LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post - Witness Marks Report--Revised and Expanded

Dwight Gruber · 09-08-2003, 11:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pete Ebbink:
In your option # 3 of "no witness mark of barrel or receiver; produced that way"...might such lack of both marks also indicate that, possibly, both barrel and receiver were replaced at some time ?
<hr /></blockquote>Logic requires the answer to be "yes".

On a practical basis, the -implications- of the Army regulations (and I stress this because we don't know the actual practice) requiring that replacement of barrel, receiver, or breechblock be treated (inspected, power-proofed, and shot-in) as new construction mean that they would be witness-marked. We know that replacement barrels were not marked; we know that many were replaced after inspection; the samples reported demonstrate that even known rebarrels are commonly marked.

From the samples reported, Krieghoffs and 1970s Mausers are so overwhelmingly unmarked that one is led to conclude that this is original manufacture; or at least to continue observing these models to determine if a larger sample continues to bear the conjecture out.

Krieghoff's contract was with the Luftwaffe, and Krieghoff's Lugers were inspected by the Luftwaffewaffenamt (Luftwaffe Arms Inspection Dept) rather than the Heereswaffenamt (Gibson, "Krieghoff Parabellum", p.79). It can be conjectured (indeed it has) that the LWaA was not beholden to the Army Luger regulations, and so could pass on the omission of the witness mark. Of course by 1970 the Heeres regulations were moot, so Mauser could mark or not at will.

A principle which may have been lost in the discussion is that perfect witness marks can tell us something positive about the Luger which bears them, but misaligned witness marks can not by themselves tell us anything about the originality or authenticity of the barrel/receiver combination (I will add here that -no- witness marks may in fact tell us something). Under these circumstances it is up to the finish, signs of aging, and details of machining and marking to reveal the barrel/receiver's authenticity.

Faced with a Luger other than a Krieghoff or 1970s Mauser with no witness marks, I would have to look elsewhere to make the determination of both a replaced barrel and receiver.

--Dwight

Sorry if this is long-winded and pedantic, I am feeling a need to be particularly clear.

09-08-2003, 11:33 PM	#33
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,908 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,330 Times in 435 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Pete Ebbink: <strong>In your option # 3 of "no witness mark of barrel or receiver; produced that way"...might such lack of both marks also indicate that, possibly, both barrel and receiver were replaced at some time ? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Logic requires the answer to be "yes". On a practical basis, the -implications- of the Army regulations (and I stress this because we don't know the actual practice) requiring that replacement of barrel, receiver, or breechblock be treated (inspected, power-proofed, and shot-in) as new construction mean that they would be witness-marked. We know that replacement barrels were not marked; we know that many were replaced after inspection; the samples reported demonstrate that even known rebarrels are commonly marked. From the samples reported, Krieghoffs and 1970s Mausers are so overwhelmingly unmarked that one is led to conclude that this is original manufacture; or at least to continue observing these models to determine if a larger sample continues to bear the conjecture out. Krieghoff's contract was with the Luftwaffe, and Krieghoff's Lugers were inspected by the Luftwaffewaffenamt (Luftwaffe Arms Inspection Dept) rather than the Heereswaffenamt (Gibson, "Krieghoff Parabellum", p.79). It can be conjectured (indeed it has) that the LWaA was not beholden to the Army Luger regulations, and so could pass on the omission of the witness mark. Of course by 1970 the Heeres regulations were moot, so Mauser could mark or not at will. A principle which may have been lost in the discussion is that perfect witness marks can tell us something positive about the Luger which bears them, but misaligned witness marks can not by themselves tell us anything about the originality or authenticity of the barrel/receiver combination (I will add here that -no- witness marks may in fact tell us something). Under these circumstances it is up to the finish, signs of aging, and details of machining and marking to reveal the barrel/receiver's authenticity. Faced with a Luger other than a Krieghoff or 1970s Mauser with no witness marks, I would have to look elsewhere to make the determination of both a replaced barrel and receiver. --Dwight Sorry if this is long-winded and pedantic, I am feeling a need to be particularly clear.