Don,
Thanks for the additonal pics. The apparent absence of an Imperial power-proof mark on the receiver leads me to an alternative theory of this gun's origin.
To recap some things about the 1908/1914 Commercial Armys:
They have no c/N commercial proofs.
They have military power-proofing.
They have unique c/X,c/X,c/X inspection and acceptance marks.
The are serial-numbered in the hidden, commercial fashion.
Conventional wisdom concerning these pistols has it that they were removed from the commercial production stream before power-proofing, inspected and accepted by someone out of the normal military acceptance stream (the anonymous c/X stamps), proofed in the army proofing facilitiy, and delivered to the Army.
On Commercial Army sn 71857, the c/S c/E c/S inspection stamps imply that the gun came from the military production stream in 1914 or early 1915. The absence of an Eagle proof indicates that the pistol was rejected for some reason before military power proofing.
The c/N commercial proofs and serial numbers suggest that the entire pistol was then diverted to the commercial production stream, where it was proofed and then marketed.
It is difficult to know when the parts were serial-numbered. The bottom of the receiver and recoil lug are numbered in the commercial manner; the takedown lever and sideplate are numbered in both military and commercial fashion. It would be useful to know if the center toggle is numbered underneath. It would also be useful to examine the top of the chamber very closely for any evidence that a date has been removed.
The official Army inspection and marking instructions specify that parts are to be serial-numbered after completion, but before power-proofing and final acceptance. That the pistol has all three acceptance stamps, but no proof mark, is anomalous. It is suspected that the inspection instructions applied specifically to the Erfurt factory, bolstered by the demonstrable fact that DWM P08 are not marked in accordance with these instructions. It is not possible to conclude whether or not the pistol fell out of the military production stream before or after it was serial-numbered.
Several factors lead me to believe the pistol was serial-numbered in the commercial fashion first.
The frame-front is very clean, and bears no evidence that a military number was removed and replaced by a five-digit commercial number.
It is recognized that P08s in police service ended up with their parts numbered in military style during police rework, if they were not so numbered originally.
The numerals stamped on the top of the centger toggle are larger than the size specified in the marking instructions, and indeed larger than observed on DWM military production guns.
P08s manufactured before 1916 had the old-style, unrelieved sear bar. These were numbered on the raised surface of the bar. In later production, when the bar was relieved, the number was still stamped on the raised portion of the bar, almost completely hidden beneath the trigger plate. The sear bar on this pistol is relieved, but the number is stamped in the clear, on the relieved portoin of the bar.
This is not the only Luger I know of with these characteristics. Commercial (Army) sn 72024 (a circle-S Police gun) is similarly marked with Imperial inspection marks but no Imperial proof; along with lazy c/N commercial proofs. I do not have a record of the inspector stamps, but it is noted that they are not c/X. The only notation of non-Commercial serial number placement is on the sideplate.
Sorry about the verbosity, I had a lot on my mind to put into words. That there are now two of these guns reported (and thanks very much for it, Don) strengthens my suspicion that DWM wartime commercial Luger production was entirely based on military rejection.
--Dwight
|