DWM In 1909...?
 

Any good facts, thoeories,or just mere WAG'ing speculation as to why DWM made P-08 lugers in 1908 (with no chamber date and with its proofs on the left side) and then dated ones from 1910 onwards,...but no pistols, dated, 1909 ?

Regards,

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

DWM produced Lugers in 1908 and 1909 without chamber date. Erfurt entered into the picture in 1910 (two 1910 Erfurts have been noted and received general acceptance as being authentic). From that date onward, military Lugers were chamber dated, hence the situation you have described.

Hello Ron,

In Jan Still's book, IL, on page 13; the table shows that DWM made 25,000 "1908 First Issue" type of lugers.

But the production numbers drop to only 17,000 in 1910, 13,000 in 1911, 10,000 in 1912, 35,000 in 1913, 35,000 in 1914, etc...i.e. DWM does not get back to over 25,000 pistols in one year until 1913.

Do you think the "high" number of 25,000 pistols produced in the first production run tends to support the opinion that these 25,000 pistols were made over the two (2) year period of 1908 and 1909 ?

Regards,

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

Pete,

The Army Instructions requiring date-marking of Lugers was issued in 1910 (Gortz & Bryans, pp111-114). This is a written instruction. The same Instructions also require the receiver inspection stamps and proof; although their position is not described, the diagrams provided in the Instructions show that these are to be stamped on the right side.

I would say that your conclusion about the production of "First-issue" guns being spread through 1908-1909 is valid, as there is no reason for the marking characteristics to have changed during those years and there is no way to otherwise date them

--Dwight

Pete,
That is what I was really trying to convey in my first post. The "First Issue" production consists of those Lugers produced by DWM in 1908 and 1909. Still's production figure is for "First Issue" and therefore would consist of those Lugers produced over that two year period. Joachim G�¶rtz in "Die Pistole 08" indicates that DWM had delivered 3000 pistols by 31 March 1909, and that thereafter DWM produced 21,000 pistols in the remainder of 1909. This falls about 1000 pistols short of the 25,000 estimated by Still based on the highest reported First Issue being 4828b, but like horseshoes and handgrenades, that is "close enough" to conclude that the production did span those two years.

Thanks Dwight for finding the reference for the Army Instructions.

My DWM, likewise, has no date stamped on it. Serial No. 3005. 7.65mm. Nickel plated in very good condition. Can anyone tell me anything about this pistole?

das jaguar

Jaguar; with such sparse information I can only guess it is a Commercial model (hence no date) that has been nickle plated after it was made.
Lonnie

Ron
I'm very interested in the story of the 1910 Erfurt guns.I've seen in a collection in Germany
the #2 and #3 Erfurt P08s,but they were 1911 dated.The #1 is in the British Ministery of Defence Pattern Room collection,and I believed they were the first produced!

PAOLO, the story on the 1910 Erfurt appeared in the June 2001 issue (Volume 47, Number 1), page 12, of the Gun Report. The one and only Charles Kenyon, Jr. has a regular feature in the magazine, appropriately entitled "Lugers at Random". Back issues are availble (that's how I got mine) by e-mailing them at: gunrprt@winco.net. You should be able to contact them from Italy. The serial numbers on the two known examples are #28 and #49. They are believed to be authentic. I hope this helps in some way.

Paolo.
The 1910 Erfurt was the subject of extensive discussion in AUTOMAG, the newsletter of the National Automatic Pistol Collectors Association (NAPCA). Unfortunately, my copies of AUTOMAG are in storage right now, so I do not have access to any of the information at the moment. Perhaps some of the other forum members may have copies that they can review and provide further information. The article that Herb references does capture much of the discussions in AUTOMAG.

Herb, glad you were able to come up with a much more recent and accessible reference. I had forgotten the serial numbers.

As I understand it, not everyone is in agreement that the two 1910 Erfurt Lugers are the real deal. One opinion that was given to me was that perhaps the same guy made both of them, as the way I understand it, the stampings and eagles are the same on these two, but different from the 1911's. It is kind of interesting that until last year no one had ever seen or heard of a 1910 Erfurt, and then two show up from different ends of the United States. I was told that a lot of our German collector friends also are reluctant to accept these, but that again is only hear-say. Lucky they both were captured and brought back to the States, huh?

One other thought on these two Erfurts: Just because a couple of guys give these two pistols there blessings, does that make them correct? Every Luger book I have has mistakes in them that were believed to be correct at the time. Just something to think about.

Bill, what bothers me is that over the last 90+ years, suddenly two appear. If I was some kind of math genius, I would be able to give you the chance of that happening, obviously, I'm not and can't. But point is, that shouldn't there be more than two over the years to show up?

Ed

Herb,Ron,Mauser Lugers,Ed.
Many thanks for your helfulness!
I'll try asking Mr.Reinhard Kornmayer about 1910 Erfurt Lugers also.

Hello
I asked Mr.Reinhard Kornmayer about the 1910 Erfurt specimens.He told me there are no documents about the starting of the Erfurt factory in the P08 production.But he also said that it was impossible that a very complicated production like the P08 one was started immediatly with the "normal" production.So they had to have produced a couple of pre-serial specimens,that could be the 1910 specimens we speak about.

If I am not mistaken, aren't the two 1910 Erfurts that have surfaced numbered # 26 and # 49...?

It could be speculated that the first, early "prototype" run of 1910 Erfurts may have been a group of at least 50 pistols (with the assumption/caveot that these 2 pistols are indeed "real").

Regards,

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

I don't remember the numbers that Jan told me, but they were under 50.

And, as strictly a WAG, it does make sense that since DWM was already making and stamping the date on 1910's, that any preproduction that Erfurt made, and/or made at the end of 1910, would be stamped as 1910.

Jan Still stated that the two he has observed had unique yet uniform stampings and acceptance markings. He had a write up in automag about them a while back? Pete do you have all the automags from the last couple of years?

Ed

All,
* AutoMag threads started in Sept., 1999(Pg. 135- 137)& Nov., 1999(Pg. 186-7) and concluded in March, 2000's issue where Jan Still posted a detail side-by-side comparison on Pgs. 266-270 of the 1910 Erfurt S/N 49 against multiple contemporary DWM and Erfurts. Other comments appeared on Pgs. 194, 223, 275-6, and Jan's request for data sheets(3/2000)
* Subsequently, Jan reported, on Pg 269 of the XXXIII year sequence, S/N 28 owned by a "COLT" collector who bought #28 in a pawn shop 3 years before as his only Luger (so the report states).
* Nothing found precluded the 1910 Erfurt from being a real possibility. However, small differences did uniformly appear in both 1910 Erfurts from later 1911 Erfurts. Jan concluded the Proof eagle differences could be corroborated or refuted as Erfurt if members would report and submit pictures of 1909-1910 Erfurt Mauser rifles bearing the Erfurt proof for comparison. I have not heard the conclusion to Jan's request. A small 50-100 gun production line tryout in 1910 is intuitively appealing; but, unsubstantiated by hard documentation.

* As to the P.08-1st Issues, a couple of additional thoughts(& wags):
(1) John Walter, TLB-Pgs.212-213, states the "Pistole.08" was officially accepted on 8/22/08, the initial contract for 50,000 pistols was accepted by DWM on 11/6/08, and was signed by the Kriegsministerium on 12/2/08.
* Production of the Army P.08 began immediately @ the Lowe-DWM plant in Berlin-Charlottenburg. Final Army Inspection/Acceptance was accomplished @ the Army's Koengliche Gewehrfabrik (rifle factory) in nearby Berlin-Spandau.
(2) DWM was to deliver 3000 pistols by the end of March, 1909, 2000/month thereafter, with Delivery completion by March, 1911.
(3) Also on 1/16/1909, Erfurt was granted 260,000 Marks to commence tooling for the P.08 and, on 4/4/1909, the Pistolen-tausch(PT.08) was officially approved. The Kriegsministerium estimated Erfurt's capacity would amount to 20,000 pistols per annum (about 75/day).
(4) As DWM was to produce these First 50,000 to the pistol sample and Contract approved by the Gewehr Pruefungs-Kommission, I have accepted DWM's sample was marked similar to their commercial pistols with the proof on the left hand receiver's side, no chamber date, and with hidden small parts numbering locations. This is consistent with the contemporary Navy model markings including the LH side inspection acceptance mark locations. As Dwight has pointed out, this was the pattern only until the Army instructions of 1910 switched the locations of the receiver proof and acceptance markings to the right hand side of the receiver, mandated appearance of the chamber date, and invoked "visible" Military numbering locations.
* Since DWM's Mfg. capacity still included Commercial & Navy production, I think it misleading to assume the first issue's 25,000 had to be produced over the majority of the two years of 1908-1909. While WWI wartime production @ DWM reached 700 guns/day, I've seen no estimates of DWM's capacity/production in the 1908-1909 timeframe. Certainly lower than peak wartime rates I'd guess. How early DWM launched detail parts production after the 8/08 Acceptance, betting on the Army Contract approval, against their 11/6/08 signing as a trigger for launch of detail manufacturing is unknown to me. However, if delivery was 2000/month over much of 1909, the average daily assembly rate would only have to be approx. 90/day over a normal 22-23 manufacturing day month (5 days/week - non wartime schedule). At this rate DWM would not have had to begin Assembly of the first 3000 guns delivered on March 31, 1909 until as late as mid Feb., 1909. Thus it is conceivable piece parts were not started until the Contact was finalized on Dec. 2, 1908. Knowing Army careers, DWM's reputation, and Mfg's random surprises were present, I'd postulate DWM began Assembly somewhat earlier than Feb., '09 given Spandau's Proofing/acceptance learning curve and sufficient rework buffer time.
* It is an interesting sidebar to reflect on what may have occurred to the initial DWM Contract delivery of 24,000 pistols due in 1910 versus the 17,000 attributed to DWM in 1910 by S/N reports.
* Further, an interesting study off of the original and initial 1st Issue contract may be undertaken to integrate Luke's 1/29/03 thread results on the transition of DWM Commercial to Military numbering placement on Army P.08's in the 1911-1912 "e" block. I believe he concluded this occurred in the 1911 chamber dated pistols somewhere between 88xxe and 93xxe. As this was a continuous S/N string started by the first issue pistols, approximately 58,800+ guns were produced with commercial number placements suggesting either a scrap rate or an initial contract extension (option-to-buy) of about 8,800+ guns before DWM switched to Military number placement. Also DWM waited to 1912 to start S/N's over @ #1 at the beginning of the year as Erfurt had been doing since inception. Walter states on Pgs. 30-31 of TLB a second contact of 25,000 pistols would have had to have been placed to match DWM's Sales reports. Sales vs Assembly vs Delivery..an interesting study.
* While I've misplaced the source, I recall reading DWM transferred assembly from Charlottenburg to Berlin-Witenau in 1916 (I think). I've mused over this being related to Erfurt's missing 1915 chamber dated assembly production and the appearance @ DWM of Erfurt proofed barrels after 1916. My rationalization includes Erfurt increasing piece part production (instead of 1915 assemblies) of LP.08 barrels, standard 4" barrels, and likely other completed detail components which DWM assembled during this war time plant transition.
* Cranial insight & Wag meter has run out for now. Trust this adds to the thread's discussion.
Respectfully,
Bob

Thanks, Bob, for the terrific assessment. You posted this while I was working on a condensation of Still's March 2000 report, I think I'll post it anyway as it doesn't really duplicate yours.

Jan Still's report on the 1910 Erfurt appeared in the March 2000 issue of Auto Mag. This post is merely an overview, the article itself is fairly detailed and AutoMag is, of course, copyrighted.

The gun is serial#49, its provenance is traceable to 1945. Its condition is described, and concluded to be like that of a 90-year-old gun.

This Luger was compared to a 1910 DWM, four 1911 Erfurts, and one 1912 Erfurt. Comparisons were made of machining, milling, polishing, and marking. It proves to be unique in the nature of machining markings over the chamber, the safety detents, the barrel gage marking, the trigger guard-grip strap junction, and the absence of workers' stamps, however the rest of the machining is most similar to the earliest 1911 Erfurt compared, serial# 132.

The date stamp is rather smaller than the other guns, misaligned, and the number shapes are different from the 1911 Erfurts'. The Erfurt logo and crown on the toggle are different, slightly smaller and differently proportioned, than 1911 Erfurt production. In addition it has a unique test proof, similar in configuration but different in detail from the Erfurt test eagle. This 1910 Erfurt is fully inspected and final tested for Army acceptance.

Without making the positive statement, Still's commentary tends toward acceptance of this Luger as authentic. He speculates (in what is clearly labeled speculation) that sometime in 1910 Erfurt manufactured a small batch of Lugers to test their production line, and only a few--#49 being one--passed inspection and proofing. These Lugers were eventually included in its first production 1911 production batch to one of the state armies. At this time the Erfurt arsenal did not yet have the proper number and test proof dies for the P-08, and so used dies on hand to mark rifle production.

Still notes that at the time of publication 1910 Erfurt rifle markings were not in hand, and put out a call for comparison samples. He did note reports of 1910 Erfurt rifle date stamps similar to the 1910 P-08. Results were to be forthcoming in a future issue of AutoMag, however I searched through all the succeeding issues and it hasn't shown up yet.

--Dwight

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by RockinWR:
<strong>...I've mused over this being related to Erfurt's missing 1915 chamber dated assembly production and the appearance @ DWM of Erfurt proofed barrels after 1916...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">This has been bugging me. According to the 1910 Instructions, barrels and receivers were to be power-proofed and stamped -after- final assembly. I could understand Erfurt inspector-stamped barrels showing up at DWM, but why do these afore-mentioned barrels have Erfurt -power-proofs-??

--Dwight

Dwight,
* Glad you posted your Super synopsis of Jan's detailed comparison of the 1910 Erfurt.
* This dovetails nicely into this multi-topic thread adding substance to the 1910 Erfurt story.
* While we're ferreting out the WW1 Erfurt proofed barrels, have you noticed 1908 First Issues bear a crown Z acceptance overstruck upon another smaller crown? An eagle eyed AutoMag post got me scurrying to my 1st Issue to confirm. Sure enough, C/Z over a smaller crown was there on 9976 a.
* A 1916 DWM/Navy 6" Bbl. contract & an 8" LP.08 barrel increase by both mfgs. to arm a MG dominated trench war along with escalating 4" units had to place a tremendous demand on barrel machinery capacity. But why Erfurt proofed barrels only to be installed and reproof in a DWM assembly. Hhhhhmmmmmmm?? Warning!! Warning!! Wag overload/overload/overload.
* Maybe tomorrow... as the Sleep Monster has interceded.
Bob

A comment elsewhere by 'Doc' Fisher was a reminder of Charles Kenyon's article on the 1910 Erfurt in the June 2001 issue of "The Gun Report".

Kenyon's observations pretty much mirror Still's, his conclusion is more positive. He does note that the 1910 Erfurt has the older, non-reinforced rear frame well. The gun referenced in the article is #49, same as Still, but he observes that the markings and physical characteistics of 1910 Erfurt serial# 28 are identical.

--Dwight

Dwight, Power proofing for DWMs I believe was done at Spandau, not at DWM. That is my impression from Gortz and Bryans. This could explain how an Erfurt style imperial eagle stamp came into use at some point. Spandau would not have had a vested interest in the eagke style. Although they seemed to continue using the DWM style on the frame. I wonder if the barrel proof stamp was slightly curved to accomodate the rather tight radius of the barrel?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RockinWR:

have you noticed 1908 First Issues bear a crown Z acceptance overstruck upon another smaller crown? An eagle eyed AutoMag post got me scurrying to my 1st Issue to confirm. Sure enough, C/Z over a smaller crown was there on 9976 a.

Hi Bob,

Is there a chance you can provide a picture of the C/Z over the smaller crown? Should such a situation exist on 1st Issue number 3305 b?

Thanks,

Greg

Dwight,
* WAG-1:
* Heinz may have unravelled the Proof mystery. Erfurt & Spandau were both Army run rifle operations. Erfurt coulda/maybe/sorta made up extra barrels and shipped them up to Spandau as DWM Buyer furnished equipment(BFE). Similar thing to the common pactice today in the AirCraft business. A jet engine is an example when provided by a Military block buy to an Airframe prime contractor. So, BFE Proofed Barrel installed in a DWM Frame/Receiver &, voila, off to Spandau for final Proof/Acceptance.
* DWM's toggle logo signified a guarantee of fitness. Either DWM accepted Erfurt pre-proofed loose barrels, installed them, and had Spandau Final proof the pistol Assembly to assure the entire pistol was fit or DWM insisted Spandau apply the Erfurt Proof eagle to the Erfurt barrel on a DWM Assembled pistol for traceablity in the event a warrentee situation arose with the Erfurt barrels.

Greg,
* I'll try & dig that puppy out this weekend. I'm not well set up for close-ups; but, what the hey.
* Wouldn't be concerned if 3305b is missing the sub-crown.
* Question is: Why is the sub-crown present, what is its significance, how common, and does this yield a transition S/N range, a defining characteristic, or an anomoly.
* WAG-2
* My couple of guesses leans toward a DWM use of commercial or Army Contract repaired barrels (headspace??) or a Spandau marking change/mix-up.
-My 9976a would have been scheduled for delivery in Dec., 1909. The 1910 Army Instructions would have been in discussion/coming off the presses about this time & its content would had been known inside Spandau. Your 3305b would have been in the March, 1910 deliveries all else being equal.
- If a repair, the sub crown may indicate an interim proof try or a initial Receiver detail inspection OK.
- If a change/mix-up, the 1910 regs mandated 3 acceptance stamps. The first was Receiver hardness for the receiver detail part. The second was for an assembled pistol ready to proof. Since the '08 1st issue uses only two receiver acceptance marks, this doublet may have been the first two in one location or the 1910 Regs changed a size.
* Any other First Issues with a doublet??
Respectfully
Bob

Thanks Bob, very interesting comments/information.

Greg

Follow this link for an excellent and sensible analysis explaining why Erfurt proofs are sometimes found on DWM Lugers.

--Dwight

Dwight,
I thought Jan's discussion has a lot of merit. Of course, it is just theory but it makes sense. For those folks that have not yet joined Jan's forum, it will be necessary for them to join and get a password to be able to read this analysis.

Dwight/Ron,
(1) Per Dwight: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">...an excellent and sensible analysis explaining why Erfurt proofs are sometimes found on DWM Lugers.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">(2) Per Ron: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I thought Jan's discussion has a lot of merit. Of course, it is just theory but it makes sense.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">* Jan's discussion certainly merits consideration as it suggests one cogent explaination. :cool:
* However, given a random distribution of the two Proof Stamp styles, would we not expect to see the "DWM" Proof show up on Erfurt P.08's also?? So far, I only recall seeing the "Erfurt" Proof showing up on breech blocks/barrels used in DWM assembled pistols. :confused:
* Has anyone seen/have an example of an Erfurt frame, breech, or barrel w/ a "DWM" style proof that can be shared??
* IMHO, the style of Proof used is indicative of who had the Contract to manufacture these components. In the case of the "Erfurt" marked breech blocks and barrels, Erfurt had the contract to produce these and the responsibility to see they met the German Proof law which was a National Law. As the proofing tests were standardized, reciprocity prevailed. Hence, DWM would accept proofed "Erfurt" barrels & breech blocks; but, upon Assembly to a DWM receiver, the assembly would continue proofing tests to validate the receiver/assembly met the Proof Law(s). As the barrel/breech already had a stamp & if the assembled unit passed proof, only the receiver needed to be Proof Stamped. If any one of the components failed, rework/replacement "warantee" costs could be assigned to the resonsible party. Gun making was a profit/loss business to DWM after all. Gov't. priorities differ as cost affects quantity/schedule. Profit is merely a distant cousin.
* Throughout the References and Original documents made available by Gortz, Walter, Still, and others, the statement(inference?) is made to the effect the German Government wanted to be as independent as possible of the Commercial (Lowe/DWM) Gunmaking Industry. A Cost & destiny control driven decision I suspect. If the Prussian Government's Erfurt factory could produce critical proofed components for less cost and in greater capacity, the "Contract" work would go to the "low" bidder with an inside track to the Government's own Facilities. In the War period of 1914-1918, the Government had an easier acquisition/writeoff justification for machinery capacity than a private concern like DWM who had investors to consider. Not a new concept.
* So, IMO, I'll suggest the Proof marking combinations we see in steel are a concrete indicator of war footing Army decisions to maximize production. At 8/22/14, neither DWM nor Erfurt were prepared for a 6 time increase in requirements. Added shifts/days can account for maybe a 3x-4x increase; but, more machinery would have to be made available to explain a 6x surge by both sites. That takes time. DWM contributed the 08 & 14 Commercial-Militaries and the 1914 Army utilizing 1913 non-lug frames became acceptable. Erfurt was tooled and could focus on 8" LP.08 barrels, 4" P.08 barrels, blocks, & ?? while repairing/assembling whatever 1914 receivers & parts were on hand. This also helped DWM to contend/fulfill its pre-tooled 6" barrel Navy contract(s) while ramping up 4" production. <img border="0" alt="[icon107]" title="" src="graemlins/icon107.gif" />
* Wonder if Erfurt sub-contracted a barrel/breech maker in Berlin or Suhl? Nah, Kreighoff was busy making shotguns/rifles weren't they?? :rolleyes: <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Respectfully
Bob <img border="0" alt="[hiha]" title="" src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" />

Bob, My THEORY on the lack of DWM marks on Erfurts is as follows, both Erfurt and Spandau are Imperial "Gewerfabrik" Erfurt had both manufacturing and proofing/acceptance facilities on site. DWM was a civilian manufacturer, part of the huge Loewe weapons manufacturing complex. At least some DWM Lugers were delivered to Spandau for acceptance/proofing. Lugers proofed at Spabdau after 1916 were barrel proofed with a Spandau Adler stamp in the Erfurt style. Sometime before that a Erfurt stle Proof eagle shows up on the DWM breechblock. Were all military DWMs proofed at Spandau? Don't know, they were all delivered there. May Tom A can chime in on the 1914 style Navy. There is no reason to believe any Erfurts were proofed at DWM. I doubt any Erfurts were ever proofed at Spandau, thus no DWM style proof adlers on Erfurts.

This discussion raises the same ugly spectre as the witness mark problem, that we don't -know- what actual practices were followed and what deviation from the Instructions might have been allowable.

The 1910 Instructions require the barrel, receiver, and breechblock to be stamped demonstrating that the -assembled weapon- passed power-proofing.

A while back I did a magnifying-glass comparison of two 1917 DWM LP-08 barrels--one with a DWM Eagle, one with an Erfurt--and an Erfurt LP-08. This revealed that, despite some differences in machining-mark characteristics, the two DWM barrels were much more similar to each other than they were to the Erfurt, particularly in the area of the sight block.

When I started this post my intent was to follow up on Heinz's and Bob's comments. It seems to have expanded itself into a full-blown theory, so please bear with me.

This discussion has caused me to wonder if the Erfurt-proofed parts on DWM Lugers are actually original to the guns?

NOTE: the rest of this post contains SPECULATION based on evidence and documentation at hand, and pertinent questions when I don't know the answer.

G�¶rtz & Bryans, in "German Small Arms Markings", also include the 1913 "Inspection and Acceptance of Pistols 08 and Parts Thereof". Annex G of that document (pp 118-120) lists the requirements for "Power-Proof Shooting and Rapid-Fire Shooting of Pistols 08". As required, completed pistols are subjected to:
C. Power Proof [...];
D. Rapid Fire [...];
E. Cleaning [...];
F. Examination [...];
G. Stamping "Pistols which meet the specifications receive at this time (italics mine) the power-proof stamp on barrel, receiver, and breechblock."

So, according to Army regulations, there is no reason for Erfurt test proofs to show up on DWM pistols. In addition, if an inspector holding Erfurt stamps inspected the weapon after power-proof (or if the die was otherwise available to the Inspectors) it seems most reasonable that -all three- proofs would be Erfurt adlers.

A fair speculation would be that DWM provided repair parts as well as finished pistols--I imagine that documentatin for this actually exists somewhere, perhaps in the original contract wording, but I do not have it.

Joachim G�¶rtz, in the February 1996 "Auto Mag", noted the list of parts available to armorers for field repair, and noted that barrels and receivers were not included, that barrel and receiver repair was an armory-level function. (Although this was a WWII-era edict, I have observed that Weimar and Wehrmacht practices regarding the P-08 tend to follow those established by the Imperial German Army, so I am confident that this practice was current in WWI.)

Where did these repairs take place? Certainly not at DWM, which was a civilian contract manufacturer who would have no responsibility for the weapon once it was delivered to the Army.

Was the Erfurt Armory (or Spandau, for that matter) a major repair depot for weapons repair?

The 1913 annex goes on to specify that if the barrel, receiver, or breechblock have been replaced, the weapon must undergo the power-proof and rapid-fire tests again. As these parts would not have been previously proofed, they would then be stamped and thus bear the proof mark of the repair armory. Is -this- where the Erfurt barrel proofs on DWM P-08s come from?

There are interesting implications here, regarding the huge numbers of 1917 LP-08 with Erfurt proofs. Still ("Imperial Lugers" p 16) notes that LP-08 serial# are interspersed with standard P-08 serial#s. Is it possible that DWM sent Erfurt completed pistols from the regular production run, along with LP-08 barrels, sights, and rear toggles, to have them converted into LP-08 at Erfurt? This would be one way to account for the Erfurt barrel proofs (hmmm, did I just reinvent the wheel here?).

Yes, I recognize that the receiver notch is a fly in this ointment, the guns might have had to be shipped "in the white". Iirc P-08 were proofed before they were blued, so this is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Is there a recognizable difference between DWM and Erfurt bluing?

Do -any- Lugers which have DWM receiver proofs and Erfurt barrel proofs display perfect witness marks?

Annex G goes on to state the requirements for power-proofing of breech blocks as spare parts for troop use, i.e. unit armorer replacement. Spare breechblocks were to be assembled into pistols (which could be made up of otherwise rejected parts) and subjected to test "as if a factory-new pistol were proof fired." Breechblocks which passed the subsequent inspection were proof stamped "on the spot."

If spare-part breechblocks were delivered to an arsenal, say Erfurt, and then proofed for distribution into the field, they would naturally bear that stamp rather than DWM. Under this circumstance, then, Erfurt-proofed breechblocks on DWM P-08s would be the result of field replacement.

Comments are certainly appropriate and edifying, flames are probably inevitable.

--Dwight

Dwight,
* No flames from this corner as I appreciate your time & probing logic.
* I can also agree with many of your suppositions and use of Gortz facts as well. However, four inputs surfaced 4 Theories. I think that says it all. Safe to say "I don't know"; but, enjoy contemplating/sharing the possibilities for this 85 year old conundrum with you.

Greg,
* Check the New thread & Member's Gallery for the pics I promised above.

Respectfully,
Bob

Bob,

I might rather say four suppositions, of varying plausability, based around the delivery of DWM-manufactured repair parts. It was an attempt to explore the subject while eliminating the imponderable element of the human activity or arbitrary actions of inspectors.

Nonetheless, I seem to have exhausted my speculation quotient for a while.

--Dwight