Klaus: every part has its 2digit s/n-stamp...the sideplate has also (additional to its military stamp) a "24"-stamp on its underside, were the commercial were stamped...the barrel is stamped with the hole s/n "87424" and the diameter "8,84"â?¦at top no crown/n stamp to find
Klaus,
Thanks for the information about the absence of c/N, and the serial number placement and your comment about the serial number size discrepancy. This all suggests to me that the gun was indeed a commercial Luger, and that the serial number is indeed originally 87424. Upon completion it apparently was taken from the normal commercial production chain (it would have been sent to the state proof house for commercial c/N proofing), and instead sent to the Waffen Amt (Weapons Office) for inspection and acceptance. Since the WaA was responsible for accepting guns for both the army and the police, the WaA stamps alone cannot reveal this gunâ??s ultimate destination.
Don: Would you agree that the date stamped on the chamber indicates that this part probably was originally intended to fulfill a military/police contract?
Don,
Iâ??d like to know more about the actual contract and supply conditions in 1920-1921 before I came to such a specific conclusion.
I have been thinking a lot about the 1920-1921 chamber dated commercials in the context of commercial Luger production, and it has led me to speculative questions in a different direction.
We know from anecdotal comments attributed to August Weiss that DWM used up everything in production of Lugers. We see evidence that this included scavenging of contract parts for inclusion in commercial pistols, by the Swiss cross and circle-B Brazilian barrels which show up on commercial guns. Conventional wisdom has it that rejected military contract parts were used in commercial production, and indeed the existence of a commercial Luger with a large-flange Navy toggle pin, and several guns with faulty slide guides, would seem to confirm this (I have speculated elsewhere that wartime commercial production was based entirely on rejected military parts).
1920 and 1921 dated commercial Lugers appear sporadically between sn 83970 and sn 7307 i. Although many of these dated pistols have police and Reichswehr characteristics, most do not (a striking number of 1921 dates are found on Krieghoff back-frame marked pistols). There are no later dates on any DWM-manufactured Lugers, military or commercial. I am forced to wonder if these dated receivers were actually removed from the 1920-1921 military production batches, due either to overrun or inspection failure, and included in commercial assembly? This would make these gunsâ?? return to WaA acceptance completely coincidental and the circumstances of their shipment unknown.
Ed: And these were made in direct contravention of the Treaty of Versailles. By the treaty (and interpretation by the IIMK), the only manufacturer of P08's was Simson; so P08s were specifically made for commericial and police contracts, even if that is not where they "ended" up. Especially in 1920 and 1921, the german gov't was too weak and too poor to re-arm without it being obvious. Over the next 5-7 years they made guns more openingly for the military, but in 1921, I do not believe they were made for the military AND sent there.
Ed,
If I remember correctly the IMKK production contract assignment to Simson was let in 1922, which is why there is 1920 and 1921 DWM WaA production, but none later. Also iirc, Simsonâ??s contract was for both Reichswehr and police production. DWMâ??s loophole was that they were still permitted to perform military pistol rework conversion (Gibson, canâ??t find the citation right now).
My recent reading suggests that the conventional wisdom concerning the relative postwar poverty of German industry (particularly the arms industry) and the covert nature of rearmament is not representative of the true circumstances.
--Dwight
|