HK Holster Question...
 

...had a chance to see an HK stamped (LWaA-2 stamping inside the holster, on the back piece) with a 4-digit number stamped on the holster body on the front/underneath the closure flap when the flap is closed.

Might this be an HK gun number...? It is # 56xx...

Regards,

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

Pete,

Although there is to my knowlege,no documentation requiring that Luftwaffe pistols have serial numbered holsters, the number of examples encountered over the years (not a solid data base)seems to suggest that this was, in fact,the practice.

Tom A.

Okay...I bought it...

It is numbered # 5665, has no maker's marks of any kind, has black thread, was brown and dyed black, and has a small LWaA2 marking inside the flap.

Defects include a loose and partially torn belt loop that has been restitched in place several times and some owner had placed a cheap Death's Head medallion on the closure flap.

Holster had been mated with a worn P-38 (AC-43) for over 40 years...owner thought it was a P-38 holster...got a very good bargin on the buy...

http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfupload/hkholster1.jpg
http://http://forums.lugerforum.com/...hkholster2.jpg http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfupload/hkholster3.jpg
http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfupload/hkholster4.jpg
http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfupload/hkholster5.jpg
http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfupload/hkholster6.jpg

Regards,

Pete...:typing:

Pete, Very nice! You lucky guy! Want to double your money? Jerry Burney

Hi Jerry,

I will keep this one for a while until a better-conditioned one crosses my path.

If the Owner of HK luger # 5665 does not contact me in this time period, I would be happy to sell you this holster at my cost.

p.s. In Photo # 5, did you notice the stitching appears to be dyed-black before the sewing occurred ? I did ask Mike Krause about this last weekend, and he said this is correct for these unmarked HK holsters.

Regards,

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

Pete,
you came close to being my very best, extremely close friend. I have a 1936 HK with serial number 5635, I got a little excited when you posted 56xx.
Big Norm

Hey Norm,

I would have been delighted if the holster matched up with your HK...it would be on its way to your home right now..!

So close, though...

Regard

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

Hey Pete,

Very nice....

The serialization to the holster is not original - but the LWaA stamp is, as it appears - but, it looks like the incorrect era LWaA (there are several variations). HK did NOT match holsters to serialized P-08s on first issue, so, I doubt the owner of serial # 5665 will be interested however..... In short - if it's not a counterfeit, it's an armour's replacement.

And no - the holsters were NOT serialized to the HK, in spite of "new found data".

Also - as an FYI - if it WERE matched to an HK, it WOULD have a holster manufacturers mark if matched to the year production of the serial number..

Any tool in there?

John D.

Hi John,

Not sure what is meant when you say the LWaA is not of the correct era.

The LWaA2 stamping on my piece appears to be identical to the few photos of other HK holster stampings that appear in the Gibson, Bender, and Still books.

Since there is no date on my holster, how does one date it and how does one know if the LWaA stamping is of the correct time period ?

The price of this piece was only $ 125...so it is not a big issue. The holster looks right to me...but what the heck do I know about HK holsters, as this is only the 2nd. one I had in my hands... :confused:

When I showed Mike Krause the holster a week after I brought it home from my travels, he thought it looked right. He did say he had not seen the placement of the LWaA2 stamping so high and close to the "hinge" of the closure flap on my holster as compared to others he had seen in his career. And he did say the gun-numbering idea is still not yet confirmed by all.

Also, my holster has the use of black-dyed thread. Do you know if this was expressly an HK trademark or was such dyed thread used on other, non-HK holsters ? On many of the black police holsters I have seen, the white thread just appears to have been dyed-over...

p.s. No HK tool in the pouch...but rather a nice Simpson E/6 stamped tool...nice little bonus...

Regards,

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

Pete, I'm, as you know, no expert on any Luger holster. However, I have owned ALOT of old holsters and firearms. And from my own experience with judging patina patterns on such. I would vote that the ser# is original to the holster. I'm baseing this on the wear pattern in the area of the number. I don't believe even the most ardent faker would think to or could dye the impressions made by the numbers.It would be very difficult to do so, and make it look natural. I vote authentic!

Ron
I would also add. Why would anyone go to the trouble and expense of faking a rare holster, only to sell it for $125.00? The HK dye would cost that much to make.

Hey Pete..!

First - let me re-state - it looks like a correct HK holster - BUT, I don't believe it was originally issued with that HK (#5665).....

In short - that serial number places it directly in the 1936 production run - one of the largest runs that HK delivered. During that time, given how the HKs were issued - it's highly doubtful that the holster would be serialized. Later fulfillment years - yes, quite possibly. Most probably not in 1936 or 1937 - and not on the 1936/37 RIGS I've examined.

Second - when/as issued - the holsters were manufacturer marked during that production era. Your's is not marked.

Third - look at the digets - specificially the "6". From the photo - it's looks like a different numeral die set then found on my "1936" holsters/HKs.

Fourth - look at the LWaA2. Maybe it's the picture, but the head and the "2" appear distorted based on what I expected to see. The good news is - that, it's still very well defined as it wasn't placed where it would become burnished by the firearm.

I still think it's an amourers replacement for the original holster...

John D,
the hoster may not have been originally issued with that HK, but somewhere along the way the gun and the hoster were mated. Someplace, for some reason, somebody wanted that particular serial number embossed on that holster. I doubt that it was done at the manufacturer. Maybe at an armourer. But if that serial number matched my HK, I would be thrilled to have it. So close and yet so far.
Big Norm

Guys,

Thanks for the great info. and follow-up...especially your time, John D....!!!

I do know that since the early 60's this one was mated up with a P-38...I think that drove the asking price as well.

I will try to take a better photo of the 4-digit number and the LWaA2 stamping later this weekend as time allows...so you guys can peer a little more closely.

Thanks for all of your help...

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

Hey Norm/Pete...

I'd love to see a close-up of the digets/LWaA while you are shooting those pics..! And yes - I agree with Norm, who agreed with me (funny how that works <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ) about it being an armourers replacement...

Also - I just re-read my first post in this thread - and sorry I was a little terse last night.. While posting, Jen was telling ("yelling"???) for me to get 'off that damned computer'... Ahh - "she who must be obeyed.."...

Best to ya'..!

John

Hey John D.,

No need to apologize for your posting...I was just trying to carry the debate a bit further.

Can you provide some insights as to why you thought the style of my LWaA2 stamp was not correct for the # 5665 gun timeframe of 1936-1937. Does another style of LWaA occurs on as-issued holsters from 1936-1937...if yes, do you have a jpeg you might post to make me a bit smarter ?

One more thing to ruminate about...

The time of the stamping of "5665" may not be the same time the stamping of "LWaA2" occured...

Maybe the HK inspector inspected/accepted a batch of spare, replacement holsters that went into armoury stores at one time and later when issued as a replacement to a lost/damaged holster for gun # 5665, the "5665" stamping was applied...?

Will get more photos up on the Forum this weekend...

Regards,

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

Hi again, John D.,

I had a few more photos left in the camera. Take a look and let me know if you will need any others...I can do on Sunday...

Regards,

Pete...

http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfuploa...mp1a_large.jpg
http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfuploa...amp2_large.jpg
http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfuploa...amp3_large.jpg
http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfuploa...amp4_large.jpg
http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfuploa...amp5_large.jpg
http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfuploa...amp6_large.jpg
http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfuploa...amp7_large.jpg

Hey Pete..!!

Much better pics of the LWaA and the digets! Thanks!!! Notice the difference between the first set and the second? The first set LWaA looks "stretched" or elongated. Not so in the second.. Yep - now that looks original and period correct..

Also - the digets. Again - I'd want to compare the "6" to my holster "6" - but, if my memory isn't going haywire - I'm more convinced it's an armorers stamp. Was it stamped at some point to HK 5665 - I'd bet more then even money on it. However - was it the original (i.e. "the first") holster issued to that HK? Again, my bet would be it's not...

My thanks again for the pics!!!

<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />

Hey John D.,

Thanks again for your thoughtful replies.

I learned a lot about HK original holsters versus re-issued holsters...

Glad I did not waste my several 25 cent coins on this buy...it just looked "right" so I took the gamble...

Here is my WAG on the serial number stamping...the guy who carried luger # 5665 and its holster did so with pride and care. Other HK's folks saw his holster and "borrowed" it one evening, since theirs was pretty ratty.

The # 5665 owner secured an armory replacement and insisted it get serial numbered stamped...so he could prove it was his...if stolen again...

End of fiction...hey...maybe I need to create a bring-back story...anyone have old paper and a typewriter...? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

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

Hey Pete, I'm nearly certain that your Uncle's, Mother's , Cousin's Boyfriend took that holster from a well know German General, while he was passed out in a bar in Paris.
WELL! It could happen....! :)

Ron

Found this info. from our own John D. from last year about the color of HK holsters. Thought I would post it here, in case some folks missed it...

" Also, as to black or brown being "correct" - the answer is "yes", either may be considered as being "correct". In looking at verified "RIGS" (those coming back as a "RIG", where the holster has not been changed or added or "improved"), Perhaps you will notice some interesting characteristics:

G Date - primarily black (only two have been noted as "RIGS" however - so it it an insignificant sample);
S - Early and Mid - primarily black with some "brown".
Late S - Black primarily;
"36" and "1936" - about 75% black and 25% brown;
1937 - about 60% black and 40% brown;
1940 - about 55% black and 45% brown;
1941 - All black with 3 brown exceptions noted;
1942 and later - Primarily Black

It's interesting, that the preponderance of Brown holsters noted are in the highest productions years - which also may coincide with the Luftwaffe procurement from Mauser for their overall Luger allocation - and coincide with Mauser "peak years". (BTW - this information is from my own database - which can NOT be quoted without permission). However, I'll let folks speculate further as to how/when/where verified brown holsters are properly E/2 proofed - but it should lead to some interesting conclusions, comments and questions..!

Best to all..! "