[quote]Originally posted by Heydrich:
<strong>Doubs: Ok, then shouldn’t the explanation have been: not manufactured “no earlier than 1917”? And if it was a reject receiver from 1914, why doesn’t it have the appropriate stamp indicating this? If it was a good receiver from the beginning, why did they leave it sitting around from sometime in 1914 till sometime in 1917 (or later) for no good reason?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't explain why the answer wasn't phrased differently.
As for a 1914 receiver being used in production as long as 4 years later, a number of possibilities have been advanced. Remember that there is only one reported 1915 Erfurt that is considered to be "correct" by one collector (a Mr. McTague, IIRC) who actually examined it. Most collectors believe that Erfurt didn't produce 1915 dated Lugers. One explaination is the possible continued production of 1914 dated Artillery Lugers right through 1915. Or, perhaps production time went to rifles or other arms that were needed more desperately than the Luger.
1916 production only went to block "g" which translates to approximately 70,000 units. It was 1917 & 1918 production that, when the C/RC parts are taken into consideration, seems to have become almost a desperation effort. The 1918 product is often termed "rough" or "poor" in the quality of finish.
In manufacturing, parts may be set aside for one reason or another with the idea of finishing or correcting a fault at a later time when possible. These parts may sit for years if circumstances warrant it. In Herbert Houze's book "The Winchester Model 52", it's stated on page 166 that receivers were often assembled into rifles long after production. He gives one example of a receiver made in 1941 waiting 10 years before it was used. While that's an unusual delay, it happens. The same delays, no doubt, also happened during the production of Lugers by Erfurt.
|