S/42 luger family heirloom
 

Hello all! New user here. I wanted to get some help from you pros on my most prized possession. My grandfather fought in wwii in France. He brought back with him many guns but this one being the best in my opinion. All matching serial numbers, It even had the matching magazine, which has been lost unfortunately.

I was hoping you could educate me on where it was made and anything of historical importance you think I should know about it. I have read there were straw and blued versions and I don't know which I have honestly. And if anyone could educate me on what each stamp represents that would be a bonus. Thank you in advance!

Welcome, Sean, Your S/42 was made in the latter half of 1937, the year which Mauser changed from rust bluing to hot salt bluing. Its frame was made by Mauser and not DWM stock moved from Berlin to be used up first, evidenced by the "Mauser hump," the swelling on the top portion of the back ends of the barrel extension. It looks like an honest war-horse to me. Enjoy your family heirloom!

Find that matching magazine! Could be worth $300-500 added to the value of the gun.

Wow! Thanks for the info. Is there a way to tell the difference between the two bluing processes?

I know... Trust me I've looked high and low and still haven't come across it. It makes me sick when I think about it. :(

The easiest way to tell the difference is the trigger and safety lever are a golden/brown color, aka "Straw", on the earlier guns, and blued on the later guns. Hard to describe the differences in blue, experience helps there. Try going to Simpson, Ltd, and visually compare pre-1937 vs. post 1937 guns. If I had to try and describe the differences, I'd say that the rust blue is slightly lighter, more "gray" than salt blued guns.

I would like to refer you to our FAQ area in this forum. It has a treasure chest of CORRECT Luger information. I believe that you will enjoy it, and learn a lot.

As an FYI, your Takedown Lever Spring is missing.

Never even noticed! Does it insert into the right side of the frame on the other side of the locking lever?

No, you must first remove the lever. The spring will lie in a channel for it on the bottom of the boring for the lever. Put an empty mag into the gun and pull back the action to lock it open. The lever will rotate at this point. If the spring is missing entirely, the lever should just about fall out. If a functional spring is there, the lever won't come out unless you take it out. Once the lever is removed, you'll see the spring or its remnants, or no spring. It may simply have a short "leg" which isn't readily visible in the tiny hole from the outside. In this case, The lever will rotate from locked to unlocked and back without a tendency to fall out. But if it is missing after all, or in pieces, score one from lugerdoc. And, of course, check the FAQ for guidance in installing the replacement. It's not difficult, but there are tips to make it less tricky in the discussions about the process. When you're done, you'll say, "Piece of cake."

Noted. Thank you! I ordered a triple k replacement mag for now. I'll have to wait until it gets here before I can do a takedown :(

Sean, welcome to the forum. Congratulations on your excellent family heirloom WW-II bring back Luger.

Here's a link to our FAQ document:

http://forum.lugerforum.com/showthread.php?t=13121

It has a wealth of detailed Luger information, and it's free from our forum.

If you have a holster that goes with the Luger, look in the magazine pocket. It might be with the holster.

If you find it, don't store the Luger in a leather holster.

You have a Mauser made Luger. It was produced in Mauser's building "D", at Oberndorf an Neckar, Wurttemberg, Germany. This is South and West of Stuttgart.

Your Luger was made later in 1937, and has both the rust blued finish and the "hump" shaped Mauser Luger frame. These are very well made pistols.

The stamps are military contract inspection and acceptance markings and proof marks.

You can disassemble and re-assemble the Luger without a magazine. Just be careful and don't lose parts.

The takedown lever spring is a small flat "L" shaped spring with a section in the center milled away in a curve. Tom (LugerDoc) can provide some for you. Don't try and shoot the pistol without this part properly installed.

The Triple-K mag is probably a mistake, unless you use it just for display. Mec-Gar makes the best Luger replacement magazines; Greg Cote has them in stock. GT here on the forum can dress it up for you, and even make improvements, if desired. :rolleyes:

I should say I THINK it's a triple K. It actually doesn't specify on the site. I had triple k on the brain cause i was looking for Magazine for the enfield. I attached the photo they have on the site.

Exactly the type of info I was looking for. Thanks for taking the time to type all that out :)

So this may sound silly, but I notice how everyone compliments the Mauser pistols for their high production quality. Of the major ORIGINAL manufacturers (I.E. not Stoeger, Mitchell Arms, etc) are any of them poor quality? I know Erfurt finish quality is a bit rougher than the other manufacturers’ are, but are Mauser made pistols noticeably higher quality than, say, Simson or DWM produced examples?

You have to compare apples and oranges - middle of the war - how many years it was used etc

military vs commercial

I think most people would say krieghoff is the nicest finished, then Mauser which is close to DWM but I would say has the edge, although a commercial DWM is really nice

Then I would say Simson and Erfurt are about the same

HOWEVER - any nice piece that is original, they are all very nice...

I personally think that Mauser used better metallurgy in Lugers than the earlier German manufacturers. While there is nothing wrong with DWM, Erfurt or Simson I believe that Mauser used a later and better alloy of steel. I've never had a Krieghoff so can't comment on their Lugers.

The Swiss in Bern probably used an even higher quality steel and more precise manufacturing techniques and quality control. While the German pistols are excellent and outstanding, the Swiss had even higher standards.

This is mainly opinion that is borne out of some of the history that is known about steel and the evolution of alloys in the periods in question, as well as some of the records. It's also based on my experience with a number of Lugers.

The post war Mauser made Lugers are also outstanding in quality.

Thank you both for your input. I don’t mean to hijack the thread at all. My Mauser military shooter does look much better than my 1920 DWM commercial, but it also seems that whoever had that DWM before me liked to shoot it...a lot. It shows signs of much use both in wear around the typical spots from holstering and very silky smooth mechanical action(including takedown procedures) from use. Then again, my Mauser shooter was acquired from G.T. and as many of you had attested, he has lots of magic in his fingers when it comes to working with Lugers.

If there is "nothing wrong" with the other makers of lugers, then Mauser or Swiss use of "different" steel is irrelevant.

Personally I think Mauser wrote different specifications, using the language of the day- rather than the older terms used earlier by others. These "sound" more sophisticated, but in reality are essentially the same specs used before.

The Swiss actually "modified/simplified/cheapened" several parts of the luger to make it easier and less expensive to make. these parts were the side plate, safety lever and its attachment, and the grip safety itself. They did improve the extractor to make it stronger. They also changed the profile of the front strap of the frame to reduce mfg. time- and at the same time gave it an ugly proflie instead of a classic, flowing style. Again JMO.

As far as tolerances go, I fail to see how any tighter tolerances(than DWM, et al.) could be achieved and still result in a functioning pistol.

Marc and I see this from two entirely different points, I see quality as "suitability for use", anything more or extra adds un-necessary expense- and the luger was expensive enough already. ;)

All of course being JMHO. :)

In support of Don's point above, consider the American selection of the M1911 and M1911a1 pistols during the American selection trials for a semi-automatic handgun.

Much of the expense of the Luger is involved in requirements for high precision manufacture and a fair amount of hand fitting. Without the precision, they were not reliable.

The Americans found the much less stringent Browning design to be more "suitable for use" by American forces.

Initially the cost of manufacture was one consideration. Later, the looser fitting requirements proved to be an advantage both for interchangeability and resistance to jamming due to dirt.

The accuracy of a M1911 with loose manufacturing specifications and better interchangeability of parts was less than that of most hand fitted Lugers of that era. In combat, it didn't matter. The M1911 was suitable and effective.

Later generations have made remarkably high precision M1911a1 pistols that capture and exceed target accuracy. They are precision manufactured and hand fit and also cost more.

- - - - -

But back to the original question about Luger quality. This is what I base my opinion on:

The wartime Lugers (M1900 DWM, Erfurt, Simson, Mauser and through the Krieghoff pistols in 1945) are all of very high quality. Both commercial and military contract pistols prove this point.

Yet there is a difference. For example, the number of parts and pistols completed by Erfurt manufacturing and subsequently returned for rework by the "Revisions Committee" (as evidenced by the RC mark) was higher than at DWM. This leaves the impression that there was either less attention to quality during manufacture at Erfurt, or a more obsessive inspection process.

When the Swiss redesigned the Luger, one objective was to reduce manufacturing cost. Simplification of design doesn't have anything to do with reducing quality - in fact, I believe it allowed the Swiss to focus more on the quality of manufacture.

If you examine the manufacturing markings inside M1929 Swiss Lugers, you will see that SIG actually manufactured the parts that Bern assembled into Lugers.

The Swiss are a nation of target shooters, and their military firearms (including the K31, Sig P210 and Swiss Bern Lugers) reflect that obsession.

I have the impression that the Germans were obsessed with quality, and the Swiss thought that wasn't good enough.

Of course, I wasn't there looking over August Weiss' shoulder at Mauser or involved in any way with Luger manufacture. Opinions I have on this are based on examining the guns I own and get to handle as well as the documents available in archives.

In Sturgess' book on pages 554 and 555, he discusses the steel alloys used in Luger manufacture by the Swiss, and the level of their advanced metallurgy. While high carbon steel was used in much of the Swiss Luger, several components were made from more advanced steel alloyed with Chrome, Nickle-Chrome, Chrome-Vanadium, Molybdenum and Tungsten. Anecdotally, we know that the fully hardened Swiss steel components wore out hardened carbon-steel inspection dies more rapidly (Sturgess P461).

We also know that when the Swiss Bern arsenal took over production of their Lugers from DWM in 1918-1919, one of the first things that they worked on (based upon their service experience with DWM M1900 and M1906 Lugers) was the metallurgy. See Sturgess P810. This is when they began introducing stronger alloy steels into Luger manufacture. This was to improve longevity in service and reliability - and that directly contributes to suitability for the Swiss.

Finally, starting on Sturgess P1055 you will see the steady improvement in steel specifications for components used in German Lugers. This is only natural as the science of alloying steel progressed in the period from 1899 through 1945. Here is detail from Sturgess on the Luger Receiver:

- - - - - - - -

1.2 Receiver

DWM Luger 1899 Atlas steel, lightly case-hardened. (EN: Atlas steel was the product of John Brown’s Atlas Steel Works in Sheffield, England, one of the first users of the Bessemer process of steel making – DWM’s preference for imported steel is curious since the German crucible steels of Krupp and Bismarckhutte were specified for Gew. 98 rifles at this time, but Sheffield crucible steels had the highest reputation in this era.)

DWM 1904 Atlas steel, lightly case-hardened.

I.K.B. 1913 Mild steel, case-hardened and browned.

Mauser 1934 Steel 25.61, carbon content 0.25 – 0.30 %. Case-harden in Durferrit (trade name for a commercial case-hardening salt bath) for 8 minutes at 740 - 750°, quench in oil, anneal in oil.

Mauser 1942 Steel 25.61, carbon content 0.25 – 0.30 %. Case-harden in Durferrit-C3 bath at 780 - 800°, quench in oil, anneal in oil bath for 30 minutes at 150°.

- - - - -

The alloy selected and hardening process changes were directly related to improving the Luger's longevity in service.

We know that one of the principal reasons Aimco made post war Lugers fail is the softness of the Stainless steel alloy that they chose.

First point-
"Finally, starting on Sturgess P1055 you will see the steady improvement in steel specifications for components used in German Lugers. This is only natural as the science of alloying steel progressed in the period from 1899 through 1945. Here is detail from Sturgess on the Luger Receiver: "

This sounds impressive, but "improvement" only relates to changes in the way the specifications were written, IMO.
We have no idea if the 1942 steel of Mauser was actually different from the "Atlas steel" specified by DWM.

The specific times and temperatures spent to case harden in Durferitt by Mauser may or may not have resulted in different surface hardness than the "lightly casehardened Atlas" steel or the "case hardened"mild steel of 1913.

Any implication of "better" without knowing the composition of the steels mentioned is pure speculation.

Mauser may have heat treated their steel more uniformly in a Durfurrit bath- given the small change noted in time and temperature- from the '34 to '42 specs.- resulting in less batch to batch variation.

Second point:
"The alloy selected and hardening process changes were directly related to improving the Luger's longevity in service. "

I'm not sure how we "know" longevity is the reason.
There is a large body of empirical evidence(lugers that we all collect and own) that indicate, at least to me, that lugers did not wear out- with pre-WWI lugers still being in service post WWII.

It is much more likely any changes to steel had to do with availability of material, cost, and ease of processing.

Third-
Aimco- I have no idea why they fail, I have heard it was due to "galling" of the stainless steel parts rubbing against each other - maybe they were soft. The few I have seen just were not put together well enough to function reliably; they would not fire enough rounds to show up soft steel.

JMHO. Again. ;)