Jim, I suggest that you search out and read the discussion entitled "Witness Marks and Barrels--A Preliminary Conclusion", as it examines, by actual observation of real Lugers, evidence which relates to (and refutes much of) what you have written in this discussion.
I also strongly recommend you buy a copy of "German Small Arms Markings" by Joachim G�¶rtz and Don L. Bryans, Walsworth Publishing Co., 1997. It includes translations of the actual Army contract and instructions for inspecting, marking, power proofing, and other elements relating to the constructing and acceptance of the P-08.
Jim Keenan has written--
"A few days ago, there was a brief mention about draw lines, sometimes called 'witness marks' on barrels and receivers, specifically on the Luger pistol. These are the short lines on the bottom of the barrel shoulder and the receiver 180 degrees from the sight line. Apparently some writers on the Luger have stated that these were put on after the barrel was installed."
'Some writers' have this directly from the Army instructions for marking the P-08. These instructions are detailed and quite unequivocal; failure to follow the terms of the contract could havae resulted in a fine.
Your description of Luger barrel construction and installation (I have not quoted here) is completely at odds with the official Army instructions.
"Spare barrels also were fully finished and had draw lines..."
The replacement barrels examined and reported did not have witness marks.
"I wonder why anyone would put 'witness marks' on the barrel and receiver if they were already installed and lined up. What purpose would they then serve?"
A very good question, and one for which there is no satisfactory answwer.
"In addition, the fact that the draw lines on barrel and receiver do NOT always line up perfectly would show they were not made at the same time."
A comment made by August Weiss (the Director for all handgun production at Mauser, previously a manager at DWM) in his private journal, quoted in G�¶rtz & Bryans, speaks specifically to this point in describing "many thousands" of WWII P-08 which were rebarrelled at the factory after test firing. The large number of other Lugers whose witness marks do not match defy easy explanation, and this disturbs me.
"If the purpose was simply to show the original barrel position, they would have been made with the same tool at the same time, with a single blow. That is obviously NOT the case, as a close look at several Lugers will show."
Some of the Lugers examined patently show witness mark lines which were clearly stamped with a single instrument at one blow, and have just as clearly not been disturbed.
"Is it too much to ask that collectors have some knowledge of the way factories work? Or are we supposed to assume that the Luger was a heavenly gift, made by divine intervention rather than by the common production techniques of the day?"
Part of the problem, and it is a big problem, is that there does not appear to be contemporaneous descriptions or photographs of exactly -how- a Luger was made. The only documentation we have (at least in English!) is the aforementioned Instructions. In this vacuum speculation is rife.
There are several observed circumstances which your theory does not account for. The perfect witness marks are one; there are also guns whose barrels have no witness marks at all--much of Krieghoff's production, at least one Police rework, the aforementioned replacement barrels, and for comparison some Mauser Interarms production and modern stainless steel guns.
In the light of these examples, and the documentation which we do have, Occam's Razor doesn't cut your conclusions much slack.
--Dwight
|