Witness Mark and Barrel Questions
 

A recent discussion has gelled some of my questions about witness marks. This can be found in the Navy Luger section, entitled "A Learning Experience..." I am starting a new thread here because I want to follow up a particular topic which is not limited to Navy Lugers, and because the previous discussion was already two pages deep.

Whatever the original purpose for witness marks, it may be that they are diagnostic of a Luger's condition and authenticity, and this is the avenue I wish to explore--how reliable are witness marks as a deteminer of authenticity, and what can they tell us about our Lugers? Are they useful as an indicator of originality of a barrel mated to its proper receiver?

In order to completely understand what they may tell us, we need to know something about the witness marks themselves. Does anyone actually know at what stage of manufacture witness marks were applied, and what purpose they serve? When a Luger was rebarrelled as part of an armory repair or an official reconditioning, was it a practice to strike new witness marks? I am looking for documented answers here, or first-hand knowledge or anecdotal evidence. Speculation or WAG are interesting but ultimately not satisfying.

Without actually trying to answer my own questions, I have seen witness marks which make me question their originality, but am not confident of drawing conclusions. The illustration presents a selection of witness marks. I am curious to know what conclusions about the Lugers they mark anyone might draw from them. Observe critically, and comment candidly.

I have presented only witness marks in these examples, in order to focus attention on them removed from the context of other markings. I have other questions about Luger re-barreling, and will identify some of these more fully as examples then.

Examples 04 and 07 are the witness marks which started this train of thought.

--Dwight

http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/CompositeSmallb.jpg

Dwight, A very nice effort in starting a reasonable discussion. Thanks

I will respond after I have pondered these further.

Hi Dwight.

Really excellent... Just as a datapoint, and I'll try to answer any questions folks have about samples in my collection - your pictures had me take another look-see at my Kriegs. Most have no witness marks, with the exception of a "36" and an "S". The rest are without any witness marks at all - even the others in the "S" range are without witness marks. I'll try to post later if I find if Gibson writes about where in the production cycle they were applied for Kreig and/or Ku production.

Really terrific, Dwight - my thanks for taking the time in assembling these photos - excellent...!!

John D.

I have a 1917 Dwm reworked, barrell has been replaced.It has the s-42 stamped on it which I have been told means its a replacement.I read this post and looked.the replacement barrell has the witness mark as does the reciever,but they dont match up.I hope that helps.
Ed

Here is another point, as I just finished reviewing the previous thread, where there was some discussion about whether the witness marks were applied when the receiver and barrel were joined together - or whether they were applied as the TDC (well - actually BDC (bottom dead center)) as separate operations, which would facilitate them being indexed when assembled.

As I recalled, Gibson stated that infrequently - Krieghoff would use Mauser production barrels. So, I took a look in his book for a photo that might show a Mauser barrel installed on a Krieg. receiver. On Page 97, there is one such photo, which appears to be the base as best I can tell - and shows that the Mauser bbl. did not have a witness mark when installed by Krieghoff. That would lead one to believe that the witness marks were not applied as separate operations (once to the receiver and another to the barrel), as the Mauser mfg. bbl. had no witness mark when joined to a receiver that has no mark...

Anyway - just another observation...

Dwight; was the witness mark proof of headspace with the original barrel?
Lonnie

Lonnie, I wouldn't call the witness mark proof of headspace... only that a barrel had been installed that met the specifications for applied torque, and with the front sight centered within tolerance. Headspacing (by finish reaming the chamber) could not occur until these specifications were met.

Just my
http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/2cents.jpg

I have looked carefully at witness marks on Imperial Lugers only (No Mausers), but doing so leaves very little doubt that barrel and receiver were struck simultaneously by the same tool.

Luke

Maybe some of our members in Germany could do some serious research and find some people who actually worked in the factories and know from first hand experience what the marks are for and when they were applied. That generation is getting old and is disappearing very quickly. No one younger than about 75 years old has any first hand knowledge of how these guns were built. When they pass away a great deal of experience will be lost forever. Just a thought.

Perhaps I have opened the can of worms that can never be recanned?

Tom A.

Yes, but very interesting to read Tom!

I guess someone like Dwight should compile everyone's info.

I'll send him mine tomorrow <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Heh, seems like I have been volunteered <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Actually, there's more to come on this topic...

--Dwight

Steve,

I recall reading in Fred A. Datig's book that when he went to Germany in the late 1950's, he met August Weiss and Herr Weiss still had his personal set of factory records and documentation from the DWM days.

Does anyone know if Mr. Datig happened to "secure" this documentation and records ? This sure would be a good source of information...and it might answer these types of questions...

Regards,

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

Hi Tom A! An opened can of worms can always be recanned....it just takes a larger can! As I look at the example pictures above... it is clear to me, that there are two completely seperate and distinct reasons for the marks. The first is to witness or index an assembly that is factory mated... to both, show if this assembly has ever been disturbed, but more, and most importantly, to provide a reference point to which the components can be returned to if disassembled or replaced! I would have to think that the witness marks were applied in a fixture that allowed for the marks to be stamped at exactly 180 degrees, for the correct front sight base location... so, if you go for this much of my theory... you will quickly realize that all witness marks will be relatively close...if not perfectly (to the naked eye) aligned... the true telltale answer to the question of origionality of the complete assembly... is not if the marks are aligned.. but if they are of the same tool strike.... as to why they would be misaligned, we can only guess!! If I was asked to verify the origionality of the barrel to receiver marks based only on the above pictures 04 & 07, I would say they are correct, as it is evident that the same tool was used to bridge both parts in the assemblies! I guess perfect is for another discussion, at another time! till...later...GT

Gentlemen,
Torque of straight threads arrested by two parallel surfaces using precision tools with which to apply the measured torque will results in varying degrees of alignment of witness marks. This is not conjecture, but fact. The initial application of torque will fatigue and stretch the metal. The second time that measured torque is applied to the barrel and receiver, the results will be misalignment.
Additionally, original factory witness marks will have the bottom of the mark occupying a common plane on both receiver and barrel.

Hi to all! This is pretty interesting! I decided that I had some pretty good examples right in the old gun safe....so, off to the safe I went, and the results are interesting... with my trusty little magnifying glass... I determined that out of three original untouched Mauser examples, two 39's and one 37, one of the witness marks could be considered right on, one was ever soooo slightly misaligned, and one, a vet purchase, known history pistol... was close, but obiviously missaligned!! What does this tell me... along with the reference pictures above, my conclusion is that the barrels and receivers were indexed, or marked, and then disassembled at some later point in there manufacture, only to be reassembled back to their original reference point.... for what reason I don't know?? But from a machinist point of view, I'd bet a lot on it!
I would also think that the torque applied to the assemblies was well within there design parameters and could be repeated several times with out any substancial fatigue... By the looks of the alignment, I would guess they had rather large and strong fixtures, and could apply the correct leverages with complete ease and impunity to any resistance... you got to get past the mental image of a gun shop type barrel wrench, they may have been assembled in huge fixtures with almost unlimited leverage.... they were making them by the thousands, not just one or two a day... they probably messed with each assembly for a few seconds, certainly not more then a minute... can't think like a collector here, got to think like a machinist, assembly line worker, or some type of employee that probably thought he would puke if he saw another luger that day! I'm thinking Mr Simpson has seen a lot of Lugers, and he knows more then we think he does.... I believe that he is correct in his statement that they were removed and reinstalled, for whatever reason....I still don't have a theory for that! Thats all for now! till...later...GT

One of the problems so far encountered in this discussion is that no one has been able to document what the construction practices for Lugers actually were. I'd like to know where Bob Simpson's information came from.

The speculation thus far advanced is interestng. It seems clear that if witness marks are struck as proof of barrel/receiver mating this can be used as a positive indicator of the authenticity of a Luger. If witness marks are alignment marks for barrel removal and reassembly, then misalignment is not necessarily an indicator of barrel replacement. And what can be deduced from witness marks such as those in the examples above which are aligned but seem not to be struck at the same time or by the same instrument?

The original manufacturing principles are crucially central to this topic.

--Dwight

Hi,

Checked the witness mark on the barrel of my Dutch M11. Sligth misalignment visible, appearing like picture #10.

Interesting fact: Barrel and frame are one 'KOL' set. Barrel is stamped with crown-n mark and serial number. Frame 2-digits match the barrel.

I'd go for Wes' interpretation on this one.

Could an invitation to join this thread be extended to Mr. Simpson by someone familiar with him? His participation on this subject will save us a lot of ink.

I am enjoying this pursuit of the unknown. One line of thought that hasn't been addressed much is - can anyone pose a legitimate reason for removing and reinstalling the same barrel on a Luger? I am refering to a manufacturer/arsenal RAR and not a private gunsmith (or basement bubba).

Refreshing of the rifling in the field.
Straightening of the barrel in the field.
Removal of blockage of barrel in the field.
Repair of the 'unknown' in the field.
The witness marks were for the benefit of gunsmiths unrelated to the manufacturer/arsenal.
The very same purpose as a 'jack' with a new auto. Ford Motor Co. or Chrysler Corp. does not need a 'jack' but the owner does.

But Mr. Simpson could enlighten us in short order if he would post a reference or two.

To totally paraphrase (mangle the quote?) a learned colleague – “Any repair technique as illogical as the field disassembly, and reassembly would have to be documented to be believed. It is too fantastical”. Repair at that level is an arsenal function.

The answer is simple: have Mr. Simpson post his references. No big deal.

But to wile the time, many repairs were performed in the field. War has a way of disconnecting the perfect order of things. At those times, the nicety of sending a weapon back to a chaotic civilization is ridiculous and would not be done. Down and dirty is the mode of war. Especially the two world wars. They conduct their repairs as they conducted their production: streamline.
I can accomplish the task out here in the yard. It is made possible by the provision of witness lines for to realign and then I know beyond a doubt that the torque has been re-acheived and accomplished. No fancy torque wrenches needed. Why spend 3 week at best and lose the use of a valuable weapon by sending it back to civilization, when the whole repair operation may be accomplished with 5 minutes of disassembly and whatever necessary time devoted to the repair operation? Sounds pretty logical to me.
The first DWM's were commercial and exported from Germany to all points on the globe. Return to factory was not considered, yet they were marked for the benefit of whoever worked on them.

p.s. no to worry, no offense taken.

Glad no offense was taken because none was intended. It was a legitimate concern. What prompted what was intended to be a slightly humorous mis-quote, is that there are a few armorer's kits in existence (whether discovered complete or assembled), and they do not appear to have any tools for field R&R of barrels. Perhaps such a tool was a separate item of issue? I would be interested in hearing a little bit more about this field barrel R&R issue if anyone has any information.

No problem, Ron. Making a hard-hitting, pertinent challenge is difficult, and I just wanted to assure you that I enjoyed your well designed post.
The concept of 'tongs' is old. (Salad tongs are a totally different concept.) In the 20th century they were widely used in the outdoor industries such as the oil field. One type of wrench that I know as 'tong' is an automotive oil filter removal wrench (stylized but same principle). Simplified plastic versions may be purchased at any modern outlet such as Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc. Homemade versions may be made with leather, or webbed strap, a little wire, and some sturdy object for a handle, most desireably, metal.
Another portion of the equation for removal and replacement of the barrel is the barrel wrench.
The last ingredient is a little muscle.
With this wrench you can break and make-up very tight joints such as a Luger barrel and receiver.

I am familiar with that type wrench. We called them "strap wrenches" and they were part of one of the maintenance tool kits for the NIKE Hercules missile system.

Slightly OT
Having changed a few M1 Carbine barrels in the past and remembering they used index or alignment marks on the bottom of the barrel and front of the receiver, I looked up this old Government Technical Order: Army Tech Manual TM9-1276, Dept of the Air Force Tech. Order 39A-5AD-2, dated 17 Feb 1953, to quote page 121, para. 59a. ASSEMBLY. Replacing Barrel. Select proper barrel and receiver combination so that about 1/16" draw is obtained when assembled. Screw the receiver on the barrel with wrench 7113308 (fig 9): draw up receiver until alignment marks on barrel and receiver (*Fig 92)coincide. Then determine that the flat surfaces on bottom of barrel and receiver are parallel. Check this by indicator or placing two bars, about 10" long, in position as illustrated in fig 93; and sight over the edges. When the two bars lie parallel, the barrel and receiver are in exact alignment for proper functioning.

Note: After installing barrel on reciever, adjust and check the head space as described in paras. 57d abnd 58d.

*Fig 92 shows lines on front of receiver and bottom of barrel in alignment.

My .02, In mass production, If we used alignment marks for replacemnt and new manufacture, did we copy other countries' methods or start our own?
Further might the alignment of Luger barrels require an additional check as outlined for the M1 carbine above, which could result in a slight misalignment of marks.
In the US Military there are normally 3 Levels of
maintenance: Organizationl, Field and Depot. Replacement of weapon barrels is normally restricted to Depot level maintenance.
Would have sent pictures but have no scanner or camera capability.

Regards

Ken D

Depot (or arsenal) replacement is what I thought would be the required practice. But as Wes points out, war tends to override propriety. I wouldn't think field replacement would be encountered very often.

Hi,

My other hobby consists of keeping cars of a certain german make up and running. 'witness marks' are plentiful on most parts where exact realignment is needed when they are reassembled. And these marks are there for the benefit of whoever is working on it. I've also seen slight misalignments on parts that were removed/reattached/etc.. several times. Seems to be a logical chain of events and I can imagine that the same goes for the luger as well. As far as wartime repairs go: I remember from my service days that small repairs were done without arsenal intervention.

In certain war situations during WW1 and II both sides used whatever they could get their hands on and it's not uncommon to have allied troops repairing and using german handguns, using whatever parts they can find (field/trench/captives, etc...).

Heck, even our Dutch UN guys used captured AK47's in certain countries because they were more reliable than their own guns....

Witness marks are one detail of the larger topic of barrel originality. Illustrated below are the witness mark examples in the context of the guns they actually are on. Examples 12-14 are not included as the guns are not mine to identify, however for the sake of comparison I will note that example #12 is a military Mauser. As in the case of the witness marks themselves, there are questions about barrels concerning original practices which must be answered before any definitive statement can be made.

What are the principles by which barrel serial numbers include their letter suffixes? The 1910 instructions and amendments for marking P-08s as translated in G�¶rtz & Bryans (pp111-114) specify only the serial number on the barrel; oddly, the text does not mention serial numbers on the frame at all. The letter suffix itself is dealt with in note 2 at the end of the instructions--this is the instruction which deals with the number sequences, and specifies that the sequence letter is to be applied below the pistol numbers on the frame and on the magazine. The accompanying document illustrations do show the frame with serial number and suffix on the front, but only the number sans suffix on the barrel.

Real-world examples reveal Lugers with barrel number suffix and without. Of my Lugers which have frame number suffixes, a 1917 LP-08 barrel is with suffix, as is a 1918 LP-08 (with mismatched barrel). My S/42 and u-block Police do not include their suffixes.

Still's Imperial Lugers shows a picture on page 43 of a military-style serial number with a letter suffix on the barrel. In Weimar Lugers guns can be found with corresponding barrel number suffixes on pp. 58, 150, 239, and 272 (one of these is a u-block Police, so much for my own sample); and without corresponding suffixes on pp.66, 138, 210, and 212. A barrel with suffix is pictured on page 230 of Third Reich Lugers.

Does anyone here know why Luger barrels are disparately marked?

Corresponding questions need to be answered about authorized rebarrelling practices. At what level was barrel removal and replacement accomplished--field repair level? armory? some intermediate repair depot? The power-proofing procedures presented in G�¶rtz & Bryans (p.119) for replaced barrels imply that this was an armory-level repair. Were replaced barrels stamped with serial numbers to match the weapon? Are there regulations extant which detail these specifications?

Example 02 KOL is an obvious assembly job, barrel and receiver are original to neither frame nor each other.

Example 06 5-inch is a modern rebarrel; the origin of the 5" barrel is obscure.

Example 11 1918LP is plainly a rebarrel, the serial numbers match the frame except the barrel suffix is l and the frame suffix is b.

Comments on the examples presented should prove interesting,--observe critically, and comment candidly.

--Dwight


http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/ManyBarrelsb.jpg

Hi Dwight,

The barrel replacement of the Dutch luger is quite well documented. Because of humid tropical conditions, barrels were replaced every 7 years (on average) whereby the year of service should be stamped into the barrel (but sometimes wasn't).

Dwight, I finally opened the safe, so let me look:

1914 Erfurt (reblued, buffed bad, but witness mark plainly visible) aligned

1940 Mauser aligned

1914 DWM aligned

1928 (alphabet) DWM aligned

and althought possibly off topic, my Martz rebarreled 9mm 4 inch, he placed a witness mark aligned on the barrel and receiver. :D

Gerben,

Neither of the Dutch Lugers pictured have barrel dates.

The Vickers bore is very finely pitted throughout, and the lands are very nearly shot away--it should have been rebarrelled long since.

The KOL is not really a complete KOL. Although the frame is in the proper serial# ranrge, and the toggle train is a proper DWM Dutch assembly (Geladen on both sides of the extracter, the serial# modified in the proper fashion), the receiver is a garden-variety Crown/N Commercial, and the barrel is a (4") non-standard barrel. If anyone can identify the barrel marking...please, identify the marking!!

Does anyone have a Vickers which can be compared to the sample illustrated?

--Dwight

http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/Ducth2gunsb.jpg

Corresponding questions need to be answered about authorized rebarrelling practices. At what level was barrel removal and replacement accomplished--field repair level? armory? some intermediate repair depot? The power-proofing procedures presented in G�¶rtz & Bryans (p.119) for replaced barrels imply that this was an armory-level repair. Were replaced barrels stamped with serial numbers to match the weapon? Are there regulations extant which detail these specifications?

The example below is a 1936 S/42, a suspected re-barrel. Evidence is beginning to appear which calls into question such suspicions based solely on witness marks as pictured. What other visible characteristics might support it as authentic or rebarrel? I certainly wonder about the way the serial number is stamped. The right side of the barrel does bear the same Mauser acceptance eagle (Costanzo, p.114, mark 176) as the receiver.

--Dwight



http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/s421gunA.jpg

Absolutely GREAT photo essay Dwight!

Hi,

The proof marks on the vickers barrel are normal.
The same proofmarks are found in the 'Dutch Luger':

NP (nitro proof)
Crowned GP (London proof house mark)
Crowned V.
serial # between 4182 and 10181.
I suspect the Vickers has had a new receiver somewhere in it's life.

An interesting note on the other barrel:
Quote from 'DL': A few lugers have been observed where the barrel, apart from the "GS" mark, carries a small letter "M". The meaning of this is unknown.

Hi,

Is there any substantial proof (or any ideas) that instead of barrels, the receivers were replaced instead?

That way you might end up with a numbered frame, original barrel, renumbered receiver and a weird witness mark.

Gerben,

Can you provide the page number for the Dutch Luger quote? Does it seem to you that they mean there is a small M -and- the GS mark?

Does anyone have contact information for either Martens or de Vries?

As far as replacing receivers is concerned, I can't imagine why that would be done on any regular basis, it is the barrels which deteriorate. Also, according to Martns & de Vries, the GS did not manufacture receivers, so they would have to find them somewhere, scavenge them from other guns, or buy them new from Germany.

--Dwight

Hi,

I don't have the book with me now. Will check, but consider that there are several prints of the Dutch Luger that contain different layouts (found that one out a few days ago) :)

Both Martens and De Vries write for a dutch gun magazine called 'SAM magazine'. I believe they are connected to 'S.I. publications'. You can try the email address of that organization:

si@sipublicaties.nl

I've done some new research into the 1945 - 1949 KNIL period and I can confirm that the 'scavenging' scenario was followed by the KNIL when trying to rebuild their forces in 1945.

My M11 fits nicely into that category. As far as I can see now, it was rebuilt from arsenal parts and re-issued in late 1945 to the then-formed 11th Infantry division in the Bali area.

Obtaining luger parts from Germany was an impossibility in that timeframe and it's not surprising to find Dutch lugers that were results of local (indonesian) recovery and scavenging tactics. Lack of 9mm ammunition meant most KNIL lugers didn't see much action anyway.