DWM Commercial 9mmP
 

All,

Just acquired this one. Seller indicated it was his father's, who had passed a couple years ago. I'll let the photos speak for themselves, and only comment on things not visible in the photos:

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Commercial.jpg

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Commercial.jpg

Left barrel extension flat, where we might normally expect to find barrel extension serial number or firing proof, has a dip suggesting some marking has been ground off.

I thought at first that the stock lug had been ground off. If so, whomever did the work left no sign of the lug or the work done to remove it. I'm inclined to think it never had a stock lug.

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Commercial.jpg

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Commercial.jpg

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Commercial.jpg

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Commercial.jpg

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Commercial.jpg

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Commercial.jpg

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Commercial.jpg

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Commercial.jpg

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Commercial.jpg

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Commercial.jpg

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Commercial.jpg

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Commercial.jpg

The frame started life as a military frame, note the pin and stamp for added hold open.
It would have been an early frame, likely never had a stock lug.

Tough to say much about the origin of the receiver, except that it has been re-barreled and the barrel numbered to match the frame.

Thanks for your comments, Don. I messed up putting up the photos. I'd intended to put up all four views of the cannon (top, bottom, left, and right) but had only put up two copies of the top image. I've updated the post and hopefully have all four views up now. One of the oddities with this one is the barrel extension doesn't have the full four serial number anywhere (just the last two, '81', on the extension lug. It does have that dished area on the left extension flat where (presumably) the original serial number may have been.

There are also no firing proof on the breech block or barrel extension. The only firing proof I see is one the barrel.

Proofs and other markings on the receiver were quite likely removed.
The receiver could have been an early commercial receiver or a navy receiver. Neither had markings on the top or right side, but the Navy would have had some on the left as would most of the commercial pistols- but some commercial contracts may not have had any marking on the left. Most commercial pistols and the navy pistols did not have the serial number on the left chamber, neither did some other versions in the early years.

The breech block show severe pitting and any markings may or were likely removed in its re-finishing. The grips are nice looking Mauser inspected late P08 grips.

The numbering on the bottom lug, and marking on the bottom of the receiver- could be studied and the likely donor narrowed down a bit- it would take some time to sort out(for me), but maybe one of the "early luger" guys can narrow it down.

Basically it is just a "mongrel", built from parts and nicely re-finished.

What is the shield-shaped mark over the numbers on the bottom of the barrel?
dju

Here's another, early-ish P.08 Commercial in 9 mm. I'd take a shot--if I had the dough...!

https://www.proxibid.com/aspr/DWM-P0...136&rfpb=0#Top

The shield with a slash is a DWM inspector's mark.

--Dwight

Purely FYI, the breech block (indeed, the gun generally) shows no pitting at all and is pretty much immaculate. The prior owner was one of those rare people who kept the internal parts lightly greased rather than oiled. The blue sheen that is especially visible on the breech block is that grease.

All in all, a rather nice shooter IMO.

Well,
perhaps I should have said "was" severely pitted before the pits were draw filed or reduced in some way and then the block refinished.

I and all should be able to see the pits that remain and the file marks in your picture. Pits are clearly visible on the left side picture at the rear top, and in the channel groove, the file marks are visible in the area that would have had the firing proof- which was also removed by the filing. Pitting is also present in a line at and to the left of the "81" and in the groove at the upper left.

The breech block has been filed enough to leave the mid toggle proud of the breech block forward of the toggle pin.

very fine holster. any maker marks? who made?

It is a nice design (Bucheimer-Clark):

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Commercial.jpg

Don,

Yes, some tool marks are visible where a firing proof may have been removed, but the middle toggle link is “proud” only in your imagination. The “pitting” so obvious to you is just dirt and grease, and rubs right off.

I don’t know why you have taken such a dislike to this gun, but the defects you seem to want to harp on exist only in your head.

Actually I have no dislike for the pistol at all.
It is the picture that you posted that I commented on, if the pits wiped off, then post another and I'll revise my opinion.
Otherwise, what I see is what I see- and it is pitting- no doubt- why do you insist it is not?

Perhaps you don't see the pitting on the fxo magazine either?

But my main point was that the pistol is not a "commercial" model as you had it in the title and placed it erroneously in the commercial part of the forum.

I am gratified that you can see the file marks now.:banghead:

Ben,

If you like the holster and would like to have it, shoot me an e-mail at kyrieellis@aol.com. I don't collect holsters :-)

Your failure to distinguish between dirt and pitting, and your demonstrated inability to recognize 1920 Commercial variations, renders your opinions uninteresting.

Then please do offer your explanation of the presence of the military frame on what you insist is a "commercial" luger. The world wonders!:bowdown:

Given the lack of a stock lug as well as the retrofitted hold open, I am inclined to think it started out life as an '08 first military.

Gentlemen.... an educated discussion over a particular specimen may involve opinions, and everybody has one, but does not require sarcasm... nuff said.

George,

I think you are right on target concerning the frame; it’s from an old military Luger whose initial manufacture predated the requirement for a stock lug (or a hold open).

The frame survived, and was reused, with a mixture of new and other old (salvage) parts to create a new and saleable Luger. That’s the common definition of a 1920 Commercial Luger; new gun assembled from a mixture of new and old, salvaged, parts. See Kenyon, Still, et. al.. All this is old news.

The mostly Erfurt 1920 Commercial of which I posted photos a short while ago is another example of a common 1920 Commercial. That gun was mostly composed of Erfurt parts, a DMW barrel extension dated 1916, and a new (at the time) production 7.65 mmP barrel.

Someone recently remarked, either here on this forum or Jan’s forum, that 1920 Commercial Lugers get no respect. That’s true and always has been. 1920 Commercial variation Lugers command lower prices and there are fewer collectors who specialize in 1920 Commercials that in any other variation.

There are many reasons for that and I suspect the single largest reason is simply that 1920 Commercial variant Lugers either have no apparent provenance, or have so many apparent provenances that no one can place them in time or by purpose.

One of the most common complaints I’ve heard from collectors is they cannot tell the difference between a 1920 Commercial made by DWM in 1920 and a parts gun put together by some guy in his garage in Atlanta Georgia in 1975.

I’d not be surprised to find there were a number of collectors on this forum who believe this gun is a parts gun of recent vintage. If so, I’m not about to try and persuade them otherwise. The more people there are who cannot tell the difference between a 1920 Commercial and a parts gun the fewer people there will be bidding against me for the 1920 Commercial variants I’m bidding on :thumbup:

Kyrie,
I must apologize for a failure to communicate or one of semantics that led to our butting heads.

I use a different definition for 1920 commercial than you do; one more recently promulgated than the stand-by collector names found in many of the older reference books.

These are Jan Still's definitions/conventions for commercial model lugers of the period between WWI and II- not mine:
"Models: 1923 Commercial (better called 20 DWM), 1920 Commercial (better called Alphabet DWM), 1933 Mauser Sneak (better called 29 DWM) ".

If you want to call your luger a 1920 Commercial- I recognize that it certainly may have been assembled from various parts for commercial sale in the 1920s or early '30s(or later). That explains the disconnect in my observations and comments.
Many concerns in Germany did this in the post WWI years , for sure.

But for many of us, a "1920 Commercial" luger or "Alphabet DWM" is a particular combination of features, proofing, and serial numbers with suffix manufactured by DWM after their WWI military production ceased and before they became BKIW.