LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Kyrie · 03-19-2019, 03:39 PM

“…this Luger is not what it first appears to be.”

The absence of a firing proof on the breechblock is sufficient for me to form the opinion it isn’t native to the rest of the toggle train, nor is it native to the barrel extension. So I now assess this Luger as a “FrankenLuger” (a Luger made up from the parts of other, dead, Lugers).

For me that means it’s a shooter, top price I’d pay is less than a thousand dollars. I’d continue my assessment of the more from a sense of morbid curiosity than from any acquisitive impulse. And I do have some curiosity as there is just so much about this gun that screams to me FrankenLuger!

Here are some things that stand out for me.

The barrel does not appear to be original to the barrel extension. The witness mark on the barrel was made by a different tool, or a tool struck harder, that the tool used to make the witness mark on the barrel extension.

There is a discrepancy between the cannon and the frame. 9 mmP 1939 Banner Lugers were typically hot salt blued, but the frame on this gun was rust blued.

The top of the middle toggle link looks to me to have been very aggressively buffed. Buffed enough depress the middle surface and almost obliterate the “MA” part of the Mauser banner. I can see some other evidence of buffing, and of the possible removal some markings so new marking could be stamped in the place of the removed markings. I’m of the opinion that it’s not possible to determine how any part of this Luger was originally marked; I believe there has just been too much work done to it.

That’s my sense of the gun, and how I arrived at that assessment, offered entirely FWIW.

03-19-2019, 03:39 PM	#29
Kyrie User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 757 Thanks: 0 Thanked 212 Times in 101 Posts	Ballpark – 2nd step: what kind of Luger is it – continued… “…this Luger is not what it first appears to be.” The absence of a firing proof on the breechblock is sufficient for me to form the opinion it isn’t native to the rest of the toggle train, nor is it native to the barrel extension. So I now assess this Luger as a “FrankenLuger” (a Luger made up from the parts of other, dead, Lugers). For me that means it’s a shooter, top price I’d pay is less than a thousand dollars. I’d continue my assessment of the more from a sense of morbid curiosity than from any acquisitive impulse. And I do have some curiosity as there is just so much about this gun that screams to me FrankenLuger! Here are some things that stand out for me. The barrel does not appear to be original to the barrel extension. The witness mark on the barrel was made by a different tool, or a tool struck harder, that the tool used to make the witness mark on the barrel extension. There is a discrepancy between the cannon and the frame. 9 mmP 1939 Banner Lugers were typically hot salt blued, but the frame on this gun was rust blued. The top of the middle toggle link looks to me to have been very aggressively buffed. Buffed enough depress the middle surface and almost obliterate the “MA” part of the Mauser banner. I can see some other evidence of buffing, and of the possible removal some markings so new marking could be stamped in the place of the removed markings. I’m of the opinion that it’s not possible to determine how any part of this Luger was originally marked; I believe there has just been too much work done to it. That’s my sense of the gun, and how I arrived at that assessment, offered entirely FWIW.