A Learning Experience...
 

All,
Am in Louisville KY attending SOS and Gunday shows. At the Gunday show yesterday I scored a very nice KM rig, a 1940 dated Code 42, in about 97% condition, Ost See pantograph marked with one matching mag, an armorer's code 42 mag and a code 42 tool, all in a lovely Curt Vogel 1939 dated KM holster. I was one happy camper. The sheep-dip nature of the show -crowded beyond belief-precluded my doing my normal disassembly inspection prior to purchase, so I just gave the markings a peek with my loupe and went for it. It was a little pricey but what the hell.

After dinner, several members of the forum and I were having after dinner drinks when one of the guys took the piece apart. His voice registered dismay when he said, "Look, the witness marks do not align and the barrel does not have a letter suffix.

Well, I thought I had been taken.

This morning, I went back to the show, prepared to have a bit of a chin-wag with the dealer who had sold me this bogus gun.

Fortunately, there were very few people in the hall at the time and I could easily get to Bob Simpson's booth. I showed the piece to Bob, pointed out the "problems" and asked his opinion.

Bob explained to me that the witness marks were placed on the barrel and frame BEFORE the front sight block was machined out of the barrel stock and then the barrel was removed from the frame for further machining, polishing and finishing. After this, the barrel was reinstalled and quite frequently the witness marks would be improperly aligned. In short, this was nothing to worry about and was not an indication of a buggered gun.
Likewise, he remarked that he has seen many, many III Reich era lugers that lacked the barrel suffix.

In short, it was a righteous gun.

I learned something new as a result and avoided a certain to have been unpleasant conversation.

My public thanks to Bob and I guess no matter how much we learn about our toggle-tops, we will never know it all.

Just for grins afterwards, I purchased another K-Date Navy from Bob.

Tom A.

Tom,
Did he cite references for the information of the process of manufacture that he supplied to you? Footnotes?

Tom,

I second Wes's question. The topic of witness marks has been nagging at my brain for a while, the explanation is intriguing, and would account for what I think I see with many witness marks I observe. It would be good to be sure.

Maybe Bob Simpson himself will run across this discussion and comment...

--Dwight

Tom,
The purpose of witness marks are just that to witness something. A true machinist can tell you what they are for and they usually line up. I don't dispute Bob's explanation but I certainly wonder about it being correct! What purpose would the marks have if not to indicate the relative position of the barrel and receiver? Does your barrel have the land diameter digits?
It is unusual to find the serial number suffix on a Mauser military luger barrel, as a matter of fact I don't think I have any that does!

Regards,

I am a man of much wisdom acquired through the years as the water flowed in the river.
My wisdom is based on my need to know in my world.
I have no knowledge of your world.
I will leave this earth with that peace.
My Wisdom Is Mine. (Gertrude)

Chester,Dwight, Wes, and Ton A,
In all of my 36 Years in the machine shop environment I have never found any reason for witness marking except for disclosing the removal of a part. And if the parts are reassembled properly there should be no discernable misalignment, otherwise the head space will be changed from the original indicated by the "wit-mark".
IMO It just seems strange to me that a knowledgeable person would make a statement that misalignment was proper.
ViggoG

But the disassembly of the barrel 'after' the witness mark was applied would be unproductive in an assembly plant. It takes longer to re-align it than to strike it. An engineer would demand that this practice cease if it were a normal part of the production of this pistol.
After a witness mark is applied, there would be no further disassembly and the pistol would be shipped.

One of the things nagging at my mind abut witness marks are marks which appear to be one strike, but under magnification are offset -just- enough to be able to tell--certainly not nearly the width of the mark, just the edges offset visibly...

--Dwight

Dwight,

I, too, have several lugers and seen others in which the barrel witness marks look authentic and seem to have been struck by one blow with hammer & chisel, but the two halves are just a bit off-center from each other. Ths offset is usually not even as wide as half the width of the witness mark itself...

Would an advanced expert as Bob Simpson be wrong with his reported comment ? That is difficult for me to believe...

p.s. Just some wild a** speculation on my part, but...did lugers routinely go back to an arsenal or field shop for a complete disassembly and inspection? Maybe during the service life of many lugers, they had their barrels unscrewed for such an inspection ? Mere speculation on my part...

Regards,

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

Hi Guys, <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />
Just my opinion, But, I feel that the practice of routinely removing barrels for inspection, is about equal to find "All" of the "Missing 45 cal Lugers" in the same yard sale in Podunk ! <img border="0" alt="[hiha]" title="" src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" />
Is it possible that all of the small offsets are in the same direction ?
Is it possible that the torque of a projectile accelerating through the barrel could make these minute mis-alignments ?
Just wondering ??? :confused:
---------------------------------------------
After posting the above, I stripped my 1906 AE to examine the "wit-mk",
When examined under a 60 X Binocular Lab Microscope, The marks appear to be made with two different tools. "??????"
The tools have differing widths of wear in the marking edge, the barrel mark shows to be approximatly 90% of width of the breech mark.
To the unaided eye the marks appear to be one continuous mark, however the Photo below shown nothing definate with one exception, in some of the views there seems to show a a slight difference. "????"

http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/wit-mk06.jpg


Now I'm Really Confused :confused: :confused: :confused:
What can any of you see ??

ViggoG

Viggo,

In one of the photos it looks like the receiver end of the mark might have been double-struck. This could be an effect of the photo, however.

Marks like this are another circumstance which currently vexes me.

--Dwight

Dwight,
The "Wit-mk" on the breech is struck deeper on the rearward end and the barrel mark is struck very veryÃ?Â*slightly deeper toward the barrel.
This shows best in the upper right photo.
the lower right photo shows the difference as an alignment of the left side of the marks and a slight mis-alignment in the right side that amounts to the difference in the width difference of the two marks.
The appearance of a double strike is an illusion of the lighting and reflections within the slot.
Had I not viewed these marks at "60 X" I would not be so positive.
OT - AS A comment, the lighting problems that you see here are the same illusions that made the Photographs of the high key very contrasting photos made the "Moon Craters" appear to be raised in the center instead of indented until one adjusted their way of thinking of the light directed toward the object.
ViggoG

Hi Rick.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"> and secondly if one wants a nice strike on the lower surface would the other surface receive a slightly wider mark due to its additional depth maybe?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Quite true, However, my poor use of Language "FAILED TO TRANSFER MY TRUE THOUGHT"
I was referring to tool point wear, I'm focusing on the rounding of the very Knife edge of the tool.
The point that forms the very bottom of the mark and wears round with use.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"> When examined under a 60 X Binocular Lab Microscope, The marks appear to be made with two different tools. "??????"
The tools have differing widths of wear in the marking edge, the barrel mark shows to be approximatly 90% of width of the breech mark.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">This difference leads me to believe that there is a possibility two different tools were used.
ViggoG

You guys are probably going to laugh me right off the planet, but here is my take on witness marks. I have never seen the utility of striking a mark on the barrel/receiver after they have been assembled. What purpose would that serve, other than as Viggo stated to indicate that a part had been removed and/or if the part is removed to assure that it is reinstalled in proper alignment?

I think they might more properly be called “index” marks. I believe that after final machining of the receiver fork, a mark was placed on the bottom forward edge that denoted the exact “bottom dead center” if you will. When the barrel is machined, the front sight block is broached from the forward barrel band and then a mark is struck on the rear flange exactly 180Ã?º from the vertical mid-line of the sight block (or exactly perpendicular to the horizontal plane of the sight block if you want to look at it that way). Once the barrel has been finish machined with the threads cut and the flange formed, the barrel is trial fitted to the receiver, turning it down tightly but not with a heavy torque. The index mark on the barrel should line up within a predetermined number of degrees or linear displacement from the index mark on the receiver. Given good manufacturing controls, I would guess that proper displacement was achieved better than 90% of the time without further machining of the flange. If the preliminary alignment was off, the rear of the flange was either machined a bit further to bring it into tolerance or discarded if it over-rotated.

Once it was determined that the index mark displacement was within tolerance, the barrel was properly head-spaced and the extractor groove cut, again using the index mark as a guide for proper placement. The barrel was then reinstalled and given a final torque to bring the marks into alignment. This assured perfect alignment in the vertical plane of the mid-line of the receiver and barrel, and obtained a solid mechanical compression fit of the barrel to receiver.

I further support this hypothesis by the observation that the frame serial number is applied prior to finish sanding and bluing. However, the barrel markings are applied “through the blue” to match the barrel to the frame after the barrel/receiver assembly has been completed and blued, thus giving rise to the “halo” effect on the barrel markings that is not found on the frame.

The foregoing I believe is a reasonable explanation of the marks. I would address the possibility of a “proper” misalignment by considering that the compression fit was sufficiently strong to permit a slight rotational adjustment of the barrel during test firing to adjust the front sight for windage and bring the shot group to center. Provided the adjustment was very minor, probably less than the width of either index mark, the compression fit would not be compromised. I would further suggest that quality control in the machining and assembly processes would make this adjustment unnecessary for all but a tiny fraction of the weapons produced.

OK, open fire.

Ron:

I completely agree with your hypotheses. This has been my understanding from day one. I very rarely heard the term witness mark until I joined the Luger forum; it was always index mark. My 2 cts.

Regards

Ken D

Guys,
What a wonderful discourse! This is exactly what this Forum is about. We all continue to learn and THINK, occasionally as a result of a member's post being a catalyst.

We may never know the "100%, No BS" answer, but some genuine erudition has been shared.

Tom A

I disagree with the notion that the marks were applied before assembly of the barrel to the frame. Such process would be totally impracticable, cost prohibitive, and the refuse rate would be astronomical.
It costs quite a bit of money to produce barrels and frames with the tolerances required to accommodate such an assembly process and would be totally unnecessary whenever other assembly techniques with better, quicker results, which are 'no-brainers' can be conceived and executed by any blacksmith.
Regarding the slight misalignment of the witness marks, steel has memory. If you apply torque to steel and mark its position at the time that it is torqued and constrained, and re-measure a year later, you will find that the steel has begun to retreat. This is part of the process which you are observing approx. 70-100 years after torque.
A practice in the oil field whenever disassembling pipe is to deliver a sharp shock to the joint of assembly and the joint will give to pressure and 'break'. Whenever you have torque pressure and repeatedly apply sharp shock (such as explosion of gunpowder) this will aid in the reverse of torque.
Any production technique as illogical as the assembly, marking, disassembly, and reassembly would have to be documented to be believed. It is too fantastical.

Wes,
I respect and value your opinion and disagreement. I consider you to be a very knowledgable individual and normally I would bow to your judgement. But not this time. I disagree with the notion that "Such process would be totally impracticable, cost prohibitive, and the refuse rate would be astronomical". I believe that the manufacturing practices existing during the production of Lugers, from the earliest date, were fully capable of routinely attaining the tolerances required to accommodate such an assembly process.
With sincere regards and genuine respect,
Ron

An afterthought: "Any production technique as illogical as the assembly, marking, disassembly, and reassembly would have to be documented to be believed. It is too fantastical." In the sequence I suggested, the index marks are applied prior to assembly, then partial assembly is performed to gauge tolerences, then disassembly for headspacing and extractor cut, then final assembly. This isn't a terribly complex operation and could be accomplished quickly, expecially since all of it is performed before final torque and disassembly is quite easy.

In a "production" environment, this practice would never be allowed. The skill was most certainly available, and with "hand-made" items, this method of manufacture would most probably be common. However, the Germans were not backward in production and would have engineered each step of the manufacture process to avoid such counter productive practices.
All I ask is documented proof.

Ain't got none, but that does not invalidate my assertion any more than it affirms yours. Striking a witness mark after assembly serves no purpose (other than giving collectors a century later something to debate).

"This isn't a terribly complex operation and could be accomplished quickly"
This operation would be totally unnecessary. The barrels would have been threaded and timed using a 'dog' to position the mount of the front sight. They would then have been torqued to the frame and the dovetail cut for the front blade. And then the barrel would have been struck with the witness mark.
Cheap, logical process, with no unnecessary operations.

"Viggo stated to indicate that a part had been removed and/or if the part is removed to assure that it is reinstalled in proper alignment"
This is the purpose of witness marks.

That's a logical approach and certainly feasible. But then why strike a witness mark on the barrel? By the method you suggest, the barrel and receiver alignment has already been accomplished by mechanical timing and the witness marks serve no purpose. I am having difficulty understanding why the methodical Germans would apply marks that have no use.

Viggo gave the reason that witness marks are applied in industry. The practice is still used today in very many industries. It is for "witness" that the part, bolt, component, etc. has been moved or removed. It is also used as an aid for reassembly.

Wes,
A healthy and worthy debate, so we will have to agree to disagree. Still friends?
Ron

Amigo, compadre, chum, buddy, comrad, kimosabe, 朋友, frater, freund, & pal

Ron and Wes,

A very interesting discussion which does not ease my mind. Applied to the clear speculations, Occam's Razor would seem to cut closer to the steel torsion memory idea.

The only concrete thing I have to offer at the moment is the witness mark on a 1900AE, to my eyes clearly and unequivocally struck with a single blow of a sharp tool after the barrel and receiver were assembled.

--Dwight

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

If my understanding is correct, viewing a barrel and receiver oriented as per Dwight's pic, a retreating barrel would have the upper witness mark to the right of the receiver portion of the mark. I do not mean 1/64 of an inch, but rather 1/192 (.005) of an inch as an extreme to the eye. A greater mismatch than 1/128 would indicate removal and reassembly of the barrel to receiver by a skilled gunsmith.

In interesting discussion. Thoughts that come to me are why is this mark hand struck? If it was meant to align two parts during assembly, that is to note the 180 degree opposition to the front sight, why not machine stamp the mark and get it close to perfect. Second, as a former production engineer the concept of removing the barrel to remachine the front sight base seems strange, This machining step could be easily accomplished either before the barrel was mounted or while the barrel was in the reciever. Removing it makes no sense.

Next, the mark serves a purpose to show that the original barrel is in place. The shifting that may appear due to torque and aging, if any, would be unlikely to appear to the naked eye. I have never seen a drift in original muzzle loading barrels of 150 plus years in age even though these are subject to loading torque. Likewise I have never seen crankshaft bolts shift on a small block Chevy when properly nstalled, a high stress high vibration environment.

The witness mark serves to witness that hte barrel has not been disturbed since final assembly. It would be interesting to know if checking this alignment was part of the proofing.

Based on what is known, the misaligned of the witness mark must be considered suspicious. I would ask Tom, how many Lugers with misaligned witness marks have you accepted as "righteous" before?

And, I am very much with Wes in asking if anyone has a documented Luger production flow chart? Also, how are the Weimar and Nazi reworks with known rebarrels witness marked??

just my opnion, if I had any facts I would have used them

Heinz

Heinz,

The instructions for "Inspection and Acceptance of Pistols 08 and Parts Thereof (1913)" as translated in G�¶rtz & Bryans "German Small Arms Markings" make no specific mention of witness marks. It does require inspections throughout the course of manufacture, including two separate magnifier examinations.

In "Factory Examination" it is specified that "all parts and pieces" be examined by "special weapons parts examiners". Only flawless pieces are passed on for further manufacturing or acceptance inspection.

I speculate that, during manufacture and inspection, mis-aligned witness marks would simply be understood as out-of-specification and rejected for further manufacture, likely without official comment.

--Dwight

Following up on Heinz's assertion that perceptible shifting due to torque or aging is unlikely, doesn't it seem also unlikely that witness marks would become mis-aligned during manufacture, particularly if they are struck simultaneously after assembly of the barrel and receiver?

The tool spans the seam and both marks are merely one mark created with one stroke.

Regards,
wes

That's what I meant by "simultaneously". Sorry for the confusion. Now, how do they become mis-aligned during production?

Hello,
Just another opinion.
It would make sense to me that the witness marks would only be applied after the barrel had been installed in the receiver. I could even accept that the mark on the receiver could be present at the time of the barrel installation and once the barrel was in the final mateing position, the witness mark would be struck.

Ron, If we accept the premise that the mark was struck before the barrel was removed for machining the front sight, the mis-alignment would occur then. I think this highly unlikely because it just does not seem to make production sense. How would the sight be marked for vertical? By another mark on the top where the sight was to be machined? Why then witness mark the bottom until re-assembly? The witness marks on my two P08s do not appear to be well enough centered to serve as a mark for aligning the sight machining. They appear to be struck freehand.

Hello,
Just as a matter of interest and this ain't no lie. I have a Mauser-Steyr luger barrel I obtained directly from the vet that brought it back. The barrel is proofed Eagle/623. It is in mint condtion. The barrel is blued and I assume ready for installation by an armourer. There is no witness mark on the barrel as it was intended as a replacement. I would assume it would have been witnessed at the time it was installed by the armourer. You know what happens when you assume something though!

Kind Regards,

And then there is the fact that most of the contract HK lugers did not get barrel/receiver witness marks at all, until the later 1944 or 45 guns (per John D's earlier post in the HK section...).

Apparently the HK assembly folks had no need for such witness/index marks at all...(?)

Regards,

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

Heinz,
If you re-read my original post, I stated "When the barrel is machined, the front sight block is broached from the forward barrel band and then a mark is struck on the rear flange exactly 180�º from the vertical mid-line of the sight block (or exactly perpendicular to the horizontal plane of the sight block if you want to look at it that way)". I was trying to indicate that the mark was struck as a reference after the front site block was machined, not before.

Hello All,
I was just thinking that maybe we are looking at this the wrong way. Suppose that the witness mark is not for the realignment of the barrel to
receiver but is a proof "manufacturing mark" to show that the barrel and receiver have passed a tolerance stage in production and can go to the next step before the gun is finished. (IE. head space,fitting, etc.) If the mark is for product control than I can see that the mark can be hand struck. (I still think is isÃ?Â*odd to hand mark).
If the witness mark is for removing the barrel for more work to be done, why not put the gun in a cradle and use a machine to make the mark as hand marking can make errors? It was said that blank barrels have no mark and that most of the contract HK lugers did not have the marks also.
Can it be the contract HK just did not do this to save time? or maybe they had new machines that made the adjustments and the step was dropped as a cost cutting procedure.(we do this all the time where I work).

I will admit that I know very little about gun manufacturing, but to mount the barrel,remove the barrel, finish out milling on barrel, remount barrel again would be cost prohibitive in a mass production firearm. In a custom made gun or special order this might not be to bad, but still very unproductive in manpower and time.

Just me thinking out loud...

Back to the salesman's pitch:
Before we believe stories of manufacture told by dealers to rationalize for the anomalies in the pistols they sell, we should ask for proof. If a man must have the pistol for sale or lose his firstborn, I am sure that purchase can be subject to documentation of the salesman's pitch.
All the above speculation is mere obfuscation.

I have nothing to add to the above debate - truth be told, I'm not even sure of what a witness mark is - but I'm delighted to have followed this interesting discussion. I never thought that I'd see the word, "obfuscation" in use on the internet, let alone in this context. ;-)

Ron, Thank you for correcting my error. And, if I understand correctly, you would then hold the opinion that the witness mark was struck after final installation?