The K�¼ Luger and its origins
 

There have been several discussions on the Lugerforum about this model Luger and its possible origins... None have been conclusive about the "when" and "why" they were marked this way...

One theory that has been offered is that they were made up of leftover Mauser made parts by the Krieghoff factory and used to deliver part of an order to the Luftwaffe late in the war...

At one time a letter from Heinrich Krieghoff to Harry Jones, author of the book: "Luger Variations," had been posted which dispelled this otherwise unsubstantiated theory... but the image of the letter was lost due to an incident in which a number of our archived photographs were lost sometime during the last year... I have recovered the image of this letter and have placed it permanently in the Member Gallery for those who wish to read it.

Since the letter was authored by Heinrich Krieghoff himself, I would say that it provides about all evidence that is known to exist about this questions... If anyone has or knows of any other documentation regarding the origin and use of K�¼ marked Lugers... Many Luger enthusiasts would love to see it. Please feel free to post it here on the forum where we can all benefit from the information.

My thanks to Mike Jones for providing the letter for permanent display here on the forum.

Click here to go to the Member Gallery album that displays the image of this letter.

http://gallery.rennlist.com/lugergallery/HKletterKu

John, Based on HK's letter of 1964, are we to ASSUME that Mauser made all of the KU PO8s? I suppose that that's possible, but why would Mauser be using KH E/2 inspected parts, that I've found on a couple of these, with matching KH placed serial numbers? Possible later KH repairs for the LW, I suppose. But because Mauser was getting out of PO8 production at this time, I feel that it is more logical, that KH or a third unknown assembler did this work. After all KH did have more than one facility going during WW2. I'd really like to hear from some of the German experts that may be listening in. Perhaps, there may already be some articles published in DWJ on this subject that I'm not aware of. Thanks, TH

John, Tom, I have seen several of these little beauties and all have had the Eagle-2 Acceptance Stamps. Could be possible that Mauser made them and Krieghoff did a final inspection. BYW, as I recall they were all byf 41.

The few Ku's I've owned (Few, i.e. 4, which is hardly a difinitave sampling), all appeared Mauser makes and Tom and I had a good discussion on this during our visit in June. I had to agree with him that they were HK assembled guns using Mauser condemned parts. Wouldn't it be an interesting discovery, in light of this letter, to find this 3rd party that possibly assembled these weapons not only from Mauser rejected parts, but from HK rejected parts as well? If only Albert Speer were still alive, we could ask him...

Frank, See Gibson page 138 and you will find 1940 code 42 and 41 code 42s in addition to 41BYF KUs. Admittedly Mauser made parts, but in addition to the Final LW late E/2 acceptance marking, talking about early dwe/2 INSPECTOR'S marking on the interior of some parts. One example that I recorded was KU3365 that has a dwe/2 and #65 stamped on the inside of the side plate "leg". How about you present KU owners checking the inside of some of your parts for dwe/2 (KH made) parts. Some parts such as the safety lever, mag release, firing pin, etc. must be removed to see the proof. Thanks, TH

Tom, thanks for the info. I was aware there were KÃ?? varieties other than the byf 41, but the dwe/2 marking is new information for me.

Lugerdoc, in answer to your question above... I would have to say NO to your stated assumption because Herr Krieghoff is pretty emphatic about his statement that...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Never have we reworked u guns or assembled pitols (Sic) from Mauser-Made parts and never have we transferred Mauser-assembled Lugers to the Luftwaffeâ?¦ </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">While the known Ku guns may have been made with Mauser parts (rejected or otherwise), based on the Krieghoff letter, I am inclined to believe that they were assembled at Mauser... not the Krieghoff plant...

I have always been intrigued by the Ku P08s.

The few I have had the opportunity to examine were all very well made and assembled and were the equal of a 42 or byf piece. The Ku ones never struck me as a bunch of rejected components put together by some (non-Luger) third party.

Just an observation. On the other hand, can I buy them cheaper if they are rejects?

All,
I addressed Herr Speer's comments to me about small arms production many months ago (Possibly old forum?). In any event, I am satisfied that these pistols were assembled by KZ inmates under SS contractor supervision. There appears to be no other logical explanation. FWIW, I have owned two P-08 holsters (Still have 1) that are maker marked to KZ saddlers.
Tom A.

I love this!

How boring it would be if we all agreed on all points and there were no more unknowns!

Cheers. I hear a beer calling my name.

In Robert Marvin's booklet of luger proofs on page 85, Mr. Marvin postulated that what appeared to be Krieghoff proofs on the Ku pistols were not exactly such and might have been a proof for another service (i.e. coastal flying service...).

Would anyone that does have a Ku take detailed, close-up photos of these proofs; so folks could see if they are real HK proofs or not...

Mr. Marvin speculated that Ku pistols were Mauser-made...he then states that HK may been invovled in the production of these Mauser-made guns...(but the Jone's letter would seem to settle that issue...).

So maybe Mauser made the Ku's for another service and used a "similar" proof to HK proofs...(?????).

Regards,

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

All,
The number of Ku marked pistols is so far out of proportion with the small number of personnel assigned to this very small and obscure arm of the German military as to make this theory almost comical.
Remember Occam's razor.
Tom A.

I think that Jim Keenan may have found the answer to who made the KU lugers. See my and his comments below in the section "What are these proofmarks?" TH

KU mystery solution? How about some feed back from the membership on my new theory, that the KUs were assembled by the LZA (Luftwaffe repair depots). Th

I am not going to go beyond saying that the HZA/LZA did rebuild small arms. They certainly would have had to have spare parts and it seems likely that those parts had already been inspected and approved, as parts, whether they were to go into production pistols or to be sent to the field for repair/rebuild.

I have not checked the chronology, but if a producer ceased production and had leftover parts (almost always the case - parts production outruns weapon production), those parts would surely not have been discarded. Some at least may well have gone to the depots or field units for use as spare parts.

If this helps or creates a new theory, fine, but I consider the Ku story to be still obscure.

Jim

Jim, Do you have a reference as to where the LZAs were located? Any in a city or region begining with Ku? Another possibility, since the "ku" appears as both a prefix and a suffix on the PO8 barrel extention, depending on the placement of the serial number on the barrel extention, is that "ku" could be a manufacter's code, like ac or byf on P38s. I know that on newly manufactured lugers this would normally appear on the mid toggle link, but these pistols were "manufactured" using previously marked Mauser spare parts, and rather than go to the trouble of remarking the toggle, just placing a manufacture's code on the receiver, could indicate who assembled them. Does anyone know of any other weapons showing a "ku" code, particularly for the Luftwaffe? TH

Hi, Lugerdoc,

Several months ago I made a list of the Heereszeugamt (HZA) locations I could find, but didn't try to track LZA's, which were apparently always co-located on Luftwaffe bases.

FWIW, the HZA's I have (certainly not a complete list) were Kassel, Vienna, Ingolstadt, Stettin, Dachau, Spandau, and Naumburg. (There is one other on my list, but I can't read my own writing.)

I can suggest going to Google, and entering "luftzeugamt" and "LZA" and see what comes up. "Heereszeugamt" gave me a lot of stuff, mostly about HZA property being released for development (same problems as here with surplus government property), but at least providing the town names and sometimes a map; there is also some info on what each of the depots did.

(The initials are seen in German with the "Z" both capitalized and in lower case, but the search engine doesn't care.)

Jim

I did do a quickie search and found several LZA's but none begin with Ku or would seem appropriate for use of Ku as an abbreviation. FWIW, I found Kolleda, Niedergorsdorf, Rotenburg/Wumme, Juterburg/Waldlager, Delitzch and Erding.

Jim

Lugerdoc has said we should check the parts on our K�¼'s.
I have done this on 4119 K�¼ 41 byf
Take down lever inside: S/42
Side plate outside: a small 42
Left side of the receiver: a small 42
E/2 on barrel, receiver and the bolt too.
Are these small 42-markings normal on Mauser production ?
Nahpatronen

NP, The Mauser codes that you quote above, were only applied to spare parts, not seen on standard Mauser military production PO8s, unless they were later replacement parts. This supports my theory that the Ku's were assembled from Mauser & KH spare parts somewhere other than the Mauser factory. Thanks, Tom

I'm getting confused here with all these E/2 marks on the barrel, breech, and right receiver. If I'm not mistaken, this is the LA or LZA stamp as some call it, and has nothing to do with an E/2! In my opinion, this stamps looks like an LA to me.

I looked at my two KU Lugers and I do not see any interior parts marked with the Krieghoff E/2 proofs. Perhaps the ones T.H. observered were one of a kind or someone has pieced the Luger together sometime along the way. I know my 2 are all original and they sure don't have these marks on any interior parts. I've had a couple of others over the years and as I remember they did not have any interior E/2 marking either. Perhaps some of these "unique" KU's have been made "unique" by the last dealer that sold them? I do know that Auto Mag had an article about fake KU Lugers and I know that I bought and resold 2 KU Lugers that a dealer had that were refinished. Anytime these guys refinish and mess with this stuff you'll never how they were originally found.

One of my KU's has an S/42 on the barrel and a W/154. No serial number and this was a G-date spare part. The real KU Lugers lack serial numbers on some of there parts as compared to a military example, so this might suggest something. Rear axle pins can be blank, hold opens can be blank, and the rear toggle can be blank just to mention a few.

In my opinion there is no question that these are made from Mauser parts. They resemble the late Banner two digit Lugers with the lack of some serial numbers on the small parts. I found no E/2 parts on any that I have examined to this point. I know that spare parts were used with Mauser codes of S/42, or 42, but I highly doubt any of these parts are rejected. I feel that term (rejected) has been totally mis-used.

Interesting discussion here with nothing to support anything new in my opinion. Still a guess what the LA means and who assembled them. My guess is that Mauser had something to do with them due to getting all the spare parts in one central location to assemble. Spare parts would be scattered all over the place in late 1942 and later. If these were assembled anytime from 1942 to 1945 they would have to have access to the parts bins. --- Bill

Again, I don't want to get in too deep on this, but in the factories parts were not numbered until the preliminary assembly stage. Parts intended for spare parts would have been inspected, marked and finished (blued) if required, but would not have been numbered. Mixed parts (mixed numbers) pistols were made up from cannibalized pistols at some point by persons unknown (depot, unit armorer or American gun tinkerer).

If a spare part was numbered to a pistol when it was installed, the numbering was done by the installer (factory, depot, unit armorer, or AGT).

Jim

I was wondering I have shooter with the lza or za eagle acceptance marked barrel. With also the w154 and s42 marked barrel.Its on a 1917 dwm. Still has one almost the same as what I have in weimar and early nazi lugers on page 219.he says its a rework.But what I was wondering if the two were somehow connected. the Ku and this reworked luger as they are the only ones that have this eagle lza or za acceptance mark.I will try and post pics of the eagle za mark on my gun I would be curious to see if they are the same as a ku

According to Jan Still's book you are talking about over 5000 of these KU pistols. That would take a lot of spare parts, a lot of replacement parts, and a lot of workers. Also a lot of space. Mauser would seem to be the most logical place to have all of these necessary items. You also would need die's and stamps, and more than likely a means to blue the Lugers.

To my knowledge there are no mixed numbers on these Lugers so they are not made from "cannibalized" pistols.

ML, I agree that these were not "cannalibalized" creations, but newly produced from left over spare parts, probably after 1942 when Mauser went out of the Luger business. Gibson also mentions in his book "The KH Parabellum" observing some KUs with Erfurt and Simson proofed parts. The KU that I owned with the dwe/2 inside marked side plate was matching and was over 25 years ago. I don't expect that many KH marked spare parts will show up on the KUs, as I understand that they used up most of their spares making the 2000 1940-1943 dated KHs for the LW (see chart page 127 of Gibson). Any addition LW productions, would have had to use spare from other sources. By 1942 the German Army considered the PO8 obsolete as Mauser even gave 4000 to Portugal and Bulgarian. But the LW, particulary for their troops on the ground (AA batteries, etc) would take whatever 9mm small arms that they could find. TH

T.H.,Don't you mean -- Sold -- instead of gave, when you're referring to the Porugal and Bulgarian Lugers? I seriously doubt Mauser Gave anything away. Naturally the LW was going to take what they could get and that would be the P.38 for one, as in 1942 and later it had replaced the Luger.

Not ever having owned a KU Luger,nor having examined one.... my money would be with the theory Tom A put forward.....I have seen several WW2 Documentaries where KZ inmates were assembling Schmeisser machine pistols and parts for other machine guns.....if Mauser had enough left over parts for the production of 10 or 20 Thousand guns it would seem plausible that slave labour could have produced these under supervision.... as were so many other items made to feed the war machine....no proof however....Peter...

Good point. Some collectors tend to think of Luftwaffe small arms only in terms of pistols for pilots or "drilling" survival guns. But it is well to remember that in the German organization, the air force was charged with two missions that were given to the army under the U.S. structure, airborne operations and anti-aircraft defense.

While the airborne (glider and parachute) troops were not active as such after the Pyrrhic victoty in Crete (they fought as infantry in Holland in 1944), they still had small arms, including the FG.42 which was developed especially for them.

In the other role, Luftwaffe troops manned anti-aircraft guns not only in Germany and conquered countries but right at the front. Probably the best known artillery piece of WWII, the "German 88", was officially named the 8.8cm Fliegerabwehrkanone (FLAK) and whether that most versatile gun was used in an anti-aircraft, anti-tank, or field artillery role, it was manned by Luftwaffe troops.

Jim

Sorry Mr. ML. I meant LA marks - not E/2 marks - on barrel, breech and right side receiver. The rear axle pin on my K�¼ is blank.
It's strange that the K�¼'s have the Mauser production code since they weren't produced by Mauser, but I have a P38 produced by Mauser (WaA135) in 1944 or 1945. It's coded ac, so such things were accepted late in the war.
Nahpatronen