Witness Marks--Evidence in Plain Sight
 

For my recreational reading lately I have been paging through John Walters's "The Luger Story". I ran across an astonishing reference to witness marks on page 137 (although he doesn't use the term). It sent me running to G�¶rtz & Bryans and the 1910 P-08 marking instructions.

A quotation from the instructions (G&B, p.111):

"Pistol, finished as follows:
26a Pistol ready for power-proof and shooting in:
...
-Barrel and front sight: after sight adjustment, a chisel mark, 3 to 4mm high, of equal length on both parts.
-Barrel and receiver: after sight adjustment, a chisel mark, 3 to 4mm high, of equal length on both parts."

The illustration which accompanies the instructions show this very clearly (but very small) as the "witness marks".

I don't know how I could have missed it. This throws the entire discussion into a cocked hat. I have been preparing my conclusions, but I obviously need to seriously re-think some things.

--Dwight

Good work, Dwight.
Thank you for your efforts.

Luke

Dwight,
You should have been a detective.

Hi Dwight..!

Excellent research. More then excellent pursuit of information for your research..!!!

Great job! Of course - now I'll have to rethink why the majority of Krieghoff manufactured Lugers do not bear a witness mark.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Outstanding job - and please keep us posted (or ask questions about what we may see in our collections)..!

The process documented by Gortz & Bryans was dated 1910. At that time it would have been used by DWM only, and it seems likely that it would have been followed for early military DWM Lugers. One would suspect that later Erfurts were also subject to the same process specification.

This was apparently a military specification and was likely imposed on DWM by the German Army as a contract condition. Having worked in the defense electronics industry where equipment was built to military specifications, my experience was that we followed the mil specs to the letter. Failure to do so risked loss of contract and possible legal action.

At any rate, it is reasonable to assume that Lugers made in the heat of late WW-I, Weimar DWM units, and finally Mausers may not have been built to the same process specification. Mil specs are subject to change today, and one would suspect that they may have been changed during the life of the Luger production.

Luke,

I'm going to turn your skein of logic around a bit. Also, let me preface what follows with "As I understand..."

The Instructions are not so much to be "used" by DWM...they are the process...the recipe... by which the P-08 is to be -properly- manufactured for the German army by whomever might have a contract. Erfurt was indeed subject to the Instructions. As was Simson in their turn, and Mauser. There is, in fact, no evidence that, throughout the life of the P-08 in Germany (someone else will have to tell us about Switzerland), the instructions (as amended through 1914) were thereafter changed in any way.

The linchpin of our hobby is, in fact, dependant on the presumption that these instructions were followed with sufficient reliability that we can make identifications and assessments on that basis. The recognized deviation which somehow permitted DWM (and Mauser) to not inspector-stamp each part, where Erfurt and Simson scrupulously followed regulations, is at least consistent. That all these manufacturers applied barrel-receiver marks implies, at least, that army inspectors consistently required their application before the pistol could be power-proofed.

...and John,

Krieghoff was contracted to produce Lugers by the Luftwaffe, not the army. As DWM was forgiven the requirement to stamp parts, might Luftwaffe inspectors, on their own, have allowed Krieghoff to abandon the barrel-receiver mark?

--Dwight

Dwight,

Probably I rambled on too far with this line of logic. My central point was that early, military DWM Lugers were more likely to have been built with strict adherence to this specification than those built in later years by other manufacturers.

Luke

Hi,

This documentations does however leave one question unanswered:

Why are there so many discrepancies between barrel and receiver witness marks?

An attempt to collect some explanations that were provided in several threads:

1. Slight alignment difference, but same mark:
Possibilities:
-Slight warping of barrel.
-Barrel was removed and refitted.

2. Witness marks on barrel and receiver differ:
Possibilities:
-Replaced barrel.
-Replaced receiver.

3. No witness mark on barrel and receiver:
Possibilities:
-Produced that way (?)

4. No witness mark on one, but witness mark on other.
Possibilities:
-Replaced barrel.
-Replaced receiver.

Whereby replacement of receiver is quite unlikely, because the barrels tend to wear out quicker.

Possible end conclusion: Rebarreling was done more often than we tend to consider.

G.v V -

Under category 1 above, I wonder if the torque applied to the barrel by the bullet's drive through the rifling could account for some of the cases where the mark was clearly made by one tool but is slightly offset.

Depending upon how firmly the barrel was screwed into the receiver, it seems possible that over the course of many rounds the barrel might rotate slightly in the receiver.

Gerben,

A very succinct and clear understanding of the situation. Interestingly, your conclusion matches a comment made by someone months ago which stuck in my mind ever since, and which was ultimately the genesis for this inquirey. (I wish I could find that comment, haven't been able to track it down since.)

--Dwight

Dwight,
May this have been the thread of which you were thinking?

http://forums.lugerforum.com/lugerfo...;f=14;t=000076

Wes,

Thanks for that, but no, it really was months ago, someone made a comment-in-passing that Luger barrels had been "messed with" more than we might believe, or be happy about. Thats to the best of my memory. I have searched on [messed with] and have come up dry, at least for my own needs.

It could have been long enough ago to be in the old board, haven't searched that yet.

--Dwight

Dwight.

I was so, so, so perfectly happy with my 1938 S/42 with all matching numbers and two original matching mags. An Honest gun. Honest wear. UNmessed with. I lived in blissful ignorance of this one telltale sign... I now console myself with the belief that it may not be right, but at least its correct. My guilt for shooting it is gone.

Glen