|
HK 1936 On Auction...
http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/Vie...?Item=10689832
...when you go to the detailed photos on the seller's web site, the photo of the magazine base does not seem right...IMHO... There appears to be a "v" suffix (which I do not think HK used) but the number matches the gun. But the acceptance mark looks more like a Mauser proof...not the typical HK proof (which is usually upside-down in relation to the nubmers)... Text Added on 7-27-03 : Type A-3 magazine did have the LWaA right-side up, under the serial number,...after reviewing my Gibson book, but I still think this one was a Mauser mag...the Eagle looks like an E/63 to me and not a LWaA. http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/HKMagBase.jpg It also appears that there has been some flat-spots on the aluminum bottom...from filing and re-numbering...(?) The barrel is also import stamped...which is a shame... http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/HKBarrel.jpg What do others think...? Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" /> |
Pete,
Good catch. The mag has been doinked. Still a pretty HK tho. Tom A. |
Funny that the seller does not mention the import stamp in his description...Jerry Burney
|
Interesting this outfit's home page is using photos of the .45 carbine luger...
http://www.phoenixinvestmentarms.com Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" /> |
Ralph gave him permission to use the .45 Luger photo for his home page.
|
Thanks for the update, Ron.
Looks like the luger de jour changes every day or so. Today, a Spandau is highlighted... Nice place to visit and view some non-everyday lugers... Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" /> |
Couple of other items that caught my attention :
The circumference of the round knob on the take-down lever is strongly beveled. I understand from the R. Gibson book (ref. page 40) that HK take-down lever knobs are usually cut at 90 degrees around the circumference with no bevel or chamfer... http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/takedownlever.jpg http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/TDlever.jpg Also, the bevel inside the hole of the toggle knob is slightly beveled, but I understood this should be much more deeply beveled on HK's...(refer to Gibson's book, page 38) maybe the photo just does not show enough detail... The checkering grooves cut along the radiused circumference of the toggle knob are usually more radiused on HK's as well... http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/toggle.jpg Here are two photos of the similar parts on my S-code HK...for comparison... http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/PetesHK7b.jpg http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/PetesHK8a.jpg Would like to know what others think...? Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" /> |
Great eye - Pete..!!! Ummm - I've only spent a few minutes looking at the website of this piece - and you are missing a "biggie" :) (Hint - left side, look at the sideplate...??? You'll catch it as soon as you see it <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ) And the Importers stamp and mag folks already caught... :D
As well - try this.... Take your "S" code and "compare" the following - (it's kind'a fun - and if you get all the answers right - I have NO IDEA what you win :) .... OK - ready???? - Trigger - note especially the bottom end of the trigger....; - Take down - forget the bevels for a second (good catch, again) - can you compare the checkering pattern..?? Once that's done - look veryyy closely at the final "polish" pattern. You'll see and edge on yours, next to the knob, is my bet... - You have the same LWaA2 markings on your "S" - can you compare yours and the one shown in the picture; - "881" take close look at the "1", and tell me what you see; - Top of the toggle ears - tell me what appears to be "right" - and what the "red flag" is. - Extractor - hmmm - take a close look at the side-view in the pictures? Given how they were fit at the factorry - do you think this "1936"s is original or not....??? - Thumb saftey - look at the outline - count the grooves..? I'm open on this one, as the photos are tough given the angle; - Traces of white in the "Gesichert"? - I mean any traces...?? - "Gesichert" - correct or not, given placement of the "G" and where the "t" intersects the "indent"? - Machining marks on the frame (left side? Correct or not, given a "1936"...?? - Radius cut-out on the rear sight block - correct HK, or is it DWM..? I'll take a closer look later.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> |
Interesting posting Pete, and this guy that answered you, somebody named John D??? Not bad, maybe we should invite him to the forum?
We could teach him bout those LugArs and stuff :D |
Sometimes - you are pretty funny :) :) !!!!
Actually - I'm on quite a bit - I just hide and lurk.. Since, I'm stil learning about these Loogars - I don't say too much (err - well - right too much - oh, maybe I mean "write" to much. Well - you know... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Seriously, it will be interesting to see Pete's thoughts are on the above list (and there are a few trick questions!! :) Don't tell Pete I said this - but he's one of the most avid collectors out there with a real thrist for learning... I'm pretty sure Ron would be as well - but NOW he only is interested in antique LugArs with grip safetys or something (what a shame - heh, heh... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ) and Tom A.? I dunno 'bout Tom - he's consumed by LogArs that went to sea or sumthing...?? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> :D |
|
Better watch out RK - you know I'll get even... :) :)
And - I feel like this every day:) "Now they never reopened that worthless pit They just placed a marble stand in front of it These few words are written on that stand At the bottom of this mine lies a hell of man, Big John (Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)..." Heh, heh.......... <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> |
I also see that on the right rail, to the front, just below the last of the three proof marks, there is NOT a proof mark on the gun for sale. The gun for sale also has a two digit number on the side plate. I see the Simpson champhered edges on the take down. I see the large numbering on the magazine. What am I missing?
Big Norm |
:) Really good synopsis - keep going!!!!!.......
OK - I'm going to leave this unanswered for a while. However..... For the person who posts what this HK most likely is, and â??whyâ? - I have a Luger commercial wood bottom magazine (in not great shape, but it is original) - that I'll offer as a prize for the best analysis given the photographic evidence on the sellerâ??s website (itâ??s mostly "all there" (it's in the pictures/posts/hints on both the sellerâ??s site and this thread)). OK â?? to win, you have to post your analysis of what you believe this HK is along with the reasons for your conclusions. Also, please include what you would ask the seller to do/inspect/look at, and why - to verify your analysis based on your empirical evidence? I'll leave this contest open until Friday night of this week and announce the "winner" this weekend - just to give everyone a chance to participate.. :) Good luck! |
Hello John,
Thanks for setting up the "quiz" for us. I am certainly a novice and in no way an HK expert (only having one HK book by R. Gibson and only having held 5 HK pistols in my hands...), but here is my attempt to "pass" the quiz : 1. Side Plate Issue : For a gun numbered # 4685, its side plate should not be serialled with any external numbers. A pistol with # 4685 should follow the "late numbering style" per R. Gibson's book, page 103. The "early numbering style" (for guns up to around serial # 2500 or so), would have the last two digits on the external surface of the side plate and the first two numbers stamped internally, but not this # 4685. Its side plate should only have "85" stamped, internally. But an exception in Gibson's book on page 163 does show a '36 HK (serial # 4080) with its side plate externally numbered... 2. Rear, Top Of Frame Ears Issue : The front, top of the left "ear" should have the frame ramp dimension its narrowest at this point to be typical HK machining. The frame ramp maintains the same dimensional thickness as the front and back portions of the "ear' were machined. This looks more like a DWM frame. But the "right" thing about the "ear" is how the frame is undercut and radius towards the front of the pistol along its back side as the "ear" meets the lanyard staple...if this frame is truly a DWM, was this metal sanded down to simulate HK characterists ? But, I think this frame may really be a DWM frame... 3. End of Trigger Issue : This gun looks like its end of the trigger is thin and not as robust as an HK trigger' as shown in R. Gibson's book on page 40. But honestly, I never could clearly tell the difference in what Gibson was trying to show on page 40 with the variuos trigger makers... 4. "881" Number On Barrel Issue : I would have expected to have the "1" show a little horizontal base...as HK "1's" typically do. But then on page 91 of Gibson's book, is shown a very similar "1"...so I do not know... But the font size of "881" as compared to the smaller font size of "4685" got me thinking. The photos in Gibson's book that show both barrel gauge and full serial number, appear to have both font sizes of the same size. 5. Big Norm's Observation : In high magnification it appears that the LWaA proof may really be missing on the right side frame rail, but it might be there in the holster wear at the front tip of the rail. If not there, the frame may not be HK and again might be DWM (see item # 2, above...). 6. Extractor Fit Issue : I totally agree with John D. I do not think HK would have let this mis-fit out of their factory. See photo enlargements : http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/Extractor1.jpg http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/Extractor.jpg 7. Rear Sight Radius Cut : Again, I agree with John D. Per Gibosn's book on page 39, the rear toggle link and the rear sight radius cut looks more DWM than HK. HK pattern is a much wider "Japanese fan" shape. http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/RearSight.jpg 8. HK Logo Issue : Per Gibson's book on page 82-83, this gun appears to have a Die Type C-1 which is consistent with a serial # 4685 gun. Conclusion: The front toggle link is authentically HK. http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/HKlogo.jpg But the finish of the front toggle link (with its very typical HK polished, blackish finish) does not match the finish of the breechblock or the finish of the rear toggle link. Those two other parts do not look typically KH...See attached photo : http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/LinkFinish.jpg 9. Left Frame Machining Marks Issue : I would not expect a 1936 HK to have such severe circular machining marks along the "ear" cut outs. The few HK's I have held and most in the Gibson book in this serial number range have their ear cut-outs very smooth and almost have a bead-blast finish. I think HK used ground-up walnut shells for their polishing/tumbling steps. But Gibson on page 161 does show a S-code HK (serial # 3950) with very severe circular machining marks...but on the whole, I think an HK of this time frame should be highly polished. 10. Geisichert Issue : Per page 88 in Gibson's books, this pistol should have a Die Tye B; with the "G" partially underneath the safety lever, with the "G" more square-shaped, and with the "G" a bit bigger in size than the other letters. I do not think this frame stamping of Geisichert is HK, but rather DWM... http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/LeftEar.jpg There are a few cases in Gibson's book on page 153 and 157 where the "T" does run into the indent, but this is not shown often...and since the "G" is equally sized, I would venture a bet the frame is DWM and not HK... 11. One photo on the seller's web site does hint that this frame may be of HK origin. http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/TriggerGuard.jpg Where the bottom of the trigger guard transitions and becomes the front grip strap, typical HK has this transition in a very pointed shape. DWM is very half-rounded in shape. See page 32 of Gibson's book. The seller's photo hints at this but cannot be seen with certainty... This is not to say that one cannot start with a DWM frame and sand/file this trigger guard-to-grip strap transition to end up with the pointed, coned look of an HK... My Revised Conclusion : I think this luger started out as a DWM frame, had an HK front toggle added, had an original 1936 HK receiver fork, maybe had an HK barrel installed and then had "4685" added later, and had real HK Ritzmann grips installed. But I would guess the "donor" gun was a DWM Imperial military gun for the frame (# 4685, ns) and then some HK parts were built up (i.e. an HK receiver and an HK front toggle link). Other small parts of this luger might also be true HK parts (not the rear toggle link, not the take down lever, and not the thumb safety lever), but since a close-up, detailed inspection of those parts and their hiddend surfaces would be required to determine this... Sorry for being so wordy... p.s. If I were contemplating a purchase of this gun, I would ask the seller for lots of close-up, high resolution photos (to go along with my points above), I would ask the seller to sign an avidavit attesting to the claim of "all matching and original", insist the seller pays for shipping both ways if gun is not as advertised, and I would ask for a 7-day inspection period, so I could see this gun at home first and also have time to send it to John D. for his assessment... (how's that for major "sucking up", John...?) Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" /> |
Pete,
nice write-up. My 1937 has a later s.n. (#7617) and I don't have a two digit serial # on the side plate. I don't see a difference in the rabbit ears on the frame. The trigger seems to correspond in thickness to Gibsons pictures. I still have to look at the proof marks. The "881" on all my HK's do not have a base on the "1". The lack of whiting in "GESICHERT" is a problem but the "G" does appear to be the wrong size. There are 6 notches on the thumb safety on all of my Krieghoffs. But you guys scared the dickens out of me on my 1943 (sn 11610) when you talked about the toggle knobs. They are totally different from the 1936-37. Noticably flatter with a sharper edge between the top and the side. But then I looked at Jans books pg 279-80 and saw that that one has flat toggle knobs too. I'll sleep better tonight. Big Norm |
What Pete said, like ditto, and such, :D
Not much chance of me coming up wif anythung smart after hearing youse guys... Ed |
Pete, if I get close to buying a Krieghoff, I'm going to have YOU sniff it over! It's kind of scary to imagine that not even the seller of this piece may be aware of these factual details. One must be so careful. Just peruse those photos of the "construction" of the Navy '04 on the Members Gallery.
|
Pete is doing a good job. From his picture on the members gallery, he looks like a young man and, quite possibly, the next generation star of Lugers. We need more young men like him.
Big Norm |
Guys,
Thanks for the nice words, but I may still be all wrong...we will have to wait until our expert, John D., ends this little contest... I have been fortunate to be able to buy lots of books, study hard, and travel all over to gun shops, shows, and other collectors to "learn"... As far as my age...I am not so young...I will be 49 this Sunday...get to dodge the 50 bullet for a bit longer... Actually, I think the winner should be awarded a nice HK magazine...say in the # 2000's series...not a Commerical variety magazine...(hint, hint, John D...) <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" /> |
Norm,
Regarding pages 279-280 in Still's TRL...the toggle knobs still have the deep bevel/chamfer along the holes in the knobs... I also gather from looking and reading through the Gibson book, that the characterist HK feautres held pretty steady through the contract 10,000 guns, but QA/QC and production techniques may have begun to vary for the later 3000 or so guns... Another point : If you look at the gun on page 267 in the Still TRL book, this S-code HK (serial # 3195) does not appear to have the LWaA proof on its right side frame rail...noticed this HK belonged to Don Hallock at the time TRL's was printed. I will e-mail Don, off Forum and will ask him about that... Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" /> |
Did hear back from Don Hallock.
Unfortunately, Don no longer has this HK (that I mentioned in my last posting...). He sold all 28 of his HK lugers to a very deep-pocketed buyer a few years back... Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" /> |
Hi Folks....
OK - seems like Pete is the only one to take up the challenge - and what a terrific job..!! Pete - if you will e-mail me your address - I'll fire off that commercial mag to you..... First things first. This seller is *excellent* - and a terrificly honest individual. Based on several conversations, this piece is indeed what I suspected - a post-war HK. These are very diffent then "parts guns" - and actually, are a very collectible HK variation to some of us. Now - Pete, even though you missed the big question of "what would you ask the seller to do?" :) The answer is really simple - remove the right grip and look for any stamps. The seller was more then the accomodating - and yes, there is a "7" stamped there. So - what does "7" mean? Gibson touches on it - but my theory is that, based on the post-wars I have in my collection and those I have authenticated - a frame marked "7" was further into the assembly stage then a "star" rejected frame. On this piece - I do believe that the cannon, reciever and frame were assembled at the time of the major 1936 production, but was "set aside" to either be re-worked or turned into a commercial with a "Star or a" stamp. After the factory was "liberated", this piece was most likelyassembled by the few HK employees that were permitted to finish HK Lugers. Following, I also have several post-war production HKs of this same variation in my collection - 3 of the 4 have the same "7". As well - I'll be writing a report for the current seller with quite a bit of detail, but in brief - here are some summary observations: - The trigger does NOT match the outline of the trigger guard. The shoe is correct, however. HK had very good fitting matches on the guard to the trigger top 1/3. My guess is, on a post-war HK such as this, the trigger is stamped to match the frame. I believe that this is the case on this HK; - The extractor is ill-fitted - correct for an HK postwar, as being assembled from the factory parts which included HK, Simson, DWM, Erfurt, etc. - The rear toggle appears to be DWM â?? not HK â?? BUT â?? it should have a LWaA2 proof on the underside if taken in at the HK factory and assembled later with the remaining links. This one does, and again is â??correctâ? for a post war; Now for the â??obvious stuffâ?. - Look at the trigger bar. Closely. It is â??strawedâ?. As well, the take down is, indeed Simson, not HK. Both are correct for a post war. - The takedown â??shouldâ? have the last 2 digets of the frame serial number stamped inside on the relieved portion â?? and this one does as well; - The sideplate is absolutely correct for a post war. Again â?? the outside should be stamped with the last 2 digets, as this is, the inside can be stamped with any number. This follows suit to post-war HK. The trigger lever mounted in the sideplate can also be â??proofedâ? or not proofed, but this one is â??proofedâ? correctly; - The barrel. You focused on the â??1â?. Thatâ??s not really where I wanted your attention :) I wanted you to focus on the â??8â? and the â??8â?. Iâ??m looking for the â?? , â??, but it may not have been â??struckâ? on the dies. Oh â?? and the LWAa2 proof is correct â?? both in placement and era die; - The grips are correct for a post war â?? but are out of era for an issued HK. They are excellent examples of the fine checkered RITZMANN grips. However, there should be a â??scratched starâ? on one of the grip panels designating that the grips are fitted to a â??7â? or â??Starâ? frame. After speaking with the seller, this is the case on this firearm â?? which would make them correct; - Frame polish on the rails. If this was fitted as a production HK, the frame/cannon rails should be â??polishedâ?. When contacting the seller, one should also ask if this is the case. On this example, the answer is no â?? they are not polished â?? as is correct on a post-war HK. Ummmm - I could go on - but you get the idea. As well - the seller is a terrific person - and I envy the next owner of this piece. Anyway - great job, Pete!!! No - it's not a PX or G.I "parts gun" - but rather a post war HK production, which is somewhat a rarer variation which should NOT include a "P" prefix and is very different then a PX HK or a GI "parts gun". |
Hello John,
What a great education...you certainly do operate in an entirely different HK universe than us mere mortals...!!! I will send you my mail-to address via private e-mail...if you still think that I "am worthy"... Did the seller say he will modify his ad text ? p.s. One final question : Would this late date HK still display the typical "thumb print" on the rear frame from flame hardening ? Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" /> |
John D.
I did find in Gibson's book where he mentions the "7" issue. Is there anything else in the book about the late-date assembled guns ? Other than the PX and the 3-digit, post-war late-dates, I cannot find any other info. Or did the history/theory of these guns surface only after Gibson wrote his book...? Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" /> |
Hey Pete.. (OH - I have to get your MAG in the mail!!! thanks for the reminder :) !!)
Anyway - the "7" is indeed covered in Gibson's book, but only somewhat superficially, as you know. The "theory" that I presented above, is my theory after examination of various post-war HKs. Honestly - there are 4 distinct variations of "post-war" that I'm working on documenting, and once it's complete over the next 6 months to a year - I'll post it here in the LugerForum and to the HK collectors I chat with. Anyway - my "7" observations come from my work and analysis, rather then Mr. Gibson's excellent work... Best to you! John |
John D.
Wow!!! I understand you also run a Porsche forum (or some such car). Do you know all of the comparable stuff on those cars? I would hate to try to slip a modified car by you. Funny, neither my 9 mm 1911 nor shooter Lugers have any of the parts you mentioned (wonder why). |
Hey Al....
Well - sort of... :) The Porsche site I run has about 16,000 folks registered on the Forums, and about 150,000 "lurkers" (it's about a 1:10 ratio) - and takes about 2,000,000 page views per day. The e-mail lists have another 82,000 folks - and the servers (there are 15 of them) send about 14,000,000 e-mails on a weekday.... Yea - I'm kind of wierd - as I collect Lugers, rebuild - drive - race Porsches - and have yet to figure out how this Internet stuff is suppossed to make someone a living. So I still have my "day job" to help pay for all this :) Now - about your 9mm and Luger... If your Luger has one of those funny "dagger/anchor" toggle marks - I can probably assist you :) On your 1911 - I think I posted here and on the 1911Forum site. There, I post as "jd-08", and you'll see me in the Colt, Kimber, DW and STI Forums. See - I shoot my 1911s, collect my Krieghoffs and restore/drive/race my Porsches... :) Best to you, Al!!! John |
John D,
Pls contact me off list @ catofong@aol.com re: a 1911 with some history that needs a home. Oh, those Kreighoffs gotta be Navy or why would they have the anchor? Tom A. |
Hi Tom..!
You'll have e-mail in a moment.. :) Oh - the Kreigs with the Anchor - I think they were Navy issue - then the "flyboys" took them over :) :) Best to you! John D. |
John D.
You must be one of those guys who never sleeps or never sees his wife. ...or your job is pretty forgivingxxx scratch that. Your help with my guns has been greatly appreciated. The 9 mm 1911 now runs flawlessly although it won't group as well as it could. It is pretty tight and has a good collet bushing, but groups about like a stock .45 WWII G.I. gun that I have that rattles like a can of bolts when I shake it (really not too bad--3-4" groups). |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2025, Lugerforum.com