LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

RockinWR · 11-01-2003, 03:05 AM

Dwight/Ron,
(1) Per Dwight: <blockquote>quote:<hr />...an excellent and sensible analysis explaining why Erfurt proofs are sometimes found on DWM Lugers.<hr /></blockquote>(2) Per Ron: <blockquote>quote:<hr />I thought Jan's discussion has a lot of merit. Of course, it is just theory but it makes sense.<hr /></blockquote>* Jan's discussion certainly merits consideration as it suggests one cogent explaination.

* However, given a random distribution of the two Proof Stamp styles, would we not expect to see the "DWM" Proof show up on Erfurt P.08's also?? So far, I only recall seeing the "Erfurt" Proof showing up on breech blocks/barrels used in DWM assembled pistols.

* Has anyone seen/have an example of an Erfurt frame, breech, or barrel w/ a "DWM" style proof that can be shared??
* IMHO, the style of Proof used is indicative of who had the Contract to manufacture these components. In the case of the "Erfurt" marked breech blocks and barrels, Erfurt had the contract to produce these and the responsibility to see they met the German Proof law which was a National Law. As the proofing tests were standardized, reciprocity prevailed. Hence, DWM would accept proofed "Erfurt" barrels & breech blocks; but, upon Assembly to a DWM receiver, the assembly would continue proofing tests to validate the receiver/assembly met the Proof Law(s). As the barrel/breech already had a stamp & if the assembled unit passed proof, only the receiver needed to be Proof Stamped. If any one of the components failed, rework/replacement "warantee" costs could be assigned to the resonsible party. Gun making was a profit/loss business to DWM after all. Gov't. priorities differ as cost affects quantity/schedule. Profit is merely a distant cousin.
* Throughout the References and Original documents made available by Gortz, Walter, Still, and others, the statement(inference?) is made to the effect the German Government wanted to be as independent as possible of the Commercial (Lowe/DWM) Gunmaking Industry. A Cost & destiny control driven decision I suspect. If the Prussian Government's Erfurt factory could produce critical proofed components for less cost and in greater capacity, the "Contract" work would go to the "low" bidder with an inside track to the Government's own Facilities. In the War period of 1914-1918, the Government had an easier acquisition/writeoff justification for machinery capacity than a private concern like DWM who had investors to consider. Not a new concept.
* So, IMO, I'll suggest the Proof marking combinations we see in steel are a concrete indicator of war footing Army decisions to maximize production. At 8/22/14, neither DWM nor Erfurt were prepared for a 6 time increase in requirements. Added shifts/days can account for maybe a 3x-4x increase; but, more machinery would have to be made available to explain a 6x surge by both sites. That takes time. DWM contributed the 08 & 14 Commercial-Militaries and the 1914 Army utilizing 1913 non-lug frames became acceptable. Erfurt was tooled and could focus on 8" LP.08 barrels, 4" P.08 barrels, blocks, & ?? while repairing/assembling whatever 1914 receivers & parts were on hand. This also helped DWM to contend/fulfill its pre-tooled 6" barrel Navy contract(s) while ramping up 4" production. <img border="0" alt="[icon107]" title="" src="graemlins/icon107.gif" />
* Wonder if Erfurt sub-contracted a barrel/breech maker in Berlin or Suhl? Nah, Kreighoff was busy making shotguns/rifles weren't they??

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Respectfully
Bob <img border="0" alt="[hiha]" title="" src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" />

11-01-2003, 03:05 AM	#28
RockinWR User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: D/FW, Tx Posts: 279 Thanks: 109 Thanked 31 Times in 16 Posts	Dwight/Ron, (1) Per Dwight: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">...an excellent and sensible analysis explaining why Erfurt proofs are sometimes found on DWM Lugers.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">(2) Per Ron: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I thought Jan's discussion has a lot of merit. Of course, it is just theory but it makes sense.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">* Jan's discussion certainly merits consideration as it suggests one cogent explaination. * However, given a random distribution of the two Proof Stamp styles, would we not expect to see the "DWM" Proof show up on Erfurt P.08's also?? So far, I only recall seeing the "Erfurt" Proof showing up on breech blocks/barrels used in DWM assembled pistols. * Has anyone seen/have an example of an Erfurt frame, breech, or barrel w/ a "DWM" style proof that can be shared?? * IMHO, the style of Proof used is indicative of who had the Contract to manufacture these components. In the case of the "Erfurt" marked breech blocks and barrels, Erfurt had the contract to produce these and the responsibility to see they met the German Proof law which was a National Law. As the proofing tests were standardized, reciprocity prevailed. Hence, DWM would accept proofed "Erfurt" barrels & breech blocks; but, upon Assembly to a DWM receiver, the assembly would continue proofing tests to validate the receiver/assembly met the Proof Law(s). As the barrel/breech already had a stamp & if the assembled unit passed proof, only the receiver needed to be Proof Stamped. If any one of the components failed, rework/replacement "warantee" costs could be assigned to the resonsible party. Gun making was a profit/loss business to DWM after all. Gov't. priorities differ as cost affects quantity/schedule. Profit is merely a distant cousin. * Throughout the References and Original documents made available by Gortz, Walter, Still, and others, the statement(inference?) is made to the effect the German Government wanted to be as independent as possible of the Commercial (Lowe/DWM) Gunmaking Industry. A Cost & destiny control driven decision I suspect. If the Prussian Government's Erfurt factory could produce critical proofed components for less cost and in greater capacity, the "Contract" work would go to the "low" bidder with an inside track to the Government's own Facilities. In the War period of 1914-1918, the Government had an easier acquisition/writeoff justification for machinery capacity than a private concern like DWM who had investors to consider. Not a new concept. * So, IMO, I'll suggest the Proof marking combinations we see in steel are a concrete indicator of war footing Army decisions to maximize production. At 8/22/14, neither DWM nor Erfurt were prepared for a 6 time increase in requirements. Added shifts/days can account for maybe a 3x-4x increase; but, more machinery would have to be made available to explain a 6x surge by both sites. That takes time. DWM contributed the 08 & 14 Commercial-Militaries and the 1914 Army utilizing 1913 non-lug frames became acceptable. Erfurt was tooled and could focus on 8" LP.08 barrels, 4" P.08 barrels, blocks, & ?? while repairing/assembling whatever 1914 receivers & parts were on hand. This also helped DWM to contend/fulfill its pre-tooled 6" barrel Navy contract(s) while ramping up 4" production. <img border="0" alt="[icon107]" title="" src="graemlins/icon107.gif" /> * Wonder if Erfurt sub-contracted a barrel/breech maker in Berlin or Suhl? Nah, Kreighoff was busy making shotguns/rifles weren't they?? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Respectfully Bob <img border="0" alt="[hiha]" title="" src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" />