16:

Reiter-Regiment 16
16th Cavalry Regiment
Cavalry Regiment Erfurt

Feldpost numbers: For the regiment no Feldpost numbers were assigned as resolved before the war began.

The Cavalry Regiment 16 was in the former Military District V set up. The regiment was with the installation of 3 Cavalry Division assumed. The regiment remained subject to this division, even after formation of the 100,000 man army of the Reichswehr. The regimental headquarters was with the 6th (Preuß.) Squadron in Kassel , at that time in the military district V , stationed. The third (Hess.) and the fourth (Preuß.) squadron of the regiment were in Langensalza then also, Military District V home. The first (Preuß.), 2 (Preuß.) and 5 (Hess.) squadron, however, were in Hofgeismar , then also V Military District stationed. Due to the military law of March 23, 1921 § 14, paragraph 2, the regiment then became the 16th Cavalry Regiment renamed. Also in 1921 the 5th Squadron for training squadron was renamed.
The tradition of sponsorship in the regiment was then distributed in the first years of the Reichswehr as follows:
1st Squadron: 2 Rhenish Hussars 9
2nd Squadron: Rhine Dragoon Regiment "Freiherr von Manteuffel" # 5
3rd Squadron: 2nd Grand Ducal Hessian Leib-Dragoon Regiment No. 24
4th Squadron: Thüringisches Uhlan Regiment No. 6
Training squadron: 1st Grand Ducal Hessian Guards Dragoon Regiment No. 23
6 Squadron: 2 Kurhessisches Hussars "Landgraf Friedrich III. of Hesse-Homburg "# 14
In late summer 1925, the regiment took part in a training exercise in Thuringia. Then moved parts of the regiment in their new garrison town of Erfurt, then also Military District V, a. In Erfurt, now the regimental headquarters with news and MG-train as well as the 1st and 3rd Squadron were stationed. The units were now stationed in the old hunter barracks in the south of Erfurt. 1928/29, replaced the 3rd Squadron and the 6th Squadron of the tradition troops. In addition, the 1st Squadron also took over the tradition of the Machine Gun Division No. 3 of the expansion of the Reichswehr into the Wehrmacht in 1934, the regiment was renamed Cavalry Regiment Erfurt. On October 15, 1935, the regiment was disbanded, while as the root for the motorized infantry battalions 1 , 2 and 3 used.

Regimental commanders:

Colonel Walter von Jagow -up - April 30, 1922

Major General Eduard Freiherr von Rotberg 1 May 1922 - April 30, 1925

Woldemar Colonel Freiherr Grote 1 May 1925 - January 31, 1929

Major General William Knochenhauer 1 February 1929 - October 31, 1931

Colonel Fritz von Brodowski 1 November 1931 - September 30, 1934

Colonel Ferdinand Schaal 1 October 1934 - Resolution

Division commanders

I. Department:

Major Ulrich Kleemann 1 October 1934 - Resolution

II Department:

Major Wilhelm von Apell 1 October 1934 - Resolution

Regimental adjutant:

Captain peace mouth von Arnim 1 February 1923 - January 31, 1926

Lieutenant Erpo Freiherr von Bodenhausen 1 February 1926 - June 1, 1928

Lieutenant Hildebrand (1929, 30, 31, 32)

Major Oswin Grolig October 1, 1934 - Resolution

Cavalry Regiment (Reichswehr)


Cavalry of the Reichswehr


Cavalry of the Reichswehr


Farewell to the lance 1928
The rider regiments of the Reichswehr were due to the Versailles Treaty placed (180 Plate III article). Eighteen riders - regiments were three cavalry divisions assumed. A Cavalry Regiment was divided into several squadrons . [1] The duties and breakdowns of individual regiments were different and inferior in accordance with the restructuring of the army several times change. Illustrative of the history of a regiment, the cavalry regiment 18 of the Wehrmacht .

Contents [Verbergen]
1 History
2 Name of units
3 Organization
4 Tradition Care
References 5
5.1 See also
5.2 External links
5.3 Literature
5.4 Notes and references
History [ edit ]
The preparation of the regiments began to part just after the First World War from the demobilized army of the Empire (peace army). First (Spring 1919 to the end of September 1919) were formed regiments and in the time of transition army (1st October 1919-May 1920) in the so-called Provisional Reichswehr. December 18, 1919, by Order No. 12.19.2494 T2 of the Reichswehr Ministry of 18 December 1919 as the founding day for all Reichswehr cavalry regiments set (the actual data differs accordingly from). The transition of these regiments to the Wehrmacht was carried out with 16 March 1935.

Designation of the units [ Edit ]
The names of the units were to the formation of the actual Reichswehr on January 1, 1921 amended several times usually in the course of the history of the Provisional Reichswehr, the transition army. In the early days of expellees or historical names were taken from the regiments, which later by the Weimar agreement of 16 June 1919 Article 79 sentence 2 of the Weimar Constitution to the "country team result quirks" and Regulation HVBl. 1922 No. 335 were repealed on 19 May 1922. On 29 May 1922, the regiment received the specified country team result names. [2]

The designation of the regiments changed in the Wehrmacht Cavalry Regiment xx and the designation of expellees was omitted.

Organization [ Edit ]
The following table provides affiliation to an association, the structure as well as the sites for early 1933 dar.

Ministry of Defense / Chief of the High Command: Berlin

1st Cavalry Division in Frankfurt / Oder (Bar) temporary group 1 command subordinated, sometimes directly to the Command.

1 (Prussian) Reiter-Regiment in Tilsit (bar, 1, 4, educ.) and Insterburg (2nd, 3rd)
2 (Prussian) Reiter-Regiment in Osterode / East Prussia (rod, 2nd, 4th, 6th) and Olsztyn (1st, 3rd, yield).
3rd (Prussian) Reiter-Regiment in Rathenow (bar, 2, yield.) and Stendal (1st, 3rd, 4th)
4 (Prussian) Reiter-Regiment in Potsdam (bar, 1st, 3rd, educ.) and Pearl Mountain (2nd, 4th)
5 (Prussian) Reiter-Regiment in Stolp (bar, 3rd, 4th, educ.) and Belgard (1st, 2nd)
6 (Prussian) Reiter-Regiment in Pasewalk (bar, 1, educ.), Schwedt (2, 4) and Demmin (3, 6)
2nd Cavalry Division in Wroclaw (staff) at times group 1 command subordinated, sometimes directly to the Command.

7 (Prussian) Reiter-Regiment in Breslau (Rod, 1st, 2nd, 6th, educ.) and Lubin (3, 4)
8 (Prussian) Reiter-Regiment in Brieg (bar, 1st, 3rd, yield.) Oels (2) and Namslau (4)
9 (Prussian) Reiter-Regiment in Fiirstenwalde (bar, 1st, 2nd, educ.) and Beeskow (3, 4)
10 (Prussian) Reiter-Regiment in Züllichau (bar, 3rd, 4th, educ.) and Torgau (1st, 2nd)
11 (Prussian) Reiter-Regiment in Neustadt / Upper Silesia (bar, 3rd, 4th), Leobschutz (2) and Ohlau (1, yield).
12th (Saxon) Cavalry Regiment in Dresden (rod, 4, 6) Grimsby (1, 3) and Great grove (2, yield).
3rd Cavalry Division in Weimar (Bar) temporary group 2 command subordinated, sometimes directly to the Command.

13 (Prussian) Reiter-Regiment in Hannover (bar, 1st, 2nd, educ.) and Lüneburg (3, 4)
14th Cavalry Regiment in Ludwigslust (bar, 1, educ.) Parchim (2) and Schleswig (3, 4)
15 (Prussian) Reiter-Regiment in Paderborn (rod, yield.), Neuhaus / Westfalen (1, 2) and Münster (3rd, 4th, 6th)
16th Cavalry Regiment in Erfurt (bar, 1, 3), Hofgeismar (2, educ.) and Langensalza (4, 6)
17th (Bavarian) Cavalry Regiment in Bamberg (bar, 1, educ.), Ansbach (2nd, 3rd) and Straubing (4, 6)
18th Cavalry Regiment in Stuttgart- Bad Cannstatt (bar, 2, educ.) and Ludwigsburg (1st, 3rd, 4th)
Tradition Care [ Edit ]
The tradition of care by the then Chief of the Army Command, with effect from August 24, 1921 Colonel-General Hans von Seeckt has for the Reichswehr. The tradition acquisitions are each documented in the history of the individual regiments. A partial list can be found in the article on the tradition takeover .

References [ Edit ]
See also [ edit ]
Cavalry
Cavalry Division
Guards Cavalry Division (German Empire)
Cavalry Rifle Regiment
Genesis of the Reichswehr
External links [ Edit ]
Carina Notzke: associations and units of cavalry. Introduction. Federal Archives, June 2008, accessed on 13 April 2010 (German).
Literature [ Edit ]
Klaus Christian Richter: The History of the German Cavalry 1919-1945. 1st edition, engine book, Stuttgart 1978, ISBN 3-87943-603-7
Edgar Earl of Matushka: Organization History of the Army from 1890 to 1918. In: Military History Research Institute (ed.): German military history in six volumes from 1648 to 1939, Munich 1983, ISBN 3-88199-112-3
Georg Tessin : German organizations and troops from 1918 to 1939. Old army, voluntary associations, Reichswehr, Army, Air Force, National Police. Osnabrück 1974, ISBN 3-7648-1000-9
Karl Volker Neugebauer: Principles of German military history. Volume 1: Historical overview. Rombach, Freiburg 1993, ISBN 3793006026
Paul Schneider: The organization of the army. Berlin 1931
Friedrich Stahl: The Army division in 1939, mist, 2005, ISBN 3895553387
References [ Edit ]
↑ It was not until 1934, the name was squadron.
↑ Georg Tessin : German associations and troops 1918-1939, Biblio Verlag, Osnabrück 1974, ISBN 3-7648-1000-9 , p 188
Category : Cavalry Association (Reichswehr)

Perhaps a little more info on this unit than you may have had………

Handsome Luger!!!

Ron

Thanks for the information on the unit that was quite impressive.

Bill,
Ron did not answer my question whatsoever if it was marked 1917/18 his response would seem appropriate but there is a 3 year gap and as far as it being a non-regulation variant what would the reason be that it was stamped with a different making altogether? I feel there is more information on this type of marking out there somewhere just not sure where.

Ron is subtly suggesting that you attach pics directly to your thread. The forum members with the most to contribute to your knowledge base are behind corporate/government/military firewalls which block outside social photo-storage sites such as PhotoBucket, Flickr, SmugMug, Google, etc. IOW, they can't see your pics. Their employers pay for their Internet access and in most cases their PC/laptop, so it is not convenient for them to change ISPs.

Furthermore, linking outside sources means that this forum does not have your pics in local storage. They are not accessible in the future if your outside site changes format , location, or goes down (for whatever reason).

We hope you understand. Attaching pics here is not a difficult undertaking. :thumbup:

What it means is some local armorer applied the Required marking and misinterpreted the directions. Armorers may be mechanically inclined but they weren't necessarily sharpest knife in The drawer.
:rockon:

Jonah,
This marking was applied during the Weimar era, a very turbulent time. Standards for marking were established but not always effectively disseminated and not always correctly interpreted at the unit level. There are many examples of non-standard markings during this time. It is quite possible that the individual that performed this marking had also been involved with the WWI 1917/18 type of marking and simply applied what he thought was the correct format for the property mark. Who knows? I seriously doubt that there is more information out there but will be very happy if you discover some.:cheers:

The photos are on Flickr because there are to many to embed and there is a size restriction on photos here where as on Flickr I can post the largest highest resolution photos possible. If the "forum members with the most to contribute to your knowledge base are behind corporate/government/military firewalls" thats not really my problem if they are inclined to visit forums and share their knowledge I'm sure they can wait till they are at home on a personal PC. I posted on here to hopefully find out something I didn't already know the only person to help at all was the gentleman posting about the unit markings. Everything else as I had feared has been speculation by people that have no concrete evidence. Just a little information on what I have done thus far, I brought this firearm to Bob Simpson in Galesburg IL he happens to be very highly regarded on Lugers, he was unable to tell me what the significance of /20 was so unless someone has actual knowledge on it that is concrete not speculative I'd prefer no comment at all. Bob also was who informed me that this was a genuine German shoulder holster. So when you have 900 Lugers of your own including Luger number 1 and have sold presentation grade baby Lugers I'll value your opinion, but until then you'll have to forgive me for not thinking a single sentence post on a forum carries any weight. I was hoping someone here could atleast point me in the right direction on this gun, but as I had feared just as with most forums, alot of opinion and very little fact!

Good attitude. That'll get you a lot of support here. :thumbup:

Brad Simpson is a member here. I guess he's included in your 'lot of opinion and very little fact'... :rolleyes:

Welcome! :cheers:

While I appreciate your lack of satisfaction, your attitude toward folks that are genuinely trying to help is a little sad. There is a great deal of expertise represented by the members of this forum. I have been collecting Lugers for 57 years, have examples in my collection that are nearly as rare as those you have referenced, and know Bob Simpson quite well...we mutually respect each other and gladly share what knowledge we have. If you think I am an amateur, ask Bob if he considers me so.
Respectfully,
Ron

If the "forum members with the most to contribute to your knowledge base are behind corporate/government/military firewalls" thats (sic) not really my problem if they are inclined to visit forums and share their knowledge I'm sure they can wait till they are at home on a personal PC. I posted on here to hopefully find out something I didn't already know [;] (sic) the only person to help at all was the gentleman posting about the unit markings.

H'mmm.

:mad:1,2,3,4,5...9,10.

Oh, well. :rolleyes:

Regards to all,

Gunny John

PS, Durn, Ron and Sheep, you beat me to it.

Ron I don't think you are an amateur I just don't feel that speculating on why it might have been marked that way should be taken as fact. I don't mean to offend anyone I just don't have much faith in forums. This is just a last resort which hasn't thus far yielded much fact. I appreciate everyone's input but its opinion at this point.

Again, I wish you luck in your quest for fact. I am afraid you will find it difficult since documentation from that period is virtually non-existent and the marking is indeed non-standard so that makes it doubly difficult. In the absence of documentation, learned opinion is frequently the only recourse. Forums represent a large body of knowledge and experience, so while they may not encourage your faith, perhaps you could muster a small amount of respect. We mean well.:thumbup:

Thanks for the well wishes, while I do appreciate and respect your opinion, it is just that an opinion. I will keep this thread updated on any information I find in regards to this firearm, as I said I did find something saying the 1910 marking instructions included " Receivers from reserve stocks, where the year of manufacture does not correspond with the year of completion of the weapon, will receive a 2.1mm high correction for the year of completion behind the manufacture-year in fractional form." while I'm not certain that is true I found it through one singe source and as I have made painfully and rudely apparent I like to confirm opinion before I take it as fact. So I'll continue my quest for fact on this particular firearm.


I have had a hard time even finding a photo of a duplicate stamp of this variety, I have seen a few photos of 1918/20 but none 1917/20. I'm not quite sure if this makes it rare or more valuable. At this point its not even really about this rarity or value, its more the fact that its simply irritating not knowing why it is stamped this way.


If the information I found about marking instructions is in fact true, why would it have sat for 3 years?:confused:

It wouldn't have. The instructions you found were Imperial era/military instructions that were no longer applicable in 1920.

"...while I do appreciate and respect your opinion, it is just that an opinion."

(Gunny puts down his beer and sticks his head out from under his rock...)

Yeah, jus' 'bout like e=mc2 is jus' Albert's opinion.


(Gunny belches, waddles around and crawls back under his rock and tries to find where he left his beer. No luck. He pops another one. Forum members smile benevolently and say, "Good Gunny. Now go back to sleep.")

Apparently, you didn't really mean "any."

The Germans crucified Jesus??? I'd always been told it was the Romans... :confused:


Haw...This is all good!!! :D

I think I'll join John under that rock... :p

...After I check Flight Medic's thread and see what's happening there... :)

Gentlemen,
I know there is the temptation to make light of the discussion, but there is a serious intent to try to resolve a puzzling marking. There is a bit of hypocrisy in the posters approach to accepting information provided. For example, he accepted the identification of the holster as German without question because he was told that by Bob Simpson, and that rationale was used to reject the very valid comment by “wlyon” that the holster was never a German issue but likely a private purchase. While I don’t doubt that Bob arrived at his conclusion based on what he observed, since the holster lacks any markings and was not an item of issue by the German Army, he does not know it is genuinely German, only that his expert opinion leads him to that identification. Our “jbf22” chooses not to extend that observational expertise to opinions expressed on this forum. That is OK, and his reluctance must be respected.

The holster is most likely one made by a German saddler for a G.I. during occupation. The German cavalry during both world wars wore standard issue holsters on their field belts. ALWAYS.

The end for me. Have fun in your world. Bill

That sounds like the best idea I've heard all month...I think I will join you... :cheers:

(It's been a long time comin'...) :thumbup:

I sometimes wonder what a hot head like me is doing among such masters of diplomatic restraint.

^^^^^ Doug you crack me up sometimes. :D This thread will be found in the dictionary as a prime example of an exercise in futility. Good night all!

Ron, I salute your diplomacy in a difficult circumstance. I believe Secretary Kerry could use your assistance with Russia/Ukraine if you are up to the challenge.

How bad could I do? After all, I have as much experience as our Commander-in-Chief.

May be one will be so kind and translate my little answer
Etwas irritiert, aber auch amüsiert, habe ich die Beiträge bis hierhin verfolgt.
Vorab möchte ich sagen, dass mir alle Beiträge der Mitglieder gefallen und mein Interesse am Hobby wach halten. So gilt mein Respekt auch erst einmal allen Mitgliedern in gleicher Weise. Ein paar Mitglieder stechen aber durch ihr Wissen und der Breitschaft, dieses Wissen zu teilen, aus der Masse heraus. Um es ganz deutlich zu machen möchte ich Ron Wood hier in die vorderste Reihe rücken. In seiner Bescheidenheit und sicher auch durch seine Lebensweisheit wird er diese Stelle in vorderster Reihe weit von sich rücken, aber was wäre ein Forum wie dieses ohne Mitglieder wie ihn?
Nun zu der Stempelung 1917/20. Ursprung dieses Stempels wird die "Vorschrift für die Stempelung der Pistole 08 nebst Zeichnung" aus dem Jahr 1910 sein. In dieser Vorschrift wird so ziemlich alles bezüglich der 08 geregelt; sie wurde mehrfach geändert und ergänzt.
In den Anmerkungen finden wir unter Position 4. die Erklärung für das Doppeldatum.
Die Jahreszahl wird in Zahlen mit 3,2mm Höhe und 9 mm Breite geschlagen, die des zweiten Datums in 2,1 mm Höhe.
Hülsen aus Vorratsbeständen, auf denen das Anfertigungsjahr nicht dem Jahr der Fertigstellung der Waffe übereinstimmt, erhalten hinter dem unstimmigen Anfertigungsjahr in Bruchform und Höhe von 2,1mm die Berichtigung des Anfertigungsjahres.

Um Einwänden voraus zu kommen: Es gibt in Deutschen Archivalien keine Unterlagen, die darauf hinweisen, dass dieser Passus in der Reichswehrzeit übernommen wurde. Allerdings bin ich mir in Anbetracht meiner Erfahrung ziemlich sicher, dass es so war.

Well Jonah, this is your lucky day. It would seem that Klaus feels that in his experience the 1910 directive probably did carry over into the Weimar era, therefore the "1917/20" would indicate completion of a 1917 piece was delayed until 1920. Now as to why that happened I have no idea (but then again I evidently had no idea that it wasn't a property mark, so I am 2 for 2 :)).

Is it a full moon this week Ron?

From Google Translate -

A little irritated, but also amused, I have followed the posts up to this point.
First of all I want to say that I liked all the contributions of the members and keep my interest in the hobby awake. So my respect for all members applies only once in the same way. A few members stand out but by their knowledge and the Breitschaft to share this knowledge from the crowd. I want to make it very clear Ron Wood back here in the front row. In his modesty and certainly by his wisdom he will move this point in the front row far from him, but what would a forum like this without members like him?
Now for the stamping of 1917/20. Origin of this stamp will be the "rule for the stamping of the gun along with 08 drawings" from the year 1910. In this regulation, pretty much everything is controlled with respect to the 08; it has been amended and supplemented.
In the notes we see Position 4 the explanation for the double date.
The year is beaten in numbers with 3.2 mm in height and 9mm width. The second date in 2.1 mm height
Sleeves of inventories on which the production year does not match the year of completion of the weapon get behind the inconsistent production year break in shape and height of 2.1 mm, the correction of the production year.

To get objections ahead: There are no documents in German archives that suggest that this passage was taken in the Reichswehr time. However, I'm pretty sure, given my experience, that it was so.


Blame Google Translate for any confusion...