1914 Erfurt dilemma--SOLVED!
 

I spoke to Jan Still today about 1914 #9912 "q" that has been the subject of 1914 Erfurt dilemmas I, II and III. With his permission so he won't have to post: The gun's proofs are original, there are halos around the barrel serial and proofs, the proof on the upper right is struck more delicately that those on the right side of the receiver. So far so good. There is a cut-out on the top of the chamber to accept the artillery sight, the sear is of the relieved type,and there is only one proof on the clip bottom. None of these last three features were present on the "ns", "a" or "b" suffix 1914s. The conclusion: This Erfurt was assembled no earlier than 1916 from left over parts. Presumably this is also true of the "r" suffix 1914 sold to a collector in Texas by Ralph. This all seems very plausible and I am relieved to finally have an acceptable explanation. I still love my Erfurt WW1 veteran, this baby saw action! Thank you all who contributed your ideas to this "dilemma". Long live the Luger Forum. <img src="graemlins/xyxwave.gif" border="0" alt="[bigbye]" />

HF, so let me get this right: Your oddball Luger was actually assembled totally in 1916 during the “q” suffix period of production for that year at the Erfurt plant using a receiver that had originally been produced and stamped in 1914? But was apparently set aside (the receiver) as a “left over” part?

I’m definitely no expert on these pistols like Mr. Still is, (not even close) but I don’t exactly understand the expression “left over” here. Do you guys mean failed inspection parts, like for quality control or such?

If so, and this failed 1914 receiver was used in desperation to slap together a pistol anyway they could (by hook or crook so to say) wouldn’t it of been nearer the close of the war in 1918? I’ve read two books on German rifles (Law’s “Backbone” and Weaver’s “Hitler’s Garands”) that suggest that failed QC parts like these were generally only used out of shear desperation near the very end of a conflict.

Heydrich,
Glad I am not the only one that failed to follow the trail of the 1914 Erfurt P08. On page 78 of IL there is a picture of a 1917 dated Erfurt with an added /18 which supposedly indicates a pistol fabricated from parts from a previous year. If the receiver does not bear the C/RC stamp and as so few 1914 P08's were assembled, what other reason would there be for holding over the 1914 dated receiver for so long?

Heydrich, it was not claimed that the 1914 "q" Luger was assembled in 1916. The statement is that it was assembled "no earlier than 1916". Looking at "Imperial Lugers", 1916 production stopped at the "g" block, pretty much ruling 1916 out. Only 1917 and 1918 Erfurt production made it into the "q" range of suffix letters. That's also when many Erfurt Lugers began appearing with the C/RC "Revisions Commission" stamp on various parts, indicating a part that failed quality inspection in some non-critical area. If there were such parts available from previous years, why not use them?

The explaination may not satisfy everyone but the possibility must be considered. As I've said previously, in manufacturing almost anything is possible. A few years back a gentleman wrote to one of the gun magazines wanting to know if a S&W revolver with a 6 inch smooth bore barrel was uncommon. He had purchased it new and it left the factory that way. As the pistol was in violation of federal gun laws, he was advised to get it back to S&W as quickly as possible.

I personally would like to have the Luger in question actually examined by Mr. Still but, until then, his theory of how it came to be is the best we have.

Pressing Mr. Still to evaluate a pistol is rather unfair. Evaluations with much importance should not be made upon one inspection. Such a determination would require quite a bit of research, and would not be made in haste. I am sure that any conclusions that Mr. Still has published in his books are the result of lengthy, intense research and are not based upon one evening's examination of a few pistols by the fireside.

He has obviously given a preliminary observation that is extremely forceful and we should thank him and then conduct research. He has indicated the path.

Doubs:

I believe that one must do a bit of reading between the lines to find the answer.

Doubs:

Ok, then shouldn’t the explanation have been: not manufactured “no earlier than 1917”? And if it was a reject receiver from 1914, why doesn’t it have the appropriate stamp indicating this? If it was a good receiver from the beginning, why did they leave it sitting around from sometime in 1914 till sometime in 1917 (or later) for no good reason?

In manufacturing, it is not necessary that a part fail QC to end up in later production. If it failed QC, it is usually destroyed so as not to find its way into assembly. Perhaps these q and the r block 1914 Erfurts were used as factory test guns (WW2 era pistols are marked as test guns but WW1 pistols do not seem to be so marked) and later some of the parts were thrown into regular production parts bins as lugers with new barrels were pulled for test pistols.

Perhaps these receivers were used as comparison pieces for a QC station or a finishing or grip making station then were replaced with later pistols for some reason--unworn parts of these 1914s being reentered into regular production.

Perhaps these 1914 receivers were sitting in the design engineer's office and he took them down to the production floor in 1917 when he realized his desk was cluttered and he did not need them anymore to do design drawing changes.

Lots of possibilities.

Dave

OR Bob the receiver designer enlisted and his parts were taken down to production

OR Bob the finish worker got caught with unofficial lugers in his locker and they were broken down and reentered into production to ensure they were inspected and tested.

Dave

Appreciate all these responses. Heydrich, Mr Still was on the phone with me for some time, asking question after question. He came to the conclustion that I didn't have to send it up to him. I will be sending him extensive photoraphs, if he wants to see it in person after that, them it'll be sent. There is a C/RC on the left of the barrel near the receiver but no other unusual proofs. It could have been assembled as late as 1918, Jan recognized this. Dilemmas like this are really never solved. Any or all the wonderful suggestions made by Johnny Peppers, Doubs, Wes and LP08 are well taken and appreciated. My mind will stay open, presumably Jan Stills's as well.

Maybe I missed it, but I am wondering from where this particular Erfurt was purchased. Might the seller have more information?

[quote]Originally posted by Heydrich:
<strong>Doubs: Ok, then shouldn’t the explanation have been: not manufactured “no earlier than 1917”? And if it was a reject receiver from 1914, why doesn’t it have the appropriate stamp indicating this? If it was a good receiver from the beginning, why did they leave it sitting around from sometime in 1914 till sometime in 1917 (or later) for no good reason?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I can't explain why the answer wasn't phrased differently.

As for a 1914 receiver being used in production as long as 4 years later, a number of possibilities have been advanced. Remember that there is only one reported 1915 Erfurt that is considered to be "correct" by one collector (a Mr. McTague, IIRC) who actually examined it. Most collectors believe that Erfurt didn't produce 1915 dated Lugers. One explaination is the possible continued production of 1914 dated Artillery Lugers right through 1915. Or, perhaps production time went to rifles or other arms that were needed more desperately than the Luger.

1916 production only went to block "g" which translates to approximately 70,000 units. It was 1917 & 1918 production that, when the C/RC parts are taken into consideration, seems to have become almost a desperation effort. The 1918 product is often termed "rough" or "poor" in the quality of finish.

In manufacturing, parts may be set aside for one reason or another with the idea of finishing or correcting a fault at a later time when possible. These parts may sit for years if circumstances warrant it. In Herbert Houze's book "The Winchester Model 52", it's stated on page 166 that receivers were often assembled into rifles long after production. He gives one example of a receiver made in 1941 waiting 10 years before it was used. While that's an unusual delay, it happens. The same delays, no doubt, also happened during the production of Lugers by Erfurt.

Commercial production of firearms is a rather different situation from military firearms manufactured during a time of war. Even though a commercial model may have been discontinued, the model is still sold well after being discontinued. The Model 1873 Winchester was still being sold some ten years after being discontinued. They were all made up from parts produced years earlier, but never used due to lack of sales.

Message for Luke, I bought my 1914 Erfurt from Mike Krause at Krausewerk in Sa Mateo. He received it from a family member of a local gun shop which had been in business over 40 years. This Erfurt was said to have been a "bringback" many years ago into this area and held at the gun shop as one of the owners favorites. The family unloaded this piece plus others. I'm keeping an open mind on this Erfurt and plan to send extensive photos to Jan Still in the near future.

Mr. Fisher,
Any idea of how this conclusion will affect the value of your gun?

I'm very interested because a 1914 Erfurt is next on my purchase list!

Best Regards, Brandon

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny Peppers:
<strong>Commercial production of firearms is a rather different situation from military firearms manufactured during a time of war. Even though a commercial model may have been discontinued, the model is still sold well after being discontinued. The Model 1873 Winchester was still being sold some ten years after being discontinued. They were all made up from parts produced years earlier, but never used due to lack of sales.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't agree. Manufacturing of guns is done essentially the same way in war or peacetime. Just as commercial models may be made and sold new from stocks of parts for some period of time following announcement that it's being "discontinued", military production also produces more parts than are needed at a given moment.

Depending upon the manufacturing methods used, it's likely that production time or "blocks of time" were allocated to specific parts. (These blocks of time are planned far in advance of actual production.) Some parts may be manufactured by sub-contractors.

Even arsenals such as Erfurt stocked parts in excess of needs for immediate use and it's more than just a little likely that every part necessary to assemble a Luger was produced as spare parts for field use and for future arsenal use... including receivers.

I seriously doubt that the German factories were keeping chamber date stamped receivers in stock as "spare" parts. I can provide no authority for this bit of speculation.

[quote]Originally posted by wes:
<strong>Pressing Mr. Still to evaluate a pistol is rather unfair.&lt;Snip&gt;</strong><hr></blockquote>

Unfair? Here is a quote from Mr. Still concerning the pistol in question.

"As I am currently working to revise Volume I would welcome an opportunity to examine and photograph your Luger. If you are willing to send it for my inspection I will give an honest evaluation and report it to the Forum. I have a dozen early Erfurts to compare it with. Jan "

As he has already expressed his willingness to examine the pistol, I simply stated that it would be nice if he did so. If Mr. Still feels "pressed", I'm confident that he'll speak for himself without hesitation.

Doubs,
The military either manufacturers at government arsenals or pays someone to manufacture spare parts to maintain their then current weapon inventory. Domestic production of commercially manufactured weapons depends entirely upon demand and sales. Winchester never intended to have left over inventory sitting around as in the case of the Model 1873, as unsold inventory is capital that is tied up. Winchester also manufactured the M1 Rifle and M1 Carbine during WWII, but they did not keep any unsold parts of these weapons sitting around. They were in the business of manufacturing the weapons under contract at a specified price, and hoped to turn a profit. Merchandise sitting on shelves it not profit.

Prior to th 1970s, inventory management was not handled very efficiently by most manufacturers. You read many stories of excess inventory of guns of a specific type that took years to sell, eg., the 1921 Thompson sub machine guns. Prior to the 1980s, tooling and stations were designed to produce parts for guns and the stations were allocated time to run a specific lot size of parts before switching to another part. Inventory of parts accumulated until all the final parts were obtained and then the gun was probably assembled in a batch. Therefore, for small run pistols such as ppk's, most were probably assembled in batch's over short periods of time. Production quantities of parts are based on contract orders for completed pistols and spare parts. When I was in the defense industry, contracts were negotiated for so many complete units and spares of most parts and sub assemblies. We shipped spares before full assemblies because there were design bugs to work out in the complete units but many parts and sub assemblies were ok. Once the design was finalized, we shipped more completed units.

Lugers were a high volume pistol so production was probably fairly steady from 1915-1918 (once large contracts were negotiated) with dedicated production facilities and personnel. Before 1915, however, production may have been for only short periods of the year.

My guesses.

Dave

Reply to Brandon and Garfield, First I guess the "value" of my Erfurt would have to have been diminished by the revelation that it may have been assembled from parts left over. The "original" ns,a and b suffixes with unrelieved sear bars, un-notched chanbers and double proofed clips were "true" 1914's. But if Garfield is correct, why is the chamber stamped "1914"? In light of all this thread and previous ones on this matter, what is your theory?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny Peppers:
"Doubs, The military either manufacturers at government arsenals or pays someone to manufacture spare parts to maintain their then current weapon inventory."

I agree.

Johnny: "Domestic production of commercially manufactured weapons depends entirely upon demand and sales. Winchester never intended to have left over inventory sitting around as in the case of the Model 1873, as unsold inventory is capital that is tied up."

Again, I agree. But the fact remains that Winchester and other manufacturers did accumulate inventory of spare parts that sometimes sat for years. The initial buttplate screws used on the Model 52 Winchester were manufactured for the 1873 Winchester rifles you speak of. (FWIW, I have pages 11 - 202 of an original Winchester catalog from the late 'teens or early 1920's that belonged to my father. The 1873 is being offered at prices from $17.50 - $37.50 but my father had annotated in writing that the 1873 is no longer being produced. Sadly, I can't establish the exact year the catalog was published because the covers are missing.)

Johnny: Winchester also manufactured the M1 Rifle and M1 Carbine during WWII, but they did not keep any unsold parts of these weapons sitting around. They were in the business of manufacturing the weapons under contract at a specified price, and hoped to turn a profit. Merchandise sitting on shelves it not profit."

No argument with that. However, any contract parts produced would have been shipped to the government as they were paid for. The receiving arsenal or warehouse would have stored the items for later use or disposition. The parts were not simply destroyed in most cases and were in inventory somewhere. The CMP is, I believe, still using M1 Garand parts that were produced many years ago to repair Garands for sales to members.

LP08 explains, perhaps better than I did, the manufacturing process and how parts management wasn't as sophistocated a century ago as now. Why is it such a leap of faith to think that the Erfurt Arsenal may have had parts available long after manufacture? Once made, they wouldn't have simply dumped them.

There has yet to be a solid explaination for the Erfurt Arsenal to not produce Lugers in 1915. It's conjecture, of course, but suppose an emergency or even immediate directive was issued in late 1914 to cease Luger production "right now" and convert the assembly line to making GEW98's ASAP? Wouldn't there possibly be unused 1914 receivers still available? Put them on the shelf for later use and press on. I'm not saying it happened that way.... only that it's another distinct possibility. There has to be a reason why Luger production by Erfurt in 1915 didn't happen. Considering that LP-08 production only goes to the "b" block in 1914 by Erfurt and standard Luger production also stops at the "b" block, it's unlikely that 1915 was used to produce Lugers dated 1914.

Doubs,
The comparison between commercial and military production of weapons was intended to illustrate the fact that Winchester did manufacture commercial firearms and leave them in stock, but any military weapons or parts were contracted for before they were manufactured.
During 1920, 1921, and 1922 only 304 Model 1873 Winchesters were manufactured, but in 1923 which was the year the Model 1873 was discontinued records indicate that 18,260 were added to the production ledgers presumably to clean up the remaining stocks of completed guns and those assembled from parts. Apparently all rifles assembled were built from old stock parts remaining in inventory, but they are recorded as having been built in 1923.

Doubs:

Other than pure speculation, can you point to any fact that would tend to establish that 1914 chamber dated Erfurt receivers were placed in "factory stock" and later used by the Erfurt factory to asemble lugers in the following 4 years?

[quote]Originally posted by Garfield:
<strong>Doubs: Other than pure speculation, can you point to any fact that would tend to establish that 1914 chamber dated Erfurt receivers were placed in "factory stock" and later used by the Erfurt factory to asemble lugers in the following 4 years?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Other than the statement from Mr. Fisher concerning Jan Still's observation concerning the 1914 "q" block Erfurt Luger, and some first-hand knowledge of both manufacturing and the military supply system, no. But, then again, when have I been so bold as to phrase my "speculation" in terms of absolution? The possibilities I've advanced have, in each case, been stated as opinion and not fact. They are reasonable and logical "possibilities". Obviously, you don't see it that way.

Back in the first of the four threads on this topic you state that Erfurt didn't go into full production until 1917. What, exactly, is "full" production? Is it meeting the contract requirements? Is it utilizing the available workers to their fullest or is it capacity production of the arsenal using every available worker and resource?

Other than "guesstimated" raw production numbers of Lugers produced by Erfurt in 1914 and 1916, 1917 & 1918, what proof can you provide to support your contention that Erfurt didn't go into "full" production until 1917? Before you use the difference in production numbers between 1916 and 1917 as "proof", you'll need to demonstrate that the Luger assembly line wasn't working to capacity in 1916 using the available tools, workers and supplies. After all, the rest of the asenal workers may have been busy turning out rifles and machineguns. (That's purely speculation on my part. However, SOMEONE at Erfurt was turning out other arms because I've owned 1917 GEW98's.)

Much of what we "know" about Lugers is based on the experience of those who have the means to do the research. Some of those "facts" are concrete as proven by records, regulations, directives, first-hand knowledge of those there at the time etc. Other information that has been formulated from data gathered through various sources is a well-informed estimation... a guess, IOW. Many known "facts" of the earlier years have been proven faulty through additional research and records that have surfaced.

When I state something as a cold, hard fact I also provide my source as can be seen from my previous posts. If it's my opinion or speculation, I say it is. Half of the fun of Lugers is the "what-if" factor. Someone posts a "what-if" and often the result is a good discussion and everyone learns something. I often dive into a book to refresh my memory about a specific fact or to learn something new. Most of my efforts have been toward the Imperial period so I often pick up new information about the Nazi era guns. They just don't interest me as much as the older guns.

I guess the short answer to my question is, No".

Thank you.

With due respect to Garfield, how can one explain a 1914 dated Erfurt with relieved sear bar, notched chamber and only one proof on the clip? It apparently doesn't fit with the ns,a and b suffix Erfurts, yet is dated 1914. I believe Jan Still's conclusion is right, yet this is only conviction, unprovable with what we know now. This woould also hold for the 1914 "r" suffix Erfurt.

While it would appear that the 1914 q suffix Erfurt was not assembled prior to 1916 perhaps we should consider the latest possible date that it could have been assembled as it appears to be a "parts" pistol.

Hmm--Veery interisking

[quote]Originally posted by Garfield:
<strong>I guess the short answer to my question is, No". Thank you.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And the short answer to my challenge to prove your assertion would seem to be "you can't".

sSnce you are quoting me out of context, I really don't know how to respond to your "challenge".

However, if it gives you comfort to feel that I cannot respond to your "challenge, by all means, cling to that thought.

Garfield, I believe you to be intentionally obtuse and disengenuous. That is my opinion.

Of all your posts under the four threads devoted to the 1914 Erfurt "q" block Luger, you've been negative with few exceptions and added nothing of value to the discussion. That's a fact.

This is my last message to you on any subject. That's a fact you can take to the bank.

The floor is now yours.

Goodbye, Sir.

Gee, Doubs:

I really don't know what to say? My initial reaction was, "What did I do to warrant this good fortune?". Would you still talk to me if I agreed to play the "What If Game"? Somehow I cannot help put feel that you might be a sore loser.

Good Hunting,