LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Jimbo · 07-30-2002, 02:10 AM

Hi Jan,

Thank you for your definitive response. Your 1932 issue is the authoritative proof which vindicates Bill M. and convincese me that ALL Lugers had stamped small parts before they left the Mauser factory.

All of my Lugers have all the small parts stamped except this 1939 s/42 from the "r" block. It was supposed to be "all matching mint in and out". Oh well, live and learn. <img src="graemlins/c.gif" border="0" alt="[ouch]" />

I will contact Ralph and investigate why he believes the unstamped parts constitute all-mathching.

Thanks for the information. I feel good because I learned something new. I knew that mis-matched numbers constituted new parts but didn't realize blank parts did similarly. Now I know. I'll use that new knowledge in my next purchase. Thanks!

Jimbo the Enlightened One <img src="graemlins/bigok.gif" border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" />

07-30-2002, 02:10 AM	#29
Jimbo User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SF CA Posts: 167 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Hi Jan, Thank you for your definitive response. Your 1932 issue is the authoritative proof which vindicates Bill M. and convincese me that ALL Lugers had stamped small parts before they left the Mauser factory. All of my Lugers have all the small parts stamped except this 1939 s/42 from the "r" block. It was supposed to be "all matching mint in and out". Oh well, live and learn. <img src="graemlins/c.gif" border="0" alt="[ouch]" /> I will contact Ralph and investigate why he believes the unstamped parts constitute all-mathching. Thanks for the information. I feel good because I learned something new. I knew that mis-matched numbers constituted new parts but didn't realize blank parts did similarly. Now I know. I'll use that new knowledge in my next purchase. Thanks! Jimbo the Enlightened One <img src="graemlins/bigok.gif" border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" />