View Single Post
Unread 11-15-2014, 06:51 PM   #7
guns3545
Lifer
Lifetime Forum
Patron
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 438
Thanks: 661
Thanked 493 Times in 219 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.B. View Post
Seems to be some difference of opinion, here? Anyway, thanks to all who contributed to this discussion.
Steve
Steve,

What you are seeing is an every day occurrence in Luger collecting and the provision of answers to questions by others.

The more information you have; the more accurate can be the responses. As you may know, 1939 was a year of many changes; and not all of them synchronized.

A SE63 or SE655 are both correct. The phasing of your precise serial number will make one or the other more correct.

The acceptance marks on your particular gun are also a factor in determining the probability of which tool mark is more correct.

Thus going in with a question that was stated. I have a 1939 42 code with the SN vvvvv, and acceptance proofs SE63 SE63 or SE63 SE655 or SE655 SE 655 would have elicited a more precise response right out of the box.

But over riding everything else is the fact that gun makers and ordnance depots waste nothing and throw nothing away unless it has been condemned. They were not making collector pieces; they were making war guns. Thus if a barrel of old SE63 inspected tools was found, they were used. Basically anything used up to the manufacture of a gun is potentially what it was issued with. Yon can even find magazines with acceptance marks that differ to the gun but are serial numbered to it.


Add to this the phasing differences of manufacture, delays in shipping, etc., it can become very difficult to tie all components to a specific rig in the best of circumstances and even more difficult in a year of many changes happening over a period of time,

Hope this helps.

John
guns3545 is offline   Reply With Quote
The following 2 members says Thank You to guns3545 for your post: