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

John D. · 11-19-2001, 04:35 PM

Hi Bill...!!

Bill writes "..Still's book reflects Gibson's information, as it was just more correct and more current..."

Actually - I did notice something in Still's book this weekend, which I haven't had a chance to pursue. Maybe you noticed this as well....??

In Still's production chart for Krieg's, for example, it appears that he has different (updated?) reported serial number's for the various years. The year that caught my eye specifically was the "1938" production date (a total of 50 HKs produced). Gibson has 17 reported serial numbers - but Still is showing 19 (I think it is 19 - I don't have Still's book at the office - but it was a few more then Gibson..).

Anyway - it reinforces your point as to the evolution of information - but also raises the question of where this "new" information is coming from and where it is being collected or how it is disseminated?

As to the 1935 or 1936 manufacture of HK "S" codes, I couldn't agree more that Gibson's work is *much* more extensive and up-to-date on the HK variation. That being said - there is something that has always gnawed at me about the "S" code dates all together. Let me explain - and I'd really value your (or anyoneâ??s!!) insight/comments...

It was in 1935 that the government did away with the need to conceal the dates of manufacture altogether, as began their period of open re-armament. I'm not sure if this was by decree or how that "order" was handed down (which may shed some light on this discussion) - but it strikes me as peculiar that Krieghoff - given that nature of their position as military contractor - would *not* be in a position to independently/arbitrarily mark an "S" rather then the year chamber date in compliance (especially as it was in 1935 that this government policy changed (the year before the 1936 production date â??Sâ? code.)).

To further confuse the issue - since the "36" was an intermediate marking phase, it seems apparent that HK was trying to comply with the digit series chamber markings. However, why would they even bother with the "36" rather then keep the "S" until the full 4-digit dies were available â?? if indeed, both variations were produced in 1936 (â??Sâ? and â??36â?)?

One of the theoretical answers could be that the "S" chambers were struck in 1935 (before the decree and in anticipation that letter chamber markings would continue to be used the following year). Given the high degree of interchangeability of HK pistols - it is not out of the question that the final assembly did occur early in 1936, but from these parts manufactured/struck in 1935. (This would be somewhat counter to how Gibson portrays the overall production and serialization of HK Lugers, I believe!).

Itâ??s questions/anomalies like this very subject that I find fascinating about HKâ??s!!!!

Jeez â?? I wish they used â??born on datingâ? back then I really do appreciate your thoughts and comments on this..!!

11-19-2001, 04:35 PM	#18
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: Information Hi Bill...!! Bill writes "..Still's book reflects Gibson's information, as it was just more correct and more current..." Actually - I did notice something in Still's book this weekend, which I haven't had a chance to pursue. Maybe you noticed this as well....?? In Still's production chart for Krieg's, for example, it appears that he has different (updated?) reported serial number's for the various years. The year that caught my eye specifically was the "1938" production date (a total of 50 HKs produced). Gibson has 17 reported serial numbers - but Still is showing 19 (I think it is 19 - I don't have Still's book at the office - but it was a few more then Gibson..). Anyway - it reinforces your point as to the evolution of information - but also raises the question of where this "new" information is coming from and where it is being collected or how it is disseminated? As to the 1935 or 1936 manufacture of HK "S" codes, I couldn't agree more that Gibson's work is much more extensive and up-to-date on the HK variation. That being said - there is something that has always gnawed at me about the "S" code dates all together. Let me explain - and I'd really value your (or anyoneâ??s!!) insight/comments... It was in 1935 that the government did away with the need to conceal the dates of manufacture altogether, as began their period of open re-armament. I'm not sure if this was by decree or how that "order" was handed down (which may shed some light on this discussion) - but it strikes me as peculiar that Krieghoff - given that nature of their position as military contractor - would not be in a position to independently/arbitrarily mark an "S" rather then the year chamber date in compliance (especially as it was in 1935 that this government policy changed (the year before the 1936 production date â??Sâ? code.)). To further confuse the issue - since the "36" was an intermediate marking phase, it seems apparent that HK was trying to comply with the digit series chamber markings. However, why would they even bother with the "36" rather then keep the "S" until the full 4-digit dies were available â?? if indeed, both variations were produced in 1936 (â??Sâ? and â??36â?)? One of the theoretical answers could be that the "S" chambers were struck in 1935 (before the decree and in anticipation that letter chamber markings would continue to be used the following year). Given the high degree of interchangeability of HK pistols - it is not out of the question that the final assembly did occur early in 1936, but from these parts manufactured/struck in 1935. (This would be somewhat counter to how Gibson portrays the overall production and serialization of HK Lugers, I believe!). Itâ??s questions/anomalies like this very subject that I find fascinating about HKâ??s!!!! Jeez â?? I wish they used â??born on datingâ? back then I really do appreciate your thoughts and comments on this..!!