K date rig, all matching
 

For all you K date fans........ You can add this this to your serial numbers data. An as issued, original period K date, with 2 original, period numbered mags, it's original period matching holster, and original period proofed tool. It has approx 97/98% period blue and straw with a mint bore. It came into a Texas show here with a like conditioned 1940 Krieghoff from a vet's son. Don't give up, as they are still out there ! As with the Krieghoff, I'll be glad to send any detailed scan you need.

Blessings....... Myky

Just WOW!!

Thanks bud ! The LORD has been good to me........... ( for whatever reason )

God bless......... Myky

Hi Mike, I don't wish to alarm you, but I have serious concerns with the tool, which looks Norwegian. Could you post close-ups of the front sight band, the receiver indents, if present, and the rear frame ears? Thanks, Norm

Hi Norm....... thanks for the reply guy. The tool has the umlaut O and 37 in the bar like the
1st issue Lugers. It is the same as the proof on the RH recievers of the early Lugers and with the scriptic S. And I'll get you the scans shortly.........

God bless......... Mike

Hi Mike, What concerns me about the tool are the curved machining marks on the blade tip. They are a distinctive feature of Norwegian made tools (see below). I'm not a K date specialist, Spartacus38 is, hopefully he will weigh in soon. Regards, Norm

That's a looker!!!

K date data
 

Ok...... here's the scans. I've also added Still's data on the K dates to be helpful. As you can see in the frame comparison, the K date rear frame ears are thicker. And, can you send me a scan of what a Norwegian tool looks like ?

Blessings........ Mike

Hi Mike, The questionable tool leads me to take a closer look at the gun itself. As I said earlier, K dates are not my bag, but I do know that all of them should have sharp edged front sight bands, that those with low serials like #1080 should have the Mauser hump, and that most of them should have receiver indents. Attached below is a link to a lengthy study of K dates on the other forum. Your pictures aren't clear enough for me to tell if the front sight band is sharp edged, or if the receiver has indents, but the frame certainly doesn't have the Mauser hump. Regards, Norm

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...e-DATA-REQUEST

Hi Mike, I've just read your 1940 Krieghoff thread, and it occurs to me that the "vet's son" might have sold you a questionable Krieghoff too, and that we should examine that rig more closely. Perhaps we could start with a better lit photo of the tool. Regards, Norm

Norm....... regarding the Krieghoff.......... Jan Still has sent an approval on that thread..... that's good enough for me. And if you'll read his data on the K date, he states NOT ALL the early K's had the hump. And the barrel band has a sharp edge. Leon DeSpain, a noted authority on Lugers, also examined both Lugers this past weekend. I'll stick with his descriptions and opinions. And, can you tell me where the info on this Norwegian tool came from ? Never heard of that in my 54 years of collecting Lugers, it's a new one on me.......... I'm not going to get drawn into any forum arguments as there are too many out there who are experts, yet never held that particular item, only going on what somebody else tells him. What Still says and has printed is good enough for me, as he has seen more Lugers than 99% of the people on the forum. I only posted these 2 Lugers as to serial number data and wether someone else has different opinions is fine with me.......

Regards...... Mike

Hi Mike, I've only been collecting for 49 years, so I guess I'm something of a newbie. However, Norwegian tools have been discussed several times on Jan Still's forum and I have posted a link to one such thread. Despite my relative inexperience, I have found that once there is one fake item in a lot (or a rig) there are almost always others. Regards, Norm

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...rk-Kreigs-Tool

myky
Pictures of the Norwegian tools can be found on pages 633 & 636 of The Mauser Parabellum 1930 - 1946.
Page 609 states the O37 tool should also have the DWM shape with the .. (umlaut) accent markes above the squashed O. The early B90 tools have the same DWM shape also.
Ed

Mike, I think it might help clear the air if you were to give the provenence of this rare find.

Mike
K date sn 1056 (very close to your sn 1080 shown above) is shown on pages 19 and 20 of Third Reich Lugers. There are some differences with your sn 1080.

I cannot see the hump at the rear of the frame. Does 1080 have indents at the front of the frame? Cannot tell from the photographs if the the rear of the front sight has a sharp barrel band.
Jan

Myky,
your tool is Norwegian. All ö/37 tools have the older Weimar shape and your tool has already the Mauser shape.
On the fist picture are typical blades of tools which were postwar made in Norway and on the second some early Mauser tools with Weimar shapes.

I find it interesting that the machining marks on the tip of the tool showed it to be fake. This led to closer examination of the gun, which now also appears to be fake, and now also calls into question the 1940 Krieghoff rig from the same source. As the old saying goes, "the Devil's in the details". Regards, Norm

Two of the most complicated Lugers there are..K date and Krieghoff.

Hi All,

I'm sorry my name was brought into this discussion. I no longer collect Mauser Lugers and haven't for several years. I have concentrated on P.38s for some time. I have never collected Kreighoffs. I did look at both pistols in question but not an in depth examination because they weren't for sale and I wasn't interested in buying them anyway. Nothing on the K date jumped out at me as being wrong but I have only owned 2 K dates and neither of those were rigs with matching mags. I have seen very few in my collecting years and have never studied them in depth because they are somewhat rare and I wasn't going to be collecting them, as such. I am a novice with Krieghoffs, at best, and only have Gibson's book to use as a reference, certainly not my experience.

I have a decent basic knowledge of Third Reich Lugers left over from my collecting days but I don't consider myself a Luger expert (far from it) and certainly am not a Kreighoff expert.

I hope this clears this situation up where I am concerned.

Regards, Leon

Gentlemen,

I have no strong opinions about the authenticity of the guns in question. However, as a Norwegian collector of Lugers I am curious about the Norwegian tools which I never have heard about. Is the production of these a documented fact?

Some years ago we had a discussion on this forum about Norwegian-made Luger parts. I contacted the curator at the museum of Kongsberg Våpenfabrikk (state arsenal) who also worked at the factory for many years after the war. According to him, the only Luger parts made there were barrels. I have seen several other parts with the Kongsberg logo, but these were German-made spare parts.

Now, whether he would consider the tool as a "part" I do not know, but I am pretty sure he would have mentioned it anyway if in fact they did make them. Sadly, he is not around anymore.

Balder