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

John D. · 11-19-2001, 07:59 PM

Hi Bill...!

This sure is a fascinating thread (well, at least to you and me ..!!

Bill wrote: "...What and how did Mauser come up with the K for 1934 and the G for 1935? What and how did Krieghoff come up with the G and S to represent supposedly 1935-1936?"...

That comment of yours got me thinking about a few things - so I started out with a clean piece of paper, and scratched out what we think we know and discounting what we don't know for just now. Let me walk you through this, as it's kind of interesting....

What we know is that Mauser had the "K" and the "G" for 1934 and 1935 respectively. Based on your earlier comment, it appears that Mauser was pretty "clean" in a change over (all 1934s were "K" and all 1935s were "G"). As I stated - HK certainly wasn't that clean - and the comment we were discussing was the "S" date. Well, here is something interesting!

Gibson states in several places that production at HK began in late 1934 - *but* was there ever a "K" dated Krieghoff? Not that I am aware of!!! It would appear that even though they were manufacturing Lugers during Mausers "K" run - that HK was actually stamping for the next years date code - "G" before 1935.! Interesting, if plausible and true!

Also, if that is true that HK would produce Lugers marked with the next years code before that year - then the comments made earlier about "S" code being produced in 1935 and delivered in 1936 seem even a stronger theory - thus explaining the "S" dates and interim "36" markings being delivered in the same year as the "1936" chamber dated HKs...

Now - if there was only a piece of evidence to tell of the "Code" for 1936 was supposed to be "S" before the order of the Digit chamber dates. Perhaps we'll never know...

As for the actual coding system "K" and "G" specificially - I would think that would be issued by the goverment as a "Military Secret" - but what the lead time was for next years code is open to speculation. I would conjecture that it would be a long enough lead time to have new chamber dies made and have the internal nomenclature changed to the new "code" - but have no idea what that might be in weeks or months for a production facility at that time??

Bill wrote further: "..And why would each manufacture have a different letter code to represent the same year?.." Based on the above thesis - I'm not sure the date codes were different between Mauser and HK? Perhaps HK, as a very limited producer, would plan the chamber code based on when they anticipated delivering the pistols against the Military contract - rather then when it was actually "produced"? To be able to do that, they would need to know tha code for the next year (again - if that was designated as the "S")....

Does this make any sense? Any thoughts/comments??

Hmmm.... This is kind of interesting!!!

11-19-2001, 07:59 PM	#22
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...! This sure is a fascinating thread (well, at least to you and me ..!! Bill wrote: "...What and how did Mauser come up with the K for 1934 and the G for 1935? What and how did Krieghoff come up with the G and S to represent supposedly 1935-1936?"... That comment of yours got me thinking about a few things - so I started out with a clean piece of paper, and scratched out what we think we know and discounting what we don't know for just now. Let me walk you through this, as it's kind of interesting.... What we know is that Mauser had the "K" and the "G" for 1934 and 1935 respectively. Based on your earlier comment, it appears that Mauser was pretty "clean" in a change over (all 1934s were "K" and all 1935s were "G"). As I stated - HK certainly wasn't that clean - and the comment we were discussing was the "S" date. Well, here is something interesting! Gibson states in several places that production at HK began in late 1934 - but was there ever a "K" dated Krieghoff? Not that I am aware of!!! It would appear that even though they were manufacturing Lugers during Mausers "K" run - that HK was actually stamping for the next years date code - "G" before 1935.! Interesting, if plausible and true! Also, if that is true that HK would produce Lugers marked with the next years code before that year - then the comments made earlier about "S" code being produced in 1935 and delivered in 1936 seem even a stronger theory - thus explaining the "S" dates and interim "36" markings being delivered in the same year as the "1936" chamber dated HKs... Now - if there was only a piece of evidence to tell of the "Code" for 1936 was supposed to be "S" before the order of the Digit chamber dates. Perhaps we'll never know... As for the actual coding system "K" and "G" specificially - I would think that would be issued by the goverment as a "Military Secret" - but what the lead time was for next years code is open to speculation. I would conjecture that it would be a long enough lead time to have new chamber dies made and have the internal nomenclature changed to the new "code" - but have no idea what that might be in weeks or months for a production facility at that time?? Bill wrote further: "..And why would each manufacture have a different letter code to represent the same year?.." Based on the above thesis - I'm not sure the date codes were different between Mauser and HK? Perhaps HK, as a very limited producer, would plan the chamber code based on when they anticipated delivering the pistols against the Military contract - rather then when it was actually "produced"? To be able to do that, they would need to know tha code for the next year (again - if that was designated as the "S").... Does this make any sense? Any thoughts/comments?? Hmmm.... This is kind of interesting!!!