Luger with no date stamp
 

Hello everyone I’m new to this forum and new to owning a luger, i was hoping some of you can give me some insight on what i have, year, worth, caliber etc. Thanks in advance!

Wellcome
Erfurt manufacture with a new barrel , acceptance stamp and year seems to be ground off , but make from 1916 , 1917 or 1918

A nice looking Luger that has an Erfurt toggle train and frame but the trigger has been replaced (different number) and the barrel is a replacement.

The lack of a date likely means it was reworked post WW1. Caliber is impossible to determine from your pictures but the fact that it's been re-barreled suggests that it MAY be 30 caliber (7.65mm). Many WW1 9mm Lugers were converted to 30 caliber and use a cartridge like the bottle neck ones below. On the far right is a 9mm.

https://i.imgur.com/5B4BVqf.jpg

The frame, receiver, breechblock and barrel have the Suhl commercial proof stamp set.


--Dwight

It looks like a commercial luger to me.
I wondered if the toggle a replacement.

Let’s see some photos of the top, left, and right sides of the cannon, please.

Thank you all! I will post more pictures in hopes that helps. Curious to know why you would think it’s a barrel replacement since the upper and lower have matching numbers?

Luger
 

More pics

Well, it is because the features of the upper are...unique to say the least. As you mention, all the numbers do appear to match. However, the crown N and "Made in Germany" stamped on the barrel, as well as the blank chamber, indicate that much of the upper was commercial instead of military production. The toggle train is Erfurt Production, and Erfurt did not make commercial Lugers, only guns for the military. Your sideplate also appears to be Erfurt military, and the top of the chamber has an "artillery cut" for an LP-08-which had numerous manufacturers. I dont think I have ever seen a Luger configuration like this.

Haha
 

Is that bad or good lol (never seen a Luger like this)

The receiver is military with the date ground off.
Ron

Barrel looks a bit short. Has it been established if it is .30 cal. or 9mm?
dju

Caliber
 

I have no idea what caliber it is, i put a 9m luger in the clip and it seemed to be a perfect fit but again i have no experience in this type of firearm. I don’t think it’s a reproduction from the stamps but i could be wrong, that’s why I’m here trying to get answers. I’m getting conflicting answers so now I’m even more confused lol. I really do appreciate all and any info. Thanks again everyone!

The receiver notch for an Artillery rear sight indicates that it was military production. IMO, everything except the replacement barrel was military.

Below is my 1920's rework of an Erfurt Luger with a new 7.65mm barrel and the date removed. Everything except the barrel is matching. I acquired this in the late 1980's and it was imported by CAI as marked on the barrel. They list it as an M24 suggesting that it came from Finland.

The serial number is in the "i" block so it was made in 1917 or 1918. In Still's "Imperial Lugers", no "i" block 1916 Erfurt Lugers were REPORTED above the "g" block while the "i" block was used in both 1917 and 1918.

https://i.imgur.com/mivri59.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/eJGEvUD.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/tK78efF.jpg

It is fairly easy to check the bore size.
Just place the 9mm round in the muzzle and see if it is close to fitting; or even measure the bore with calipers, or see if a standard wooden pencil will go into the bore.

Post a picture of the muzzle from straight ahead- one can usually see the thicker wall of the 7,65mm even in a picture.

Magazines are the same for 9mm and 7,65mm cartridges- so the cartridge fitting the mag is not an indicator.

Erfurt made no commercial guns - so it would be a post-war gun sold to the USA OR just a barrel change in the USA

Or as said, a different toggle

Both 9mm and .30 cartridges will fit into the Luger magazine. The barrel determines what the gun will chamber and fire.

The barrel profile and markings don't look like one that left the Erfurt factory on the gun. Erfurt only made military contract guns.

There are what look to be Erfurt acceptance markings on many parts we can see in your photos, including the frame, but not on the barrel.

The aluminum base magazine is later vintage.

There is an illustration of how to determine the caliber (9mm Luger or .30 Luger) in our FAQ PDF document. Why not download a copy? Just click on the FAQ link at the top of every forum page and follow it to the item with the PDF files.

I think you're confusing the OP's pistol with the one I posted.

Yanik, The horizonal C/N on both your left side receiver and frame indicate to me that this luger is a Kreighof rework of a 9mm WW1 military luger, into a 7,65mm commerical luger in the 1920s for the US market. TH

I don't think anyone would doubt this is a post WW1 rework for the commercial market, and by the "MADE IN GERMANY" stamped on the replacement barrel, the US market. The rework appears to be very nicely done and the gun appears to have remained in nice condition. Except for the barrel, the Luger and most of its parts, by their markings, are Erfurt. The grip screws don't appear to be marked.

I think a reworked Erfurt for the commercial market is scarce. The vast majority of post war Lugers are DWM, and I'm not sure how many of them were reworked surplus by DWM, as opposed to Lugers made with all new made parts. I do have a 1920 com... oops... alphabet commercial Navy in the "r" suffix range that has obviouly reworked surplus parts. The barrel has a Navy firing proof, but is otherwise unnumbered and unmarked. I have never seen an Erfurt rework that could be attributed to DWM.

Probably what's the most curious thing to me about this pistol is the Proof House style and placement of the commercial firing proofs. The one in the usual place on the left side of the barrel extension is hoizontal as is usual on prewar commercials instead of verticle as is usual on post war Lugers. Next is the placing of another horizontal firing proof on the left rail of the frame, directly below the one on the barrel extension. Firing proofs would normally be placed on the barrel, barrel extention, and left side of the toggle. I don't understand why there would even be one at all on the frame. And then the toggle, the usual place would be on the left side. On this Luger, if it is even a firing proof at all, is on the top of the front link, to the left of the extractor. I'm only guessing that is a proof. It looks to me like a crown over the two upright sides of an "N", absent the center slant of the "N". I guess this to be an "N" because the serifs are correctly placed for an "N". The center is missing for whatever the reason.

I think this is a nice Luger and an interesting conversation piece.

Jack

If, during the rework, the breech block - a major functioning part - was replaced, then a proof mark was likely required just as it would be on the new barrel. I'm fairly certain that the proof mark is a C/N.

None of the OP's pictures show the breech block serial number but I suspect that it's been replaced. Even if not, it's still reasonably logical that the breech block would be proof marked. Reworks after WW1 are a wonderland of unusual variations and markings.

If this Erfurt is like one I have the number on the breech block is on the left side, toward the rear and not visible with the toggle in the barrel extension. The extractor is numbered, for whatever that's worth. Only Yanik213 can tell us if the block is numbered. The pistol, having been military, has military proof house firing proofs. For non military use it would have been proofed again by the civil proof house, which ever one that was for this gun.

I would like to say the old military firing proofs would not do, but just as soon as I do there'll be all kinds of folks with post war military reworks, Germany marked, that have no civil proofs. Point being one can make no flat statements, exceptions will pop up.

I would very much like to know who reworked it and where it was proofed.

By the way, from what can be seen of the magazine in the one picture, it looks very nice, also.

Jack

see Dwights comments

Thanks Ed, for sending me back to the beginning of this thread. Dwight Gruber's assertion made me research a little further and answer one of my own questions. The forth proof on the frame rail is there as per the 1891 Proof Law.

Jack