LugerForum Discussion Forums

LugerForum Discussion Forums (https://forum.lugerforum.com/index.php)
-   Site Announcements (https://forum.lugerforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=153)
-   -   New FAQ - Update suggestions and Corrections Thread (https://forum.lugerforum.com/showthread.php?t=35479)

mrerick 03-23-2016 03:53 PM

New FAQ - Update suggestions and Corrections Thread
 
I've updated and uploaded the latest version of the FAQs in both compact PDF (for online viewing and low bandwith access) and Hi Resolution PDF (for 300dpi printing) forms.

>>>>>>> http://forum.lugerforum.com/showpost...75&postcount=2

- - - In this discussion thread, please suggest updates to current FAQs and corrections only - - -

Marc

Edward Tinker 03-23-2016 07:47 PM

:rockon:Marc has worked on this tirelessly!

HATS off to him :rockon:

mrerick 03-24-2016 01:30 PM

Thanks Rich, that oops was from copying and pasting... Fixed in next version.

I plan on revisiting things more regularly. I'd like to get the initial revision out now with the more obvious problems handled, and then revisit things in a couple of months as change requests accumulate and new material is available.

Put pictures here and I'll download them from the site. Put them up in the full resolution that you want to appear in the FAQ.

Thanks! Marc

mrerick 03-24-2016 03:12 PM

I believe I've incorporated most of those. This thread is for review of the current contents of the FAQ.

Zorba 03-24-2016 05:36 PM

I would suggest putting "decocking a luger properly" (or some such) right after "Is it OK to dry-fire...".

Diver6106 03-24-2016 10:14 PM

1 Attachment(s)
You might include information and schematic on the 22LR kit.

mrerick 03-27-2016 10:54 PM

Thanks for the pix and update!

Marc

alanint 03-28-2016 08:58 PM

When it is done, can this be shared off the site?

mrerick 03-28-2016 09:07 PM

I'm not sure how John will control access to the PDF file (if you will need to login).

I would not cross post the file elsewhere, but rather point to it here on the LugerForum site. This is important because I plan to update it more regularly.

Marc

sheepherder 03-29-2016 11:14 PM

Böhler Barrels
 
1 Attachment(s)
A quick edited quote from S&G's TBLAP on Böhler barrels, and the marks on some 1913-14 Luger barrels, and a pic of mine...

(Question) What is the Bö stamp on some 1913-14 Luger barrels and what does the number represent?
(Answer) [paragraph below]

No mention was made in the notes or the marking instructions of the practice of marking the barrel, both at the blank and machined stages, with the steel maker's identification and the steel batch number. This was a requirement of the Gew 98 Marking Instructions, which initially (ca. 1899) specified the letters K for Krupp or B for Bismarkhűtte be stamped in (Roman) letters 5 mm high with the batch number at the first stage of manufacture, turning, and then in 3 mm high high letters when the barrel was finished...The only instance of this regulation being applied to the P.08 was for a short period between 1913 - 14 when some pistols were fitted with Böhler steel barrels, and, following the rifle marking instructions, they were stamped with the scarce Bö mark under the barrel, usually with the steel batch number, of one or two digits either beside or under the Bö.

This number has previously been erroneously described as being the hardness of the steel, but reference to the appropriate regulations shows this was not to be the case; hardness marking never was a requirement, unlike the steel batch number, which was.


-From S&G's TBLAP

mrerick 03-30-2016 09:07 AM

This also clearly shows halos... I'll paraphrase TBLAP to avoid copyright issues...

Marc

Edward Tinker 04-04-2016 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrerick (Post 286088)
I'm not sure how John will control access to the PDF file (if you will need to login).

I would not cross post the file elsewhere, but rather point to it here on the LugerForum site. This is important because I plan to update it more regularly.

Marc

well actually I have the SAME FAQ on Jan Still's site, since I made this up all by myself (with input from members).

So - its for all of us - I have always figured that members might print it out - not sure what you mean by taking it off site?

Edward Tinker 04-04-2016 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrerick (Post 286168)
This also clearly shows halos... I'll paraphrase TBLAP to avoid copyright issues...

Marc

AND, I am always very careful where I got photos - never from a book (unless my book), never just borrow pictures on the forum without permission, etc.

I have had the FAQ on the forum since I made it, so I am always very careful...

mrerick 04-05-2016 10:26 AM

The only photos we should use are those taken by members and posted to the forum.

mrerick 04-05-2016 07:55 PM

The revised April 5, 2016 FAQ is now published on this thread's first post. Note, I did a minor update at 9:25PM EST to correct minor problems in the German/English translation appendix.

mrerick 04-07-2016 12:08 PM

An additional update / correction was posted 4/7/2016.

sheepherder 04-10-2016 09:57 AM

2 Attachment(s)
Question: Why does Moderator John Sabato insist that pictures be attached directly to the post rather than linked to an outside picture storage agency???

Answer: [Insert John's oft-repeated (to no avail) explanation here, and see pic attached below] :D

Zorba 04-23-2016 03:57 PM

Another question: "What is the 'Mauser Hump'?". I remember asking this a few years back myself - someone posted a couple of very nice pix to illustrate.

mrerick 04-23-2016 05:33 PM

Hump? What Hump?

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/mp/AVj0UehdOf0x.gif

See page 25 of the current FAQ... Marc

kurusu 04-23-2016 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrerick (Post 287542)
Hump? What Hump?

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/mp/AVj0UehdOf0x.gif

See page 25 of the current FAQ... Marc

:D:D:D

Nothing new or clever to add but I just couldn't help myself, sorry.:o

PS. I still remember that movie, Mel Brooks rocks.

Zorba 04-23-2016 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrerick (Post 287542)
See page 25 of the current FAQ... Marc

Darnit, and I looked TWICE!! :rtfm:

Glad it wasn't a snake! :cheers:

mrerick 04-24-2016 07:19 PM

1920 Reichswehr property stamp
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepherder (Post 287526)
Another rarely asked question...What does the mysterious and often-misunderstood '1921' chamber date signify??? :)

We cover the "1920" Reichswehr property stamp on page 33 of the FAQ. IIRC, 1921 actually is a date. Is there more to this to add?

Thanks, Marc

Edward Tinker 04-24-2016 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepherder (Post 287526)
Another rarely asked question...What does the mysterious and often-misunderstood '1921' chamber date signify??? :)

its a date - no other trick to it :banghead:

1920 can be a date or more commonly a Reichswehr property stamp

a 1921 and one 1922 I saw and owned for a short time (should have kept that) is an actual date...

kurusu 04-25-2016 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepherder (Post 287592)
I own a 1917...and I've seen pics of a 1918...Was/is there a 1919??? How about a 1922??? Just how high do the dates go???

Hey! Another FAQ question!!! :D

In a P.08? 42. :D

And there was no 1919.

Edward Tinker 04-26-2016 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kurusu (Post 287600)
In a P.08? 42. :D

And there was no 1919.

Krieghoffs, dated 41, 42, 43, 44 and some people say 1945

kurusu 05-02-2016 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward Tinker (Post 287683)
Krieghoffs, dated 41, 42, 43, 44 and some people say 1945

Keep forgetting about the Krieghoffs. :o

mrerick 11-04-2016 01:18 PM

I've posted a minor FAQ pdate dated 11/4/2016.

mrerick 01-24-2017 11:29 AM

I have posted an update 1/23/2017 with a couple of additional items.

mrerick 01-24-2017 06:35 PM

Rich, it might relate to the PDF viewer being used, or settings on the viewer.

I have multiple computers and the document is rendering with balanced contrast, color and density. Graphics look normal.

Under preferences; page display look at the Rendering settings and Page Content settings. Make sure to "show large images". Use rendering settings appropriate for your actual display (LCD or Monitor).

I'm using the "Acrobat Reader DC" version, but the document is written to work with every version of reader since 5.0.

mrerick 02-22-2017 03:31 PM

Just posted a February 22, 2017 update with information on Luger grip screws.

mrerick 05-02-2017 11:05 AM

Just posted the May 2nd 2017 update. Adds manufacture quantities on Wartime Lugers.

mrerick 07-16-2017 11:11 AM

Just posted the July 16, 2017 version of the FAQs. It adds discussion of Halos and finish wear.

sheepherder 02-18-2018 12:10 PM

Marc, has the "C/X" marking (crown over X) been added to the FAQ??? I tried Searching the forum and the FAQ but no luck. :(

I know it has been discussed and seems to be found on parts marked C/RC also [Revisions Commission].

I checked TBLAP and got no hits either. :rolleyes:

mrerick 02-18-2018 01:15 PM

To confirm, the Crown/X C/X is only found on the 1908 DWM Commercial Lugers purchased on a Military contract? About 500 exist in the commercial serial number range 69100 to 70100?

Please verify.

We probably need a complete list of DWM inspectors including this one. I'd like to verify the names associated with the inspectors as well if that is possible.

Thanks, Marc

sheepherder 02-18-2018 02:16 PM

3 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by mrerick (Post 313663)
To confirm, the Crown/X C/X is only found on the 1908 DWM Commercial Lugers purchased on a Military contract? About 500 exist in the commercial serial number range 69100 to 70100?

So it's an inspector's stamp and not a proof??? I'm only guessing that this is an "X"...

It's on a military 9mm x 100mm barrel which has a finish rough enough to be an Erfurt...

Here's the C/X w/C/RC stamp, eagle, and serial. They're on a mixemaster so that's no help... :(

Ron Wood 02-18-2018 03:19 PM

There are at least 3 variations of the C/X C/X C/X acceptance marked Lugers that were routed from commercial production to military use during the build up in armament during late 1913 to early 1914.

The first variant is what might be called a “1908 Commercial/Military”. It is a 1908 pattern without stock lug completely constructed, finished, numbered in the commercial 5-digit fashion (in the approximate serial number range 69000-70100 that you noted) and bearing no chamber date, evidently still in the inventory but without final commercial proof before being diverted to the military and acquiring acceptance and proof marking (I have #69879).

The second variation is what I call a “1908/14 Military/Commercial” (note the commercial/military description reversal :)). It is of the 1908 pattern without stock lug, evidently still in the stock inventory but in unfinished condition since it is numbered in a 4-digit a-suffix military fashion (in the approximate 8000a-9400a range as noted by Jan Still). Apparently, it received final assembly, finish, numbering, acceptance/proofing and a 1914 chamber date when transferred to the military (I have #8310a).

The third variation marks the transfer of last of the pre-war commercials to the military, produced late 1913 early 1914, bearing no chamber date and with a stock lug. This could be considered a “1913 Commercial/Military” (or a “1914 Commercial/Military”?). I do not know the approximate serial number range, it may start below the aforementioned 70100 but most likely just above that number (I have #70185).

mrerick 02-18-2018 03:25 PM

Ron, can you post a good photo of the C/X acceptance marks.

Are they similar to what Rich posted above? If not, is the mark on Rich's barrel an effort to "X" out a prior imperial proof during the Revisions Commission evaluation of the part?

Marc

Ron Wood 02-18-2018 04:07 PM

1 Attachment(s)
They are similar but I think smaller without a side-by-side comparison. I have not seen a mark like the one posted by Rich, but it probably is an inspector's mark.

DonVoigt 02-18-2018 04:30 PM

The crown/x is just another inspection mark, belonging to an inspector who's last name was X.... or perhaps a special inspector that "approved" parts after the Revisions Commission approved its release, JMHO.

I see no reason why it is anything else or an attempt to obscure another mark.

We commonly see C/B on replacement parts which are not numbered, also perhaps a name or a stamp used for specially gauged parts for use as replacements. For example they could have been chosen for their close adherence to tolerance and deemed more likely to be a "universal" fit.

Or they may simply be inspectors names who were assigned to these duties due to seniority or other special consideration. Again JMHO.

sheepherder 02-18-2018 04:42 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Wood (Post 313669)
They are similar but I think smaller without a side-by-side comparison. I have not seen a mark like the one posted by Rich, but it probably is an inspector's mark.

I pasted my C/X next to yours...Pic attached. It appears similar but not exact...Or perhaps someone struck a diagonal line through one of your X's...

My own WAG is that C/X is an approval mark of a C/RC item that was reworked for whatever reason and then returned to the assembly line/parts bin... :thumbup:

But what do I know; I am only an egg... :p

In any event, it is probably worth a line in the FAQ if only to acknowledge that it is sometimes found in the general area of proof marks...And is possibly an inspector's mark rather than a proof...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1998 - 2023, Lugerforum.com