Machining marks
 

A 1940 Code 42 C block NOT SHOWING the usual circular machining marks on the right rear frame section.

What would be the explanation? It's the first one that I see NICE like this!

Anybody has similar sightings?

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/42...eupmachmks.jpg

kidvett [img]confused.gif[/img]

Kidvett, Kinda looks sandblasted to me. Nice photo! There should be machine marks here on this late pistol unless someone has messed with it. Jerry Burney

Looks like a beautiful refinishing job.

Things are not always as they appear in a digital photo (pixellation?), but I agree that the area appears to have been either bead or sandblasted. Is that an area of pitting just above the left corner of the grip, or is it digital gremlins?

I agree, it looks like a nice refinish job. I also agree with Johnny, that sure looks like an area of fine pitting that the buffer missed just above the grip. [img]eek.gif[/img]

Check the fine pitting top of backstrap just under the rear of the receiver...blued over pitting...its a re-do.

There's nothing I can add to the observations of the others except that you have taken a really outstanding picture. Truly super quality! I'd be interested in the technical info for the shot: camera, lighting, etc. Did you use a ring flash? I'd like to have a ring flash but they cost half as much as my camera which wasn't cheap!

[img]frown.gif[/img] SAD! I thought I had something nice....( I knew it was unsual but in the Luger world sometimes exceptions are the rule....)and the owner told me it was brought back from WWII like that.

I'll look more closely at the pistol and will try to make good close up PICS to see if it's original or not....and if it's not: I'LL GET RID OF IT!

<img src="graemlins/cussing.gif" border="0" alt="[grrrrrrr]" />

an unhappy kidvett [img]frown.gif[/img]

Hi Doubs,

I use a scanner: resolution 300 or 600 and I isolate the section I want. My computer is not 100% color wise, that's why it is so much yellow....normaly I adjust the exposition & color better...

Scanner is HP 2200C

kidvett

While I get better PICS, the early ones I made of the pistol.
http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/Code1.jpg
http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/Code2.jpg

Help is much needed in establishing autenticity.... the idea that I bought a fake is ruining my day [img]eek.gif[/img]

Thanks to everyone for the help,

kidvett [img]frown.gif[/img]

Kidvett,

I don't know what you paid for it, but it is still a nice looking Luger.

Your scanner doesn't do a half bad job of capturing images... what you need is some good graphic software. I use Paint Shop Pro Version 7 (JASC.COM) and a couple of mouse clicks of color balance and contrast enhancement and your photos are much improved. Here are your photos after the enhancement process:

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/Kidvett4042a.jpg

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/Kidvett4042b.jpg

I was the paint and sandblasting manager at the Portland Ship Repair yard for many years, and this is an example of BEAD blasting. The area just above the grip is an example of "overblast". Sorry for the bad news.
Lonnie

Kidvett,
I have a 1940-42 Code in the "a" block and I hate to disagree but the areas on both sides of mine appear to be very close to yours. There may be just the slightest of indication of machine marks. I have had mine since 1966 bought it from the Vet for $125.00 with two matching magazines & 1940 dated holster. Before you give up on the pistol be sure to look at it close, you may have a very good one. The grips on your pistol appear in color very close to mine. The overall condition of your pistol does not give an indication of being refinished or reblued. If you sell it, let me know.

Toggletop:

I have an early 1940-42 and will agree that the milling marks in the area of the "ears" are minimal, however, there is a difference between "minimal" and "no-existant" as the pics of Kidvett's appear to illustrate.

Kidvett: Before you dump your pistol, I'd have a disinterested person who has some knowledge take a look at your pistol. I might be allright. Pictures are nice, however, as John S has so grafically demonstrated, with enhancements, etc., things appear not as they exist.

Good Luck

Garfield,
I don't care what people say about you, I believe you are a good person. Your post always make a lot of sense! <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

After reading ToggleTops post I seemed to remember that I had seen a pistol with almost the same finish in the milled out areas. After some thought the pistol turned out to be a 42 chamber dated Mauser Banner Commercial. The milled out areas show a definite matte finish, and when viewed under 10X magnification the sandblasting is evident. The milling marks definitely show on this Mauser Banner, but there is also evidence of the sandblasting over the milling marks. Supposedly the Mauser Banners were a good place to use parts that were slightly out of spec for the military, and these parts were simply used on the non-military pistols. I have no explaination for the sandblasting being used on a militry contract pistol, but apparently the practice of sandblasting was in use during this period of manufacture. Thanks for jarring my memory.
I'm not sure when bead blasting came into use, but the US military specifications called for sand blasting before the finish was applied in 1941 for Colt and in 1942 for the other manufacturers. For a brief time Du-Lite blueing was used over the sandblasting before phosphate (Parkerizing) was specified.

I was able to make new PICS: stripped frame & receiver right side ( sorry scanner problems ). I seems that the top portion of the frame was bead blasted...The receiver doesn't look reblued to me...So what's the call on that frame/ receiver: original or not...help appreciated...

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/42Fr1.jpg

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/42Fr2.jpg

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/42S12a.jpg

Third image edited by rotating to improve viewability on the forum -JS

Many thanks to everyone

kidvett [img]confused.gif[/img]

Just to compare: 1940 Code 42 Ser no 3790 i , that one IS ORIGINAL...

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/code42left.jpg
http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/code42lright.jpg

Again many thanks to everyone helping ID the other one...

kidvett [img]cool.gif[/img]

I do not have a 1940 code 42 Luger, but I did check the machining on my 1940 Mauser Banner Police, and the "ears" are perfectly smooth, just like the above example.

INHO the grip frame on your Luger has been bead/sand blasted and refinished... probably to remove pitting...

The upper assembly does not appear to have suffered that treatment.

just my $0.02 worth of opinion.

Here's what my 1940 Mauser Banner Police SN 4122x looks like:
http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/mauser-2.jpg

Kidvett:

After viewing your pics of the stripped frame I will vote with those that say your pistol has been refinished. Sorry.

And this is my 1940/42 SN 297b:
http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/1940-42-1.jpg

Kidvett,

Compare the edges of the panel on the pic of your gun to the two that I posted. Notice at the bottom just above the grip and going around the back of the frame. They are rounded on your gun compared to the sharp edges on my guns. [img]frown.gif[/img]

Kidvett
What is the source of your sandblasted luger?
Jan

Due to all the interest in this particular Luger, I have taken the original enlargement from the top of the thread and enhanced the color balance and contrast and placed it side by side with the color negative of the image which often highlights toolmarks and blemishes...

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/sandblasted1.jpg

I don't think there is any question that this Luger was refinished at some point, the burning questions are whether or not this was some type of arsenal rework, or was it commercially refinished by a previous owner/dealer in order to get a higher price? and what did the person who sold it to you know about it?

Good Luck.

If you look at the very first picture at the top of this string and a couple farther down, you can see a gap between the rear toggle link "shoulders" and the receiver ramps. (Not the frame ramps.) This gap should not exist as the back thrust is supposed to be transmitted to the receiver at this point. With a misfit resulting in a gap at this point the backthrust is transmitted to the rear toggle pin. Is this misfit due to sloppy work at the factory or due to an indifferently fitted replacement toggle link? If the latter it could have been replaced anywhere along the line.

The pistol will work with this gap but there is an unintended stress on the rear toggle pin. In the picture I cannot see the other side. Can the pin be removed and reinserted with the cannon cocked?

An update,

Many thanks to everyone helping on this confusing issue! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Thanks to John for the photo editing & Hugh for the great PICS of your pistols

Mr Still:

The pistol was bought from a longtime hunter that bought it ( in this condition ) in the mid 60's. He said he bought from the Vet that got it back....but didnt give much details or info on that. He was not able to tell me more about the pistol's condition...

Yesterday at lunch time: a fellow collector came home to see it and concludes ( but he's not 100% ) that it was refinished at some point....

Then at 9:30PM a guy that wants to start collecting Lugers went to see it and made me an offer on the pistol....I did advise him of the confusion as to being refinished ( IMPORTANT FOR ME )...He's going to give me his final word on the deal Sunday at a local Gunshow...

AUTENTICITY is very important to me and in doubt I pass....

I have to say this particular topic is a great learning experience for me.....

kidvett [img]cool.gif[/img]

One last question on this subject: I have just examined about fifteen Lugers of varying dates. Machining marks as per this discussion were present in about 2/3 of the Lugers, and these marks ranged from very prominent to very slight. About five of the Lugers showed no marks, but did not appear to be sandblasted. So what do we conclude? All Lugers without machine marks are suspect? Or were some Lugers more carefully finished than others, depending on the skill of different workmen?

Imperial lugers do not "usually" exhibit the "circle" type milling marks found on Mauser military luger, however, they do exibit tooling marks, albeit of a different type. The Mauser Banners, usually, do not show the circle type milling marks, either. If they are present on the Banners they are usually much less apparent; in other words, more attention was given to the finish in this area. On some Banners the circles are present but much smaller.

Hello Bill,

I do have an authentic, matching 1918 DWM artillery (# 5567 b)that has some even patina under all of its blue that does have some deep circular machining marks quite visible on both flat sections of the "ears" on the frame.

Maybe this happened at DWM during the last days of WWI orders...

If you send me a Private Message with your e-mail, I would be happy to send you some high resolution jpegs of these areas on my arty...

Regrads,

Pete... <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

Thanks, Garfield, for your self-edit with the addition of the word "usually"...

Regards,

Pete... <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

Pete:

No problem. Actually, I should have waited until I have seen your pics as I may have to edit my post again. Mauser type (circles)tooling marks are not what one would expect to on an Imperial luger.

Garfield,

I am not sure you sent me the right e-mail address...can you try again in a PM...? Sent me some Paul Bunyon web-site stuff...(?)

In the mean time, please take a look at page 41 in C. Kenyon's book, Luger : The Multi-National Pistol.

Pictured is a nice Imperial era 1906 DWM commercial with lots of those "swirly" machining marks on the flat section of the right "ear"...

(I do not think this is an example of "photographic distortion"...)

Regards,

Pete... <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />