LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post - Slow Day.... <img BORDER="0" src='http://boards.rennlist.com/luger/pic.gif'>

John D. · 11-19-2001, 09:31 AM

I should have stated "beginning of the 1936 production series" rather then year. My apologies.

Second - I think you'll find that the recorded Serial Range of the "G" date was 100 - but I also believe that Gibson estimates a total production of 50 G dated Lugers for 1935 year production not 100 actual Lugers. However, to clarify your point - the G date is *not* used in the same year as the "S" series nor the "36" or "1936" ("G" dates are not used within 1936 production year).

Kenyon states that HK switched to chamber dating rather then chamber codes at approximetly the same time as other manufacturers (who also had G and S series (and K series for non HK Lugers). Therefore overlaps in chamber marking (from a "code" to a diget) during the same year would be expected and certainly not uncommon.

HTH..!

11-19-2001, 09:31 AM	#12
John D. Administrator & Site Owner LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Little NE of Somewhere... Posts: 2,651 Thanks: 478 Thanked 517 Times in 129 Posts	Re: S code KHs I should have stated "beginning of the 1936 production series" rather then year. My apologies. Second - I think you'll find that the recorded Serial Range of the "G" date was 100 - but I also believe that Gibson estimates a total production of 50 G dated Lugers for 1935 year production not 100 actual Lugers. However, to clarify your point - the G date is not used in the same year as the "S" series nor the "36" or "1936" ("G" dates are not used within 1936 production year). Kenyon states that HK switched to chamber dating rather then chamber codes at approximetly the same time as other manufacturers (who also had G and S series (and K series for non HK Lugers). Therefore overlaps in chamber marking (from a "code" to a diget) during the same year would be expected and certainly not uncommon. HTH..!