1937 Mauser
 

Thanks for the add to the forum.
Not too long ago my father passed down to me a German Luger my grandfather brought back from WWII. When the time comes I'll pass it to my eldest.
From the brief time I had to research this forum I've determined it's a 1937 Mauser Luftwaffe I believe. It has a 3 digit serial number, not 4 and no letter. Just about all the parts have the 3 digit number on or the last 2 digits. My question is the cocking assembly has 2 different digits. I am positive my grandfather had not done anything to it. Is it common for parts produced elsewhere to have different numbers? I'll post clear pictures when I get a chance this evening.

Rob,

Welcome to the Forum!

Firstly, pictures are really the most effective way to get your questions answered and so we await them.

Secondly, what makes you think this P.08 was used by a Luftwaffe unit?

Thirdly, in ansewr to your question; P.08s were marked with the full serial number including suffix or no suffix on the front of the frame. The serial number without suffix is also stamped on the left side of the receiver. Most other small parts are stamped with the last two digits of the serial number. Blocks started with SN 1 and went to 10,000. The serial number may also include a suffix depending on the sequence of manufacturing. Production started in 1934 with NS and proceeded through the alphabet, less the letter j. It then repeated again and again..

Fourth, it is NOT usual or correct for serial numbers to be mixed on any given gun. Guns left the factory with all serial numbers matching in accordance with the description given above.

Hope this helps.

Just FYI, the 1937 year did include a block without suffix. The non-suffix block of 10,000 guns was produced in the October time frame or so. Mauser produced about 128,000 guns in 1937. The vast majority went to the Army.

John

Made it visible.

Gerben,

Thank you for facilitating the picture.

Rob,

Thanks for posting the picture. Now we have a puzzle.

The NS block of guns was produced late in the year.

But.. by the summer, Mauser has switched from the reinforced frame as shown in you picture to the frame with a hump. My old eyes do not see a hump.

Second, by mid-year the transition to salt bluing had taken place. The picture is of a gun produced with strawed parts and no doubt rust bluing. But inspection would confirm it.

Are you sure there is no suffix?? Would be perhaps p through r or so.

Pictures of the magazine in the gun would help. You know, of course that the spare magazine is from a later year.

So we really need to confirm the year and the serial number. Perhaps frame and receiver are from different guns.

The new user section of the board provides guidelines to new users on photographs needed to fully investigate a gun. It would be appreciated if you could review the post and provide additional photos. Or the details of your observations if photos are not available.

Best,

John

Alright, now that I have had time to sit down and look over the forum I see the suffix. I initially thought it was a proof mark. As for Luftwaffe my coworker has a book and researched it in there.

http://www.texasoffroad.net/albums/m...er_3.sized.jpg
http://www.texasoffroad.net/albums/m...er_1.sized.jpg
http://www.texasoffroad.net/albums/m...er_2.sized.jpg
http://www.texasoffroad.net/albums/m...0075.sized.jpg

http://www.texasoffroad.net/albums/m...0074.sized.jpg
http://www.texasoffroad.net/albums/m...0076.sized.jpg
http://www.texasoffroad.net/albums/m...0077.sized.jpg

ok, the byf equals Mauser but your code should be either S/42 or 42 (I don't remember, but know its one of them), byf was in 41 and 1942.

At some point, someone put the wrong toggle back onto the wrong receiver. It could have been at war or it could easily have been after the war (after capture). Even if grandfather did not swap it on purpose, it may have happened. It is highly doubted that it would have stayed in service like that but anything is possible if swapped out by a soldier or unit armorer -

That's why I inquired. I figured it was a field repair, but was unsure if all parts had matching numbers or if certain parts were made elsewhere and assembled later.. I had a WWI Colt 1911 frame matched up with a WWII slide after it was arsenaled.

I don't see anything about it that "says" Luftwaffe- did your friend explain his conclusion?

What you have today is simply a mismatched Mauser made luger; when/where/who/how it got mixed up we will never know.

Welcome to the luger puzzle forum! ;)

Rob,

Pictures are worth a thousand words.

Okay, this looks like a first variation 1937 pistol, with strawed parts, that has had the toggle train switched out with a late, 1941 or 1942 toggle train with the last two numbers of the serial number being 51. Difficult to say how or why the toggle train was switched out.

Everything else in the gun that is visible is consistent with Early 1937 production. Except the magazine whose characteristics I cannot see. But the SN clearly does not match.

I doubt that this gun saw Luftwaffe service. Records show that there was no allocation to the LW in 1937. FYI, in 1937 Krieghoff was in full production with LW contract P.08s.

We can see allocations to the Police and the Navy, very small quantities with the Army getting the vast majority of 1937 P.08 production from Mauser.

Hope this helps.

John

FWIK nothing to do with LUFTWAFFE, that at the time was still satisfied with all the KRIEGHOFF production.
I's a pity that it's not completely original, nice gun anyway.

Regardless, you have an interesting gun to explore.
The proofs on the right frame are very cool and the serial number is pretty cool - the "100" and matching "00". It's worth exploring further, even if it's not of collector value.

When you break down the gun, you will probably find more parts that are numbered. Even the grips sometimes have numbers inside of them.

Thanks for sharing your photos!

Remember that one of every 100 S/42 guns has the correct number of toggle. While never original again, you may be able to buy a shooter with the 00 number, switch toggles, and re-sell the shooter at no loss. Just be certain that you stay in the rust blued series.
Also, as an aside, your side plate does not appear to be on correctly.
dju

Attachment 55969
I tried to over-expose the original photo to expose the S/N and suffix.

I guessed a "t".

It is an 'r' suffix.

It's an interesting gun I would add, "r" suffix an interesting s/n, and it doesn't seem rebuffed, BUT the most important thing is that it's part of your family heirloom, so it has no price.

Yes, I saw that too. Maybe a quick re-assembly for the pic [post #7] and the tab wasn't tucked into the frame before locking it in place with the locking bolt ["takedown lever"]??? :confused:

Yes. In post #6 I can see the tab outside the frame. Not good. :p

I haven't broke it down. My father did and we sat there staring at it a bit years ago trying to figure out how to reassemble. I'll break it down and try to see what's going on with it and take photos of other parts.

Regarding the side plate assembly, pressing rearward on the (empty) muzzle will allow you to clip in the rear of the side plate, swing the front in and raise the takedown lever. Also YouTube is a good source of assembly tutorials.
And don't feel bad, lots of these have gone back together incorrectly.
dju

I've put the sideplate tab outside the slot more than once. :p

And not gotten the recoil spring lever hooks engaged with the coupling link...My 1900AE came from the seller with the hooks behind the mainspring...Took a lot of pushing, poking, and wiggling to get the cannon assembly freed... :mad:

But the pics of the mis-assembled sideplate tab make an excellent addition to the FAQ... :thumbup:

...Or maybe a separate thread on common mistakes??? :rolleyes:

John -

I am looking at the OP's picture, and my 1937 S/42, and another Mauser frame...How do you tell the three apart??? Unreinforced, reinforced, and humped??? :confused:

Reinforced I don't know. Both my Mauser have the "hump".

you can see the "hump" here:

Attachment 55993

Got it.

Richard,

This whole issue goes back to DWM and the 129 mm frame they used. Apparently this frame, at full recoil exposed the rear axle pin and there were cases of it moving and jamming the toggle train. DWM frames have noticeably thinner ears.

Mauser initially remedied the problem by lengthening just the upper part of the frame by 1 mm. Since they were using half finished DWM frames this caused the hump seen on some early K-dates. Thus, they reinforced the DWM frames and caused the hump appearance.

Then as they started using their own forged frames, they just machined the entire frame at 130mm, thus lengthening the frame, hence re-inforced as compared to the DWM frame. But the hump disappeared. This continued until early 1937.

Then, in 1937, about the same time they decided to reduce costs by going to Salt Bluing, they decided to go back to their original thought of just extending the top of the frame to prevent the axle pin from moving; and the hump returned. Maybe it saved a little weight or there was some other reason to go back to their original thought/design to solve the axle pin problem. Who knows??

So, a DWM frame with thin ears is un-reinforced.

The early Mauser P.08s using partially finished DWM frames with the top elongated causing the hump is the reinforcement with a hump. The so called Mauser Hump.

Later in 1934, Mauser built frames with the entire rear of the ears at 130 mm, i.e. a little thicker, is called the reinforced frame.

Then the return in 1937 to machining just the top of the frame to 130mm, are frames with the so called Mauser Hump. Basically this returned to the 1934 solution. This design with the hump remained in place until end of production.

So basically, ALL Mauser made guns had reinforced frames to solve the axle pin problem. But some were uniformly 130mm long (no hump) and some were 130mm long just at the top ( with hump) You can see the hump in post 23.

Sorry for the long message. Hope it helped.

John

PS: Parenthetically, Krieghoff, faced with the same directive, simply machined to 130mm thus thickening the ears and stayed with that solution throughout their entire production. That was their solution to the axle pin problem.

Thanks John! :thumbup:

I had noticed, at some point, that some Lugers had a noticeably thicker rear 'ear' abutment, but didn't know the significance of it. I don't have a pic of those (the 'reinforced' ear) but the rear abutment was thicker than the top/front. :)

My 1937 S/42 Luger has the 'unreinforced' frame. Two other Mauser Lugers I have, have the 'humped' frame. I don't have a 'reinforced' frame (130mm without hump). :(

Yep, you've got it.

Looking at the ears on DWM frames compared to Mauser and Krieghoff, they look skinny.

And the difference you see in the front part of the ear and the back is the 1mm to which I referred. It's enough to prevent the axle pin from working its way out at full recoil.

John

Of course, the Navy solved the "axle pin problem" 20 years earlier when they introduced the large flanged rear toggle pin.
Norm

"Mauser initially remedied the problem by lengthening just the upper part of the frame by 1 mm. Since they were using half finished DWM frames this caused the hump seen on some early K-dates. Thus, they reinforced the DWM frames and caused the hump appearance.

Then as they started using their own forged frames, they just machined the entire frame at 130mm, thus thickening the frame, hence re-inforced as compared to the DWM frame. But the hump disappeared. This continued until early 1937."

Guns3545,
Are you sure about this? Any documentation?
What I've read is that "finished" frames went from BKIW to Mauser.

How would they have added to the frame to reinforce a DWM frame? If the frame was long enough to mill with a hump, why not just leave it long?

IMO,
Mauser developed the longer frame in response to a complaint/problem and only in their own mfg.; it doesn't make sense that Mauser would "waste" time on salvaging frames when they could have simply used them as is.

Just a matter of semantics, but should not the frame be described as lengthened and not thickened? Usage in the above explanations and discussions slips back and forth between the two and could be confusing. At least to a dummy like me.;)

[quote=donvoigt;283223]"mauser initially remedied the problem by lengthening just the upper part of the frame by 1 mm. Since they were using half finished dwm frames this caused the hump seen on some early k-dates. Thus, they reinforced the dwm frames and caused the hump appearance.

Then as they started using their own forged frames, they just machined the entire frame at 130mm, thus thickening the frame, hence re-inforced as compared to the dwm frame. But the hump disappeared. This continued until early 1937."

guns3545,


Responses embedded in text.

are you sure about this? YES
any documentation? YES. Mainly chapters 3 and 4 of The Mauser Parabellum
what i've read is that "finished" frames went from bkiw to mauser. NOT TRUE. Finished frames, frames that had not completed the 191 finishing steps and raw forgings were transferred. Mauser paid 119,123.29 Reichsmarks for the finished and unfinished parts they received.

And, BTW, BKIW was DWM who along with MAUSER changed their name in 1922 to one less associated with arms. Same company. Sorry for confusing you. I just use DWM out of habit.

How would they have added to the frame to reinforce a dwm frame? If the frame was long enough to mill with a hump, why not just leave it long?
THEY DID NOT ADD ANYTHING. They simply machined away less. The semi-finished forging was longer than 130mm. Dwm tooling machined the frame to 129 mm. Mauser tooling machined the upper frame to 130 and tapered back, hence the hump.

Imo,
mauser developed the longer frame in response to a complaint/problem and only in their own mfg.; it doesn't make sense that mauser would "waste" time on salvaging frames when they could have simply used them as is. Both Mauser and Krieghoff, when they started P.08 production were responding to an order from the Reichsministerium dated 6/16/1930 covering the P.08. And they did not salvage any frames. Machining changes from 129 to 130 mm length were applied to unfinished frames whose length exceeded 130mm. They simply removed less metal

Just a matter of semantics, but should not the frame be described as lengthened and not thickened? You are absolutely correct. Apologies. I've changed it. Should have said "lengthened the frame and thereby thickened the ears"

usage in the above explanations and discussions slips back and forth between the two and could be confusing. At least to a dummy like me.

Thank you for your questions and criticisms. They keep me on my toes.

John

John,
thanks for the detailed answer.
Not meant as criticism, but a desire to learn and document.

Am I to conclude from the above that no finished 129mm DWM/BKIW frames were completed by Mauser? Or that none were sold to the military due to the orders quoted? I suppose this is a way of asking what happened to or how were the finished frames used by Mauser(if at all)?

I'm asking as it could be a way to know the mfg. date of the Alphabet commercial pistols, or am I
reaching?

Don,

By no means.

Mauser was desperate for business during these days and took orders from anyone.

My comments were solely directed toward the Model P.08 as specifically ordered by the Heereswaffenamt. And, because of the Order of 6/16/1930, I am relatively certain that no 129mm frames were delivered by Mauser as Model P.08s.

However, in the DWM/BKIW era and the transition to Mauser, several variations were delivered to the Police, various export customers etc. There was ample opportunity to use up the finished parts transferred to Oberndorf from Berlin. However, I have not studied that period extensively.

Perhaps others who study this period may comment. Alternatively, this line of research should be placed in another thread that I recommend you start. This topic is far afield from the OP's initial question and deserving of attention.

John

Don,

Did some digging trying to identify Mauser uses of the 129 mm frame.

Here are some data points which you can follow:

1. The only two transferable contracts to Mauser at the date of the turnover were the Dutch Navy and the A. F. Stoeger contracts.

2. From 1930 to 1934, Mauser delivered commercial contracts with the DWM logo on the center toggle and the F-1, 129 mm frame,delivered at the time of turnover. From 1934 onward, commercial contracts used the Mauser Banner. The early Banner-8 logo guns also had the 129 mm frame, including the Portuguese contract.

3. Between SN 3601v and 9750v, all Mauser frames F-3, i.e. 130mm. Exceptions were the artilleries produced in that SN range which used the 129 mm frame as did the Dutch Navy guns delivered in 1936.

4. There is evidence to suggest the DWM 129 mm frames were used into 1937 for foreign and commercial contracts.

5. And to my surprise, in violation of the 1930 directive, some early K-dates, maybe 180 total had the 129mm frame. Accident?? Intentional?? But the remainder of the K-dates either used the 130mm humped or so called reinforced frame.

So, focus on the v-block guns for the most likely use of the DWM finished 129 mm frames.

BTW, an easy way to tell the difference between the DWM 129 mm frame and the Mauser made 130 mm variations is that the DWM frames do not have the distinctive dimple at the top of the stock lug rail. This is a unique characteristic of the Mauser 130mm frame.

Hope this helps.

BUT... I really think this needs to be in a separate thread.

John

Please post a pic of the stock lug dimple in the separate thread... :thumbup:

guns3545,
Thanks for your explanation, very interesting.
It prompted me to measure my 06 Waffenfabrik Bern which dates to 1930 according to Walters Luger Book. Length of the frame is 131mm , so clearly the Swiss were aware of the problem. My question is, when did the Swiss lengthen the frame , in 1918 when they began manufacturing or later ?
My apologies if this should be in a separate thread, I'm not certain how to do that.

On this interesting topic I don't want to add anything more than was written by Ron Wood in an extremely instructive "tutorial" on the other leading luger forum, I would advise anybody interested to learn more about it to click here:

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...Frame-Tutorial

A Mauser stock lug dimple

Swiss pistols have the old model "long" receiver, which is 2-2.5 mm longer than the later short receiver; the added length is at the front not the rear, so it does not address the toggle axle "problem".

It's also posted here, on this forum -

http://forum.lugerforum.com/showthread.php?t=3932

OK, I see what you meant. I usually refer to this (in my head) as a 'starter hole'. It would seem most Lugers have the milled stock lug cut started from the bottom and going up; the Mauser has a 'starter hole' drilled and the end mill cut goes down. That's one theory; another is that the other companies didn't extend their drilled starter holes as deep as Mauser and all the cuts were in the same direction [down].

Reading the tool marks and visualizing how they were made is the main reason I accumulate Lugers (and Mauser & Nambu & any early handgun).

I started out as a production machinist in an aerospace sub-contractor back in 1969 (the Old Curtiss-Wright plant in Buffalo; they made P-40's during WW II). Many of the old machines were still in use, and they were quite interesting to use. :)

Edit: My Thanks! To kurusu for catching my spelling mistake... :thumbup: