G Date without Mauser Hump
 

Bill Munis once said, he never saw a G Date with a hump, or something to that effect. That got me looking at pictures of every G date I felt was an original weapon. Well, I got started on one today that was stored poorly with moderate pitting all over one side and barrel and light pitting other places. This one too has NO Mauser Hump. I personally like the heavier straight humpless frame but the hump does make them look Mauserish! I think Bill is right! <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

Ted, I checked both of my G dates and niether one has the Mauser hump. As a matter of fact I also looked at a 1936 & 1937 S/42, they are also humpless. I really don't understand that the K dates can have humps, but later year guns do not?

My K date is humpless and so is the one I am doing for Frank. I think the Ks were an off again, on again experiment with the procedure and they finally decided to put it in place in the 1937/1938 time frame. I never had understood why they milled all that metal off the extended frames, why not just leave them a bit thicker?
Oh well, that is history and it is interesting!
The other thing about the Ks is those set back front sights? Even those were not consistent.
There was a thread on the Jan Still forum that had pictures of several variations of front sight setback blocks. They must have done a bunch of playing around getting all the machinery up to speed in 1934! I have seen humps on some K dates that have come through my shop.

Thor,

You made me check some old pictures, G date #4411 (which I no longer own) does not have a hump.

For that matter neither does my 1936 S/42, but my byf 41 and 42 both have it. Go figure.

--Dwight

This is a Subvariation 1 in the "d" block. 45xxd. Marked with Eagle over 211 and the S|92 acceptance stamps with the normal Army test proof.