Newly acquired 1916 DWM
 

Hi,

Just picked this 1916 DWM up last week.

It's fairly worn (grip straps, top of receiver and especially the trigger plate). The barrel looks less work.

The halos on the s/n stampings are not particularly prominent, but visible. The muzzle is in the white and looks aged. Does this barrel look refinished?

http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/a...6/_DSC2612.jpg

Grip wear:

http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/a...6/_DSC2595.jpg

Hi Marc, I don't see a bore gauge number below the serial on the barrel. Is it just the photo? Regards, Norm

Also, the perfectly straight wear line on the front grip strap looks odd. Usually the bluing fades out or is mottled from wear, it does not abruptly end. It looks like somebody tried to remove rust or something and ended up stripping the front strap clean below this line.

Hi Marc -

I acquired an all matching 1914 Erfurt LP-08 that was known to have been refinished. The serial numbers were still intact but the the bore gauge was almost obliterated. (This makes me wonder if these bore gauge stamps were generally more lightly struck than the other numbers.)

Anyway, as Norme has pointed out, I can not see the bore gauge either.

On the top left of the "4" and the top of the suffix "a" you can see where the metal was pushed outward from the strike of the punches. But in my opinion, you ought to be seeing brighter metal (i.e. "halo") at these points.

The closest thing to a genuine halo might be on the first number "2" although it is hard to see because of the camera angle too.

Now if you look at the amount of wear on the right side of the receiver rail, and compare that to the amount of wear showing on the right side of the muzzle, there does seem to be quite a difference. (at least in the picture) You would expect to see more wear to the finish at the muzzle.

So I think the finish on the barrel is suspect, and in my opinion, I do think it has been refinished somehow at some point.

But it is still a nice looking Luger.

There's still faint evidence of a halo. If it had been re-finished, I doubt that this would still be there. The numbers still retain the cratering on the edges.

The grip strap appears to have had a unit mark scrubbed. And the grip strap has been neatly polished on a wheel, accounting for the abrupt, crisp edge in the wear.

The bore gauge is barely visible and out of focus on the barrel flange.

Ron

Hi,

The Bore gauge is present. Here's a better picture:

http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/a...6/_DSC2593.jpg

The grip strap doesn't appear re-shaped or ground to the point of removing a unit mark. It has a uniform radius... The wear pattern is suspect though... I suppose it could have been an improperly fitted holster that rubbed things away. In any case it's very uniform wear...

There is wear on the side of the barrel, but most of the barrel is very uniform; and much more so than the frame or receiver...

http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/a...6/_DSC2604.jpg

http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/a...6/_DSC2578.jpg

Thank you for your thoughts on this one... I paid in the high "shooter" price level for it given the wear and possible re-finish. It's pretty snug mechanically and the bore is nice clean and sharp and everything matches including the grips.

Now to speculate about the action it must have seen through two wars...

If this was a Simson rework, would there be any markings to indicate that?

Also, there is a mark "N 2" on the front of the sight base. What would these mean? Are they inspection marks?

http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/a...6/_DSC2598.jpg

Thanks again!!! Marc

Hi Marc, After seeing your new photos, I would have to say that your barrel is original and unrefinished. I can't explain the unusual wear pattern on the front grip strap. What does the rear one look like? If it's holster wear, as you suggest, it would have to be a non standard holster. Regards, Norm

There is much less wear on the rear grip strap, and it's more normal in nature. I'll post a pic when I get home later tonight.

Norme, I was also thinking non-standard holster was a possibility.

In any case, I'll be just enjoying this Luger with "character"... I just don't want to mis-represent it when/if the day somes that I'll sell it...

Marc

Marc
I can't see anything in your pictures that would suggest a refinish job. Halos are a good indicator but they vary a lot from luger to luger. Look at some of them in Jan's new book. Enjoy! Bill

I have two other rust blued Lugers. One a 1917 DWM LP-08 and the other a 1923 Alphabet Commercial. The halos are much more pronounced on those pistols.

Any thoughts on the "N" "2" mark on the front of the site base? Inspector marks?

Marc

Hi Marc, I'm posting a photo of the halos on my 1916 DWM; they're not much different from yours. The marks on the front sight base may mean that the blade was changed by a unit armorer, to adjust point of impact. Many P38s have numbered sight blades. Regards, Norm

Thanks Norm,

It does look quite similar. That's reassuring...

Also, thanks for the insight on the sight base.

There are so many characteristics and variations in Lugers. It makes them particularly intesting. There is always something to learn about them.

The deep level of research and understanding on Lugers makes them very special in history.

Marc

Norme -

Showing your 1916's halo (bottom photo) compared to Marc's example (top photo) is helpful.

Thank you.