LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Hugo Borchardt · 06-02-2009, 08:52 PM

Reading Mr. Gruber's commentary on commercial Lugers, I read that "DWM modified the frame of the standard P-08 by eliminating the spur in the recoil spring well, giving the front of the well a flat profile. This change occurred in 1914." This Luger does not have the spur, as compared to my 1908 1st issue military, so I can definitively assume that the gun was not manufactured prior to 1914.

Continuing Mr. Gruber's analysis, "The identification of a particular Luger variation sometimes turns on the characteristic of the proof which has been applied to the gun. This is particularly the case with the 1914 (or 1916) Commercial variation and the 20DWM, identical guns whose sole difference is the orientation of the commercial proof mark - horizontal on the 1914, vertical on the 20DWM." "These figures, and the pattern of reports in the database, suggest to me with high confidence that the proof changeover from lazy c/N to upright c/N occurred well before the end 1916."

The c/n proof on the gun in question is lazy/horizontal, so I am making the assumption that the Gun is pre-1917, and not a 1920 commercial.

However, it has a relieved sear bar, per Lugervern, and would make it post 1916. Of course sear could be a replacement.

Thanks for everyone's comments. I am open to additional analysis of course, and this is a great exercise for me to learn. Currently per LugerDoc, I feel this gun is a special order or contract solely because the serial 628 seems original and does not match expected range, and the gun was manufactured somewhere in late 1916 or early 1917, which is when the c/n proofing was changed from horizontal/lazy to vertical. If the sear bar is not original, then the gun could be a couple years younger, between 1914-1916. The sear bar is not #'d, unless I can't find the # on the interior or exterior (I did not remove it), but the finish is clearly consistent with the receiver.

Another interesting comment from Mr. Gruber is "The changeover range from 1916 to the last lazy c/N pistol reported is 550 guns." This doesn't really matter I guess as my gun is likely not regular manufacture.

It is ashamed the gun does not carry additional obvious clues to the order or contract. I have no explanation for the barrel, which appears an original M1906 type per LugerDoc.

Is it plausible, or just conjecture, that the gun was made in 1916, but using an early receiver barrel that was laying around, perhaps as a special gun for someone? Fonts on the toggle match font on barrel receiver, however, and such a gun would be expected to have dish toggles, and the font on the frame would not match. That makes this theory pretty weak.

At least I can feel pretty good the gun is not a fake, because the culprit could have stamped something cool on it like "Abercrombie" or made it a Navy to enhance the value.

What to classify? "1914 Commercial Special Order/Contract" is the best I can come up with.

Any other comments?

Thanks again - this has been a great learning experience.

Mr. Gruber's commentary is at http://forum.lugerforum.com/showthre...780#post129780

Clark

06-02-2009, 08:52 PM	#11
Hugo Borchardt User Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Tennessee Posts: 372 Thanks: 340 Thanked 143 Times in 48 Posts	Reading Mr. Gruber's commentary on commercial Lugers, I read that "DWM modified the frame of the standard P-08 by eliminating the spur in the recoil spring well, giving the front of the well a flat profile. This change occurred in 1914." This Luger does not have the spur, as compared to my 1908 1st issue military, so I can definitively assume that the gun was not manufactured prior to 1914. Continuing Mr. Gruber's analysis, "The identification of a particular Luger variation sometimes turns on the characteristic of the proof which has been applied to the gun. This is particularly the case with the 1914 (or 1916) Commercial variation and the 20DWM, identical guns whose sole difference is the orientation of the commercial proof mark - horizontal on the 1914, vertical on the 20DWM." "These figures, and the pattern of reports in the database, suggest to me with high confidence that the proof changeover from lazy c/N to upright c/N occurred well before the end 1916." The c/n proof on the gun in question is lazy/horizontal, so I am making the assumption that the Gun is pre-1917, and not a 1920 commercial. However, it has a relieved sear bar, per Lugervern, and would make it post 1916. Of course sear could be a replacement. Thanks for everyone's comments. I am open to additional analysis of course, and this is a great exercise for me to learn. Currently per LugerDoc, I feel this gun is a special order or contract solely because the serial 628 seems original and does not match expected range, and the gun was manufactured somewhere in late 1916 or early 1917, which is when the c/n proofing was changed from horizontal/lazy to vertical. If the sear bar is not original, then the gun could be a couple years younger, between 1914-1916. The sear bar is not #'d, unless I can't find the # on the interior or exterior (I did not remove it), but the finish is clearly consistent with the receiver. Another interesting comment from Mr. Gruber is "The changeover range from 1916 to the last lazy c/N pistol reported is 550 guns." This doesn't really matter I guess as my gun is likely not regular manufacture. It is ashamed the gun does not carry additional obvious clues to the order or contract. I have no explanation for the barrel, which appears an original M1906 type per LugerDoc. Is it plausible, or just conjecture, that the gun was made in 1916, but using an early receiver barrel that was laying around, perhaps as a special gun for someone? Fonts on the toggle match font on barrel receiver, however, and such a gun would be expected to have dish toggles, and the font on the frame would not match. That makes this theory pretty weak. At least I can feel pretty good the gun is not a fake, because the culprit could have stamped something cool on it like "Abercrombie" or made it a Navy to enhance the value. What to classify? "1914 Commercial Special Order/Contract" is the best I can come up with. Any other comments? Thanks again - this has been a great learning experience. Mr. Gruber's commentary is at http://forum.lugerforum.com/showthre...780#post129780 Clark __________________ My militaria collection is dedicated to the memory of my Grandfather, Marine Gunnery Sergeant Dave Hill, Jr., wounded in action at The Assault of the Second Marine Division on Betio Island, Tarawa Atoll, 20-23 November, 1943. http://www.tarawa1943.com/pages/casualties%20tarawa.htm Last edited by Hugo Borchardt; 06-02-2009 at 09:44 PM.