Unmarked Luger
 

I've received an unmarked DWM luger. By unmarked, I mean that only the serial number (front, under barrel and left side of upper frame, and also last 2 on all other parts) is present. There is no date. No markings on barrel, no proof marks of any kind anywhere. The barrel extension (in the area where I expect proof marks) measures about a thousandth wider than one DWM and about the same as another that I measured in a local store. The maching trigger (same last 2) has a small void on the left front edge where the casting/forging did not completely fill. I appears to have all the signs of having been constructed in haste. Remaining blue is about 85% and straw is reasonable. There is slight rust mixed with the blue, primarily on the bolt, toggle and area around the breech and pn the back strap. It shows wear consistant with holstering. The pistol, in general, has a good bore, crisp rifling and is consistant with regular use with good maintence.

What the heck is it?

Bob,

We need photos. If you need help posting? Send them to me at amelson@comcast.net I'll be happy to post them for you.

BTW, I like your signature phrase.

Ron

I can't wait to see the photos...

It sounds like it may be a "lunch box special" that got constructed and never officially left the factory during the transition from DWM to Mauser in the 1930's... but who knows. Lets see what the photos show.

I would go with lunch box special. So called "sneaks" were proofed.

Sorry Ron, I was rephrasing so took my reply out, but you were too quick ;).

It sounds interesting. Besides the above, it sounds like a "sneak" (of which I hate the term, as it is not a snake), in the late 1920's (1929, perhaps into the early 1930's) DWM made lugers which did not receive any marking on the toggle or date; mainly for the police, but I am sure some army received them.

Also, if it was marked "commercially" it would only have a proof of crown N on the left? But then there should be one on the toggle too.

Perhaps an armorers put together or GI "PX" gun after the war?

Ed

Operation...
 

I took this pistol to the range with the following results...

Winchester 115gr white box ammunition. It's all I had in my safe - usually feed to one of my H&K's.

1. First (and any manually chambered round always fired flawlessly.
2. Second round chamberd about 50% of the time and fired fine.
3. Second round failed to chamber about 40% of the time.
4. Second round jammed about 10% of the time with case showing that the bolt captured the round at the casing's groove.
5. Extraction and ejection worked fine for 48 out of 50 rounds. Two rounds extracted but failed to eject leaving the spent cartrige vertical, caught between the bolt and the breech.
6. The bolt failed to lock back after the last cartrige every time.

Thanks to a little fingernail polish supplied by a woman next to me at the range, I was able to determine that the bolt was not being driven far enough back to insure properation.

I need a different main spring or more energy imparted to the bolt from the round.

When the become available, I'l try a heavier round.

Photos...
 

Links to photos...

Large!

http://bob.blakely.com/RCB30460.JPG
http://bob.blakely.com/RCB30461.JPG
http://bob.blakely.com/RCB30462.JPG
http://bob.blakely.com/RCB30463.JPG

Bob, couple of things;

1. Please post photos here on the forum.
2. How many magazines did you try? This sounds like a magazine problem to me....
3. A new spring set wouldn't hurt, but its really a myth that the luger needs more oomph....
4. I have used 115 grain lots of times, although 124 is about the gov't weight back then...

I know nothing of your reference to "myth". Failure to fully cycle was verified. The fingernail polish verified this by marking maximum bolt travel.

okay, sorry. Many folks think the luger requires more oomph, rather this be more powder, heavier bullet etc.

I was trying to help, if it didn't then thats okay too....

Bob,

IMHO, the date stamp on the receiver ring, and proof/inspection marks on the right forward part of the receiver have been removed from this DWM Luger. I don't think it is "unmarked" or a "sneak"... just modified, possibly to disguise it's origin, and likely a long time ago from the condition of the finish...

Without a date, it would be pretty hard to identify its actual time of manufacture.

Why do I think this?

In the first photo, there is a finish change from point B to point A that includes swirl marks from a sanding operation. The color of the finish distinctly changes (at least in the photo from "blue" to more of a "gray" color, and then potentially cold or rust blued to mask the changes... but as you can see the color doesn't match uniformly to the rest of the upper receiver.

The lines of the forward bevels on the receiver ring have been softened, rather than show the same sharpness of the other manufacturing lines on the gun.

It appears that the receiver ring notch (indicated by my crude arrow drawn in Microsoft Paint), that would be present for use in an artillery luger barrel configuration has been partially removed. It appears also that the very top of the barrel flange may have been touched during the sanding operation.

In the second photo, the front profile of the receiver is dramatically non-symetrical because the sanding was done by an lesser experienced mechanic... On the right side of the photo you can distinctly see the beveling of the lines on the ring, but on the left there is virtually no beveling apparent from the front.

This gun MAY have left the factory in a lunchbox, but IMHO it originally had a date stamp and proof marks. It is numbered in the military style.

I hope my narrative has been helpful... Unfortunately, I only have crude image editing available to me at the present time because of my location.

Comments are invited on my long distance half baked forensic photo analysis....:eek:

John, your analysis looks good to me. This forum and the member's comments are an exceptional learning experience for me in the world of Lugers.

Charlie

Just years of very careful examination of Lugers makes that possible Charlie...brought about by a love for the engineering marvel, and history of this magnificent design.

Sharing what we have each learned in our lives about this hobby is what this forum is all about. I have been looking at them since I was 10 years old.

I no longer collect Lugers (or any guns for that matter... I have all I really NEED, and that includes only 2 Lugers), but for the past 10 years I have been collecting good quality photographs of Lugers from the internet, and it has taught me a great deal, just like all the things my fellow colleagues and Luger enthusiasts here have taught me.

I probably have several hundred (maybe thousands) of photos of Lugers and Luger parts that I captured from ebay when they still allowed gun part sales...

I believe you're correct, especially as this is what I suspected - and especially since I paid very, very little for this piece. It was one of those, "How can you possibly go wrong as long as it shoots." prices." FYI, I believe the coloring is essentially even and variations you see are from angle of the primary light source incident to the subject. Also, the beveling you mention is actually quite even to the eye. What you see as beveling on one sude and not (or less) on the other is also a trick of poor lighting for this purpose, in as much as the primary lighting comes from photo right and glares photo right.

Next time I photograph something like this, I'll do it in a proper light box.

Some machining marks I believe are original in as much as I've seen them many times before on other machined items. At the rear you will see sharply defined circular marks in the surface. I used see these on machined surfaces that were not completely buffed out. They were from the milling process and the fine sharp circle show you the size of the milling bit.

I once saw a presumed (or alleged) lunch box special that was in the white and had absolutely no markings of any kind. It appeared to be a DWM. Being pre-1934 made it legal in the US sans serial number.