LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Dwight Gruber · 07-20-2017, 01:11 AM

I'm afraid that I don't have much useful to offer here.

According to the 1910 production specifications, which were adhered to through WWII, date stamping was one of the first manufacturing steps, and was certified by the first of the army acceptance stamps.

I will note that Sturgess (red edition, pp 530-533) asserts that the m and n suffix, 1920 dated pistols follow the army production m suffix sequence "where it (production) had stopped in December, 1918." There is more than one problem with this: he does not recognize that 1918 military pistols are reported into the s suffix range; and he proposes arduous backing-and-filling of serial numbering to justify his conclusion, to mention only two.

I am still cogitating on all this.

--Dwight

07-20-2017, 01:11 AM	#30
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,889 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,281 Times in 423 Posts	I'm afraid that I don't have much useful to offer here. According to the 1910 production specifications, which were adhered to through WWII, date stamping was one of the first manufacturing steps, and was certified by the first of the army acceptance stamps. I will note that Sturgess (red edition, pp 530-533) asserts that the m and n suffix, 1920 dated pistols follow the army production m suffix sequence "where it (production) had stopped in December, 1918." There is more than one problem with this: he does not recognize that 1918 military pistols are reported into the s suffix range; and he proposes arduous backing-and-filling of serial numbering to justify his conclusion, to mention only two. I am still cogitating on all this. --Dwight