Your thoughts...
 

I realize it's been refinished and the numbers don't match. What I'd like to know is, do you think someone just threw this together or was it a spare parts factory gun? Notice the un-numbered barrel, witness marked to the Navy marked barrel extention.
The s/n on the frame is 329.

A few more.

Hi Tim, Welcome to the forum! Your first supposition is correct, someone assembled this gun from parts, it never left the factory this way. Your photos are not the clearest, but as far as I can tell the frame is from a 1917 Navy (a short frame gun) and the receiver is from a long frame Navy, most likely a 1908. Many of the smaller parts are from yet other guns, and the 6" barrel is a non-Navy replacement.
Regards, Norm

Thanks for the welcome Norm.
Recently, I read an article about unnumbered parts and witness marked barrels that opened up the (slim) possibility this gun may be correct. I'll see if I can find it again. Anyway... I don't have a lot invested in this piece, so I'm ok with whatever it is. Has this gun been around?
It looks to me by the witness mark, it's most likely the only barrel that has ever been in this Navy proofed extension.

Hi Tim,

I've never seen a Luger assembled with a short frame and a long receiver. This didn't leave the factory or any knowledgeable gunsmith that way.

So, to answer your question clearly, this cannot be a correct configuration.

I'm curious about whether it will function? Is it a safe combination? What is the position of the trigger lever to the dis-connector plunger on the sear bar? Is the take down lever in correct position relative to the receiver?

Marc

Hi Tim, Navy Luger #329 is previously unrecorded. I caution you not to deduce too much from "witness marks". They are not a witness to anything. On Imperial Navy Lugers they were marks that were applied separately to the receiver and barrel, and were used as an aid to accurate alignment.
Regards, Norm

Marc,
Worn or broken parts consideration aside, it is not an unsafe combination. The difference in frame and receiver lengths are all forward of the take-down bolt, so everything from there back is the same for all Lugers (possibly with very minor manufacturing differences from various makers). There is a slight difference between the M1900 trigger, sideplate and transfer lever and later models so that can cause function problems, and since there was some degree of hand fitting in Luger assembly it someimes is difficult to make a "parts gun" function. But none of that is due to the difference between a "long" or "short" frame/receiver.

It was a mark apllied (by factory workers) after the barrel was fitted and used to realign the barrel and receiver after finish machine work was done.
With that in mind, I'm thinking that's as far as this peice went in the assembly line (no s/n or proof) and was thrown in the parts bin for later use.

Question; I'm curious, why did you state this was not a Navy barrel? If my previous statement is correct. Why would a factory worker mate a Navy receiver to a non-Navy barrel?

I don't mean any disrespect and I know I could never prove this gun was a factory put together, but I'm here to reseach the possibility.

Hi Tim,
The register marks on Navy barrels and receivers were applied separately, as close examination of many guns has revealed. The fact that a gun has register marks that appear to be the result of a single strike proves nothing.
Just because a barrel is 6" long does not make it a Navy barrel. You will note in the photo of a typical Navy barrel assembly, that while the serial number shows halos, indicating that it was stamped after bluing, the Crown/M Navy inspection mark does not, showing that it was applied before finishing. No Navy barrel left the barrel shop without passing inspection, those that failed were scrapped.
Regards, Norm

After more research and a closer detailed look at this piece, it appears that whoever did refinishing did a decent job overall, but removed to much from the top of the receiver and the taper of the barrel. If they welded the s/n and proof. They did one hell of a job filing and finishing. Which brings me back to the original discussion. I'm convinced the witness mark proves this is the original matching Navy barrel to the this receiver. You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. Read the second sentence beneath the sub-title "Conclusions and more questions"
http://www.lugerforum.com/WitnessMarkConclusions.htm

As far as the thought this was assembled be DWM or any other company. That's in the past.

Tim,

With all the respect, I think that Luger it's a bit of a "frankenstein" unless it belongs to your family, i.e. unless it reminds you of somebody, I would't really see the point of having it, as it's not a collectible, and, I might be wrong, but I would not put my hand in the fire that it's completely safe to fire it.
IMHO,

There is no reason on earth that anybody would need to remove this much material from a factory barrel collar. The barrel would have to have been horribly pitted, which would show on the overall barrel assembly. We all have had bouts of wishful thinking while Luger collecting, but I have to agree with those that state that this is NOT a factory gun nor is the barrel a factory Navy offering.

Thanks for your thoughts guys. I don't have much invested, so I don't feel bad about the acquisition. I figure I could part it out, if need be, and almost double my money.

Norm, I apologize if I got your blood pressure up.
Question: Is #329 a valid s/n for the 1917 Navy?

Hi Tim, I have of course read Dwight Gruber's article on witness marks and I repeat what I said earlier, they were marks that were applied separately to barrel and receiver as an aid to assembly. If they line up perfectly so they appear to have been struck with one blow from a single instrument (as Dwight defines it), it's by chance. I specialize in Imperial Navy Lugers, and have examined several dozen first hand, the only perfect "witness mark" I've seen was on a known fake! See photo below.
You asked for our thoughts, I gave you mine. You are, of course, free to believe what you like.
Norm

Norm, I think we are interpreting this article differently. I'm just going to leave it at that.

Did you read my previous post? #13