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

Heinz · 09-09-2003, 08:53 PM

Dwight,
1) I believe that photographs 03 and 05 in your early posting are clearly made by a single strike of a single tool. No 2 and 10 also appear to fall in this category. My 1915 DWM Police reissue and 1918 Military both have perfect witness mark alignment, the 1918 at a slight angle to the vertical strongly they were made by one strike with one tool.

2) Clearly some barrels show the use of seperate tools in marking, although you demonstration clearly indicates that when the barrel flange and reciever are of slightly different diameters the effects of one strike with one tool across an uneven surface may result in a strange lookins strike, much deeper at one end than another. Photos 01 and 06 are surely different tools and seperate strikes. O9 and 11 may be different strikes and different tools or due to diameter variations between barrel and reciever, especially 09.
3) Barrels that failed proof and barrels that failed shooting in sighting may explain some two tool, or two strike witness marks. Another hypothesis is that some minor alignment shift may occur if the barrel is twisted to improve the center of mpact on shooting in. I BELIEVE this can be done when using V notch sights and V blade. This hypothesis is not critical to the argument.
4) Later Nazi Era production Lugers and Weimar rebarrels may or may not have witness marks indicating that the marking was clearly NOT a necessary step in assembly.
5) Ludwig Leowe was the premier German manufacturer of precision equipment and precision in the first 15 years of the 20th century. Borchardt, Mauser and DWM production stand as witness to this. (Bad Pun)

Therefor I would conclude that
A) the witness mark is not necessary as an assembly aid. If efficiency in production is the goal it can be completely skipped. A draw mark is not necessary in Luger assembly and no reason for its use has been presented. It is not "more efficient" to apply a mark that is not needed.
B) The witness mark, and the proof marks and other inspection marks are put on early Luger per instructions as part of the inspection-proofing-firing in process as evidenced by Imperial instructions.
Pistols were rejected for failing proof or failing shooting in accuracy. Instructions indicate the manufacturer had the right to rework these pistols. This repair is a POTENTIAL source of misaligned marks, overstamping, and marks with two tools and two strikes.
C) Weimar and Nazi inspection-proofing-firing proceedures are not as well documented as the Imperial marking instructions and your examples show at some times witness marking was not done.

Therefor I believe we may take it as true that some Early Lugers were witness marked as specified in the 1910 regulations.

09-09-2003, 08:53 PM	#35
Heinz User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Greenville SC Posts: 1,004 Thanks: 377 Thanked 411 Times in 180 Posts	Dwight, 1) I believe that photographs 03 and 05 in your early posting are clearly made by a single strike of a single tool. No 2 and 10 also appear to fall in this category. My 1915 DWM Police reissue and 1918 Military both have perfect witness mark alignment, the 1918 at a slight angle to the vertical strongly they were made by one strike with one tool. 2) Clearly some barrels show the use of seperate tools in marking, although you demonstration clearly indicates that when the barrel flange and reciever are of slightly different diameters the effects of one strike with one tool across an uneven surface may result in a strange lookins strike, much deeper at one end than another. Photos 01 and 06 are surely different tools and seperate strikes. O9 and 11 may be different strikes and different tools or due to diameter variations between barrel and reciever, especially 09. 3) Barrels that failed proof and barrels that failed shooting in sighting may explain some two tool, or two strike witness marks. Another hypothesis is that some minor alignment shift may occur if the barrel is twisted to improve the center of mpact on shooting in. I BELIEVE this can be done when using V notch sights and V blade. This hypothesis is not critical to the argument. 4) Later Nazi Era production Lugers and Weimar rebarrels may or may not have witness marks indicating that the marking was clearly NOT a necessary step in assembly. 5) Ludwig Leowe was the premier German manufacturer of precision equipment and precision in the first 15 years of the 20th century. Borchardt, Mauser and DWM production stand as witness to this. (Bad Pun) Therefor I would conclude that A) the witness mark is not necessary as an assembly aid. If efficiency in production is the goal it can be completely skipped. A draw mark is not necessary in Luger assembly and no reason for its use has been presented. It is not "more efficient" to apply a mark that is not needed. B) The witness mark, and the proof marks and other inspection marks are put on early Luger per instructions as part of the inspection-proofing-firing in process as evidenced by Imperial instructions. Pistols were rejected for failing proof or failing shooting in accuracy. Instructions indicate the manufacturer had the right to rework these pistols. This repair is a POTENTIAL source of misaligned marks, overstamping, and marks with two tools and two strikes. C) Weimar and Nazi inspection-proofing-firing proceedures are not as well documented as the Imperial marking instructions and your examples show at some times witness marking was not done. Therefor I believe we may take it as true that some Early Lugers were witness marked as specified in the 1910 regulations.