LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post - Please help me identify this broom handle

Kyrie · 06-04-2018, 05:56 PM

That’s a gun with at least two histories.

Easy stuff first. The marks on the bottom of the barrel are Mauser factory inspection stamps and not proof marks. Their exact purpose and usage is unknown, but it is believed these are manufacturing control point stamps.

The barrel extension (SN 118207) and frame extension (SN 133855) are from two different pistols. Both serial numbers are within the serial number range of the Imperial German army contract for C96 pistols factory chambered for 9 mm/ Luger (collector speak, “Red Nine C96”). This contract was for 150,000 pistols, with circa 135,000 actually delivered before the end of the war. Several thousand undelivered pistols from this contract were sold commercially after the war, and are usually found w/o the characteristic red nine grip panels.

That said, the barrel extension doesn’t appear to have the Imperial acceptance stamp found on the Red Nines and so is arguably not from the Red Nine contract. If it isn’t from a Red Nine, it would likely be, in collector speak, from a a Pre-war Commercial. Pre-war commercial C96s were generally chambered for the 7.63 Mauser, but factory original 9 mm Luger Pre-war Commercials and such guns usually had 50 – 1000 meter rear sights and did not have the characteristic red nine grip panels.

Regardless of whether the barrel extension is from a Red Nine variation or a Pre-war Commercial variation, it appears to have had the rear sight converted to a fixed rear sight, and the barrel shortened to less than four inches. That’s a common set of alterations for C96s owned by the army/police during the Great War and contined in government service during the Weimar Republic.

The crudeness of the renumbering of the barrel extension suggests it is not a Mauser factory job, nor a German military job. Absence of second proof of converted upper to lower suggests job was not done in Germany. This poses question which we will be unlikely to answer, but should elicit spirited speculation.

I’d love to see a picture of the top of the magazine follower.

06-04-2018, 05:56 PM	#10
Kyrie User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 757 Thanks: 0 Thanked 212 Times in 101 Posts	That’s a gun with at least two histories. Easy stuff first. The marks on the bottom of the barrel are Mauser factory inspection stamps and not proof marks. Their exact purpose and usage is unknown, but it is believed these are manufacturing control point stamps. The barrel extension (SN 118207) and frame extension (SN 133855) are from two different pistols. Both serial numbers are within the serial number range of the Imperial German army contract for C96 pistols factory chambered for 9 mm/ Luger (collector speak, “Red Nine C96”). This contract was for 150,000 pistols, with circa 135,000 actually delivered before the end of the war. Several thousand undelivered pistols from this contract were sold commercially after the war, and are usually found w/o the characteristic red nine grip panels. That said, the barrel extension doesn’t appear to have the Imperial acceptance stamp found on the Red Nines and so is arguably not from the Red Nine contract. If it isn’t from a Red Nine, it would likely be, in collector speak, from a a Pre-war Commercial. Pre-war commercial C96s were generally chambered for the 7.63 Mauser, but factory original 9 mm Luger Pre-war Commercials and such guns usually had 50 – 1000 meter rear sights and did not have the characteristic red nine grip panels. Regardless of whether the barrel extension is from a Red Nine variation or a Pre-war Commercial variation, it appears to have had the rear sight converted to a fixed rear sight, and the barrel shortened to less than four inches. That’s a common set of alterations for C96s owned by the army/police during the Great War and contined in government service during the Weimar Republic. The crudeness of the renumbering of the barrel extension suggests it is not a Mauser factory job, nor a German military job. Absence of second proof of converted upper to lower suggests job was not done in Germany. This poses question which we will be unlikely to answer, but should elicit spirited speculation. I’d love to see a picture of the top of the magazine follower.