LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Heinz · 08-31-2002, 07:45 PM

Ed, we discussed this topic on the General Discussion link under the title "Artillery Barrels and frames. There were some interesting comments you might want to look at.

Much of this question seems to revolve how P08s were numbered and proofed. The regulations quoted in John Walter's book seem to call for assembling the entire pistol, inspecting it and putting on an inspector's mark, then disassemling the whole pistol and marking all of the parts then proofing it with two hot loads followed by two magazines of normal ammo.and putting on the proofmarks. Or something close to this

This does not seem efficient from a production standpoint and I wonder if there is any evidence this was modified to allow a sequence where the barrel were assembled, inspection proofed and gauge stamped(or even fire proofed with a standard action) and sent on for toggle assembly and installation, at which point it could definitely be bench fired for a proof, then the barrel size checked against the gauge for unacceptable bulging, then barrel dated stamped
This would be followed by assembling to the grip frame and using bins of two digit stamped parts to match the assembly followed by sending it off for final inspection and proof.

This process would seem more efficient and may explain some anomolies but it would sure need need some data.

How else did Erfurt end up notching the frames for artillery sights when they may no artilleries after 1914??

08-31-2002, 07:45 PM	#5
Heinz User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Greenville SC Posts: 1,004 Thanks: 377 Thanked 410 Times in 180 Posts	Ed, we discussed this topic on the General Discussion link under the title "Artillery Barrels and frames. There were some interesting comments you might want to look at. Much of this question seems to revolve how P08s were numbered and proofed. The regulations quoted in John Walter's book seem to call for assembling the entire pistol, inspecting it and putting on an inspector's mark, then disassemling the whole pistol and marking all of the parts then proofing it with two hot loads followed by two magazines of normal ammo.and putting on the proofmarks. Or something close to this This does not seem efficient from a production standpoint and I wonder if there is any evidence this was modified to allow a sequence where the barrel were assembled, inspection proofed and gauge stamped(or even fire proofed with a standard action) and sent on for toggle assembly and installation, at which point it could definitely be bench fired for a proof, then the barrel size checked against the gauge for unacceptable bulging, then barrel dated stamped This would be followed by assembling to the grip frame and using bins of two digit stamped parts to match the assembly followed by sending it off for final inspection and proof. This process would seem more efficient and may explain some anomolies but it would sure need need some data. How else did Erfurt end up notching the frames for artillery sights when they may no artilleries after 1914??