Krieghoff Commercial
 

Well, the parts Krieghoff that I got with the Navy upper is correct I think? Here is a pic of the stamping and the serial number. http://www.georgealarm.com/~dgeorge/frame.JPG
Is this the correct serial number range? All parts match the frame aside from the upper and barrel. The DWM toggle is marked in the 1923 Commercial style lazy C/N on the center link.
Opinions?

Hello Doug,

Here is a partial copy of page 143 from R. Gibson's book, "The Krieghoff Parabellum" :

http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/dwm-hk001.jpg

Your frame appears to be very similar to the specimens shown by Gibson.

I have also copied the listing of "back frame inscribed" DWM-HK guns that Gibson had recorded at the time his book came out. This table is from page 142 of the book :

http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/dwm-hk004.jpg

Gibson speculates on page 139 that "...Quite possibly the whole 10,000i block of the range was acquired by Krieghoff, but no numbers below 2,000i have been recorded with Krieghoff markings."...

Your frame's serial number certainly falls within the range recorded by Gibson in the table, above.

Too bad your frame got separated from the rest of the DWM-HK luger somewhere along the way.

Not sure if I can help anymore...I was hoping John D. would jump in...

p.s. Does your frame have any proof mark on the left side frame rail, near the front end of the rail ? Gibson says this would have no marking if the receiver (now not with your gun...) was stamped with a vertical C/N proof. But if your frame rail is stamped with a lazy HK C/N proof, Gibson says the receiver would have the same proof, just above where it appears on the frame rail.

Regards,

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

Hey Doug (and Pete :) )..!

I'm the guy that replied On Mr. Still's excellent Forum about your back-framed stamped HK rework. My answer remains the same:

"Hello Doug,

I agree with Jan for 4 reasons:

The size of the "SUHL" in comparision to the "KREIGHOFF";

The 2 "Fs" in KRIEGHOFF is typical of a factory "strike", rather then some of the more obvious attempts from those counterfeit frames;

The "O" is correct in both shape and relation to the baseline of "KRIEGHOFF"; and

The "E" stroke on the center extender of the "E", appears to be correct (longer) then the bottom extender with the top extender "feint" as struck.

Therefore, your frame looks correct to me as well.

I hope this helps,

- John"

As well - please let both sites know if you are able to locate the upper for this HK...

Nice one!

Hello John D.,

Any theories as to why the stampings on the back-inscribed DWM-HK lugers are so odd...?...and why there seem to be a few variations of the oddity in the stamps...?

Have any of the stampings displayed in the Gibson book, subsequently, been shown to be "bogus"...? The one with the more "squarish" G does not match the others ones with their more "rounded" G's...

Regards,

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

Hi Pete!

Actually â?? you are asking a number of excellent questions in a very short post! If that was your intent â?? terrific job on researching exactly the correct questions to ask. Let me start by answering a few, and then â??drawing back the curtainâ?� a bit on the back-frame stamps. If you have other questions â?? please post back, OK?

First â?? the picture in Mr. Gibsonâ??s book with the rounded â??Gâ?� is correct. From the authorâ??s notes, it is on a correct serial numbered frame that falls within the correct serial range. Your question was actually discussed privately amongst some HK collectors in private not long ago, and I believe that I know itâ??s current owner. Anyway â?? in short, that HK has since been authenticated.

However â?? that raises a number of questions, as to the variations on the back-framed stamped HK reworks. Without giving anyone insight as to how to better replicate a back-frame stamp, there are a couple of identifying features â?? like I noted above (the â??Eâ?�, the base line of the â??Oâ?�, etc.). Spurious attempts are, well â??differentâ?�, without going into detail. (There are a LOT of fakes out there for this variation, as they were relatively easy to try to re-create, so buyer beware!).

In creating the stamp, we (I, and a few HK collectors, as itâ??s been my theory weâ??ve been discussing) currently believe that there were two stamps â?? a single â??SUHLâ?� stamp - and anther die carrier stamp with KRIEGHOFF. For example, if you look on a few HK back-frame stamped HK reworks, you may notice a slight â??|â?� to the left of the â??Kâ?�, which would be the carrier itself, and measured on stamp to stamp, will notice a slight change as the individual dies would shift in the carrier. This might also account for the â??Fâ?�, as after the initial strike from the dies in the carrier, an individual â??Fâ?� die would appear to be applied, as the last die â??Fâ?� strike would be â??lightâ?�.

As well, that would account for the appearance of the mis-aligned characters at the baseline.

Anyway â?? this is a very short answer to a long question. BUT â?? a great question nonetheless, Pete!

Hope this helps!

Hello John D.,

Thanks so much for the great update.

I did noticed the frame Doug G. posted has that light vertical line to the left of the HK stamping.

Any thoughts why some of the "F" restrikes can be seen floating so high above the main stamping ? Was this just carelessness ? Is there a range of the "float" of the "F" ? Maybe since this was a hand-strike ?

Also, did both "F"'s get restruck...or do you see the middle-F more so than the end-F...?

Any thought to the "donor" gun used...if many back framed inscribed HK are "creations". Would the donor gun have had its "i" suffix, originally, or do you see that added, as well...?

Regards,

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