Witness Marks Report--Revised and Expanded

[Dwight Gruber]

The text of this post has been revised from the original, and includes important new information about the manufacture of Luger barrels.

INTRODUCTION
A while back somebody posted that on the Lugerforum that in his opinion Luger barrels had been "messed with" much more than we think, that many of the Lugers which we accept as all-original have undergone re-barrelling over their lifetime of hard use. This assertion bothered me, and I began to wonder how it could be tested.

Over several months I closely examined the barrels of my own Lugers. The nature of the witness marks made me question in my own mind the authenticity of the barrels on some of my collection, and I corresponded with other collectors to explore the topic--a feeling of misgiving, without particular direction.

A recent discussion on the Lugerforum began with this post by collector Tom Armstrong (quoted by permission):

"Am in Louisville KY attending SOS and Gunday shows. At the Gunday show yesterday I scored a very nice KM rig, a 1940 dated Code 42, in about 97% condition, Ost See pantograph marked with one matching mag, an armorer's code 42 mag and a code 42 tool, all in a lovely Curt Vogel 1939 dated KM holster. I was one happy camper. The sheep-dip nature of the show -crowded beyond belief-precluded my doing my normal disassembly inspection prior to purchase, so I just gave the markings a peek with my loupe and went for it. It was a little pricey but what the hell.

"After dinner, several members of the forum and I were having after dinner drinks when one of the guys took the piece apart. His voice registered dismay when he said, 'Look, the witness marks do not align and the barrel does not have a letter suffix.'

"Well, I thought I had been taken.

"This morning, I went back to the show, prepared to have a bit of a chin-wag with the dealer who had sold me this bogus gun.

"Fortunately, there were very few people in the hall at the time and I could easily get to Bob Simpson's booth. I showed the piece to Bob, pointed out the "problems" and asked his opinion.

"Bob explained to me that the witness marks were placed on the barrel and frame BEFORE the front sight block was machined out of the barrel stock and then the barrel was removed from the frame for further machining, polishing and finishing. After this, the barrel was reinstalled and quite frequently the witness marks would be improperly aligned. In short, this was nothing to worry about and was not an indication of a buggered gun.
Likewise, he remarked that he has seen many, many III Reich era lugers that lacked the barrel suffix.

"In short, it was a righteous gun.

"I learned something new as a result and avoided a certain to have been unpleasant conversation.

"My public thanks to Bob and I guess no matter how much we learn about our toggle-tops, we will never know it all."

This gelled several questions in my mind, and began the avalanche of witness mark posts over two Luger discussion forums.

THE WITNESS MARK
"Witness mark" is a term without a precise meaning. In fact, research reveals that nowhere is it used formally in the machinsts' trades. It is used on an ad-hoc basis to describe all manner of alignments and evidence of wear. I will continue to use it here as it is the commonly recognized term for the topic at hand.

Over the course of the discussion many interesting and imaginative uses and reasons for Luger witness marks were proposed. However, the "Markings Applied to Pistols 08, 1910" (including amendments through 1914) state--(1)

"Pistols, finished as follows:
26a pistol ready for power-proof and shooting-in:
...
*Barrel and front sight: after sight adjustment, a chisel mark, 3 to 4mm high, of equal length on both parts.
*Barrel and receiver: after sight adjustment, a chisel mark, 3 to 4mm high, of equal length on both parts."

The illustration which accompanies the instructions show this very clearly (but very small) as the "witness mark".

Intuitively, then, witness marks should appear as a single strike and line up perfectly. An examination of real guns reveals that some of them are an uncomfortable fit with intuition and specification. The guns pictured provide a broad overview of witness marks, both of unmodified guns and rebarrels.

Example 01--Vickers. Suspicious.
Example 02--KOL. Definite rebarrel.
Example 03--1900 American Eagle. Perfect witness mark, single strike, single instrument, shows no misalignment even under high magnification. Reblue.
Example 04--S/42 1936. Not perfectly aligned, all other evidence points to the barrel being original.
Example 05--Erfurt LP-08. Perfect witness mark, single strike, single instrument. Apparent mislignment is artifact of lighting and steel surface, under high magnification the bottom of the strike is aligned.
Example 06--Modern rebarrel. Presented for contrast.
Example 07--1917 Navy. Two strikes, misaligned by less than 1/4 line width. All other evidence points to the barrel being original.
Example 08--1929 Police. No barrel mark.
Example 09--byf 42. Nickel-plated, barrel apparently removed and reinstalled.
Example 10--1917 LP-08. Two strikes, aligned, all evidence is barrel is original.
Example 11--1918 LP-08. Rebarrel--barrel is period/authentic LP-08 barrel, but is not matched to receiver.



THE SURVEY
In an attempt to ascertain the characteristic witness marks of authentic, unmdified Lugers, guns were examined and reported. These Lugers were presented as all-original, unmolested samples. A descriptive system was devised to quantify the observations:

One line, perfect
*indicates that the barrel/receiver was indexed in one stroke by one instrument, and remains undisturbed.

One line, Misaligned
*indicates the barrel/receiver was indexed with one stroke, but the lines are misaligned by less than one line width.

Two lines, Aligned and Misaligned
*indicates that it appears that the barrel and receiver were indexed with separate strokes.
*Indications of separate strokes are:
--two lines at a different angles to the long axis of the receiver;
--a gap between the lines;
--different line widths;
--different line shapes;
--(Note: line ?, means: can't tell if one or two index lines).

Aligned indicates that the barrel and receiver lines appear to line up, under moderate magnification.

Misaligned indicates that the barrel and receiver lines are misaligned by one line width or less.

Not aligned indicates that the receiver and barrel marks are misaligned by greater than one line width (intuitively, one would not expect an original, unaltered barrel/receiver to be Not aligned).

No Barrel, A witness mark on the receiver but with no corresponding mark on the barrel.

No Mark, no witness marks appearing on the gun.

144 Lugers were reported in this brief survey:

Early Imperial
6 reported, 5 perfect

DWM Military
59 reported
24 perfect
25 Aligned
10 Misaligned
included
5 LP-08, 1 misaligned
5 Navy, 1 misaligned

Erfurt
13 reported, including 1 LP-08, all aligned

Weimar (non-police)
5 reported, miscellaneous characteristics
4 aligned, one serious misalign

post-Weimar rebarrel
Three, one aligned, one with not barrel mark, one with no mark at all

Simson, three reported
one rework seriously misaligned, two Suhl aligned

Mauser, military
19 reported
10 aligned
9 misaligned

Mauser banner 3 examples, all aligned

Cutaway, aligned

Krieghoff
23 reported
19 no mark
the rest aligned or unidentified

Only a single sample each of Dutch and Finnish, both aligned.

Police, all kinds
4 DWM, 1 Erfurt aligned (one no barrel)
2 Mauser both misaligned

Two original replacement barrels were reported, they had no mark

For the sake of comparison, witness mark information on modern Lugers was solicited.

3 Mauser Interams--one with no barrel mark, two with no mark

Stainless Steel
Stoeger with no mark

one Martz 9mm rebarrel, aligned

METALWORKING
There are so many witness marks which are not perfect strikes that one can only wonder, how did they get that way? There are two circumstances to examine: one, where a single line is displaced; and two, where there are obviously two lines.

Some different possibilities were proposed for misalignment of a single strike: the shock of the shooting impulse combined with the torque exerted on the barrel by the bullet in its travel tending to "back" the barrel threads minutely in the receiver; and relaxation over time of the internal "springy-ness" from the torsion of barrel tightening; were two of the more prominent.

The other circumstance is where there are obviously two strikes, one strike made for the receiver, and the other strike made for the barrel. One cause of this could be, that the barrel flange radius is larger than that of the receiver to which it is mated. The question arises, if it is even possible to even make a single-strike witness mark in this circumstance? Pertinent here is the observation that barrel steel is not as hard--is more ductile--than the steel of the receiver, and so the metal at the edges of the stroke would appear different. This is noticeable in examples 04 and 09.

I found it noteworthy that in all the examples the witness marks on the receivers were perfectly centered between the flats on either side, almost as though the marks were struck in a jig.

In order to satisfy my curiosity about some of these questions, I determined to strike some witness marks. The subject gun was example 09. (Its being nickel-plated, I felt confident that its value could not be reduced further by the experiment.) The barrel flange sticks out above the surface of the receiver .013", which made this a test of striking a witness mark over an uneven surface. The results described can be seen in the photograph below.

For the first attempt I placed the receiver on a firm surface, with a chisel in contact with both the barrel and the receiver, which meant that it was canted at an angle. It was immediately apparent that the steel surfaces here are extremely slippery, and it was nearly impossible to hold the chisel in exactly the right place in order to strike the mark. The second thing I observed was that the instrument which strikes Luger witness marks must be extremely thin and extremely sharp, unlike the chisel I had at hand.

Test strike #1 on the example picture is actually a double strike, because on the first strike the chisel moved too far back onto the receiver. This was caused by the difficulty in holding the receiver and chisel in position, and I could not strike a sufficiently solid blow.

Test strike #2 has the chisel in the same orientation relative to the receiver and barrel, but the receiver itself was clamped firmly in a padded vise. This allowed me much better control (still not sufficient), and a much firmer blow. The result is the same as test #1.

The third strike was to test the posibility of actually making a single-width, single-stroke mark with a barrel flange which extends above the receiver. I placed the chisel on the barrel flange parallel to the receiver surfce, and hit it pretty hard. The chisel made a very wide mark on the barrel flange, as expected, but it actually did not contact the receiver at all. It might have, had the chisel been narrower and sharper, or had I been willing to clamp the receiver more firmly in the vise.

Judging by the examples which show two strikes, a great deal of control was exhibited by the original technicians in order to mark the barrel flange and still not "nick" the receiver. Also, the you'll note that in test #3 the barrel steel was displaced over the receiver itself.



LUGER BARRELS
Many imaginitive theories for the fabrication of Luger barrels, such as the one which appears at the start of this report, have been advanced; and the subject has proved to be controversial. A contemporary description of how Lugers were manufactured (at least, in English), or photographs of the process, have not been forthcoming until now.

The reminiscense of a Czech forced-laborer in the Mauser factory has provided the definitive steps of P-08 barrel manufacture. This individual worked in "Lauffertigung" (barrel production) as a tool setter. He remembers the barrel was made from round steel rod, the operation sequence was:
1. Rod cut to length;
2. Barrel rod bored through its length and then reamed;
3. Outer surface turned on a lathe;
4. Front sight base milled;
5. Main thread milled.

The barrels in the white, unnumbered, unmarked, with no rifling or chamber, were sent on to another stage(2).

Barrel replacement is one of the repairs which could be undertaken by military armorers on behalf of a Luger, with implications for the witness mark question. Imaginitive theories were discussed including the possibility of field armorer replacement.

Joachim G�¶rtz, in a past issue of Automag, provided translation of the army list of repair parts available to unit armorers. Barrels and receivers were not even available at this level; he mentions a footnote which specifies replacement of these parts be carried out in the repair shop of the relevent Field Equipment Office (Herres-Zeugamt)(3).

The Instructions presented by G�¶rtz & Bryans include power-proofing procedures for barrel/receiver/breechblock replacement; the procedures imply that proof stamping would carried out as for a new pistol(4). Since the witness mark stamp was required immediately preceeding power-proof, logic implies that this would have been applied to the new barrel or receiver when they were mated up to the corresponding part.

G�¶rtz (in Automag) notes that the pistol would also be stamped by the particular Zeugamt's designator (HzA stamp).

CONCLUSIONS AND MORE QUESTIONS
A conclusion or two may be drawn from the discussion, but it leaves many more questions than answers.

A perfect witness mark can be a strong, perhaps even primary, indicator that a Luger barrel is authentic and original to the gun. The survey sample demonstrates that one should not automatically expect to find a perfect witness mark on any individual Luger. Witness marks which are not perfect cannot by themselves indicate anything about the originality or authenticity of the barrel/receiver combination. In general, the finish, signs of aging, and details of machining and markings are of more importance in determining boosted or faked Lugers, as it has always been.

The question is still open as to what misaligned witness marks actually reveal. The discussion presented a number of possibilities:

1. Slight alignment difference, but same mark:
-Slight twisting of barrel.
-Barrel was removed and refitted.

2. Witness marks on barrel and receiver differ:
-Replaced barrel.
-Replaced receiver.

3. No witness mark on barrel and receiver:
-Produced that way

4. No witness mark on one, but witness mark on other.
-Replaced barrel.
-Replaced receiver.

This still begs the question which started the whole topic: have Lugers been rebarrelled more often than we tend to consider?

Late in the discussion evidence was discovered which sheds light on this question. It gives a firm answer to one circumstance, and may point a direction for further exploration. August Weiss, director of all handgun production for Mauser during WWII (and a manager at DWM before that) is quoted in "German Small Arms Markings"(5):

"Thousands of pistol barrels, having passed all inspection by means of guages and the bores of which had been checked by a high-power magnifying glass, were rejected by [the inspectors] after power proof..., had to be screwed out of receivers, and were scrapped."

So, in the case of thousands of WWII Lugers, at least, we have: pistols whose witness marks will be two marks and may not precisely align; pistols which have been patently rebarrelled; and rebarrelling which is at the same time completely authentic to the pistol. This may explain the unusual characteristics of the barrel marking of example 04 (and makes me feel much better about it).




Herr Weiss's comment begs the question of what other manufacturing practices might result in rebarrelling, with the resultant implications for the witness marks which we find on our Lugers today. We can only wonder whether inspection at DWM and Erfurt in WWI, and Simson and Krieghoff, might have resulted in similar activity; and we must not forget about Waffenfabrik Bern.

The term "Arsenal refinish" is thrown around pretty casually in describing Lugers. What is an "Arsenal refinsh"? Might it have included rebarrelling?

"Police rework" is another imprecise term. When did Police conversion include rebarrelling of Lugers? Are there documents specifying Police conversion requirements, or reporting on conversion practices?

Answers to these questions must be floating around. The more information which can be dredged up about rebarrelling practices (particularly about how they are marked), the more the witness mark may be "honed in" as a useful adjunct to identify legitimate vs. rebarrelled, faked, or boosted Lugers. It is equally possible, of course, that the information may show witness marks to be totally useless in this respect; this in itself would be useful to know.

That being said, there are some specific pistol types whose characteristics are of interest even though potentially rebarrelled. Inter-war Commercial Lugers (both rework and new manufacture); all Police models (both rework and new manufacture); and all Dutch and Finnish Lugers are of particular interest.

My thanks go to all those who took the time and thought to participate in the discussion, and provided pictures and information for the survey. Particular thanks goes to Jan Still, for examining and reporting a huge sample of witness marks, and for the leap of insight which forms the basis for the descriptive quantification of the examples. Thanks also goes to Heinz Ahlers for clear and concise thinking, and for pointing out the August Weiss comment, hidden in plain sight.

--Dwight

(1) "German Small Arms Markings" p.111, Joachim G�¶rtz & Don L. Bryans, Walsworth Publishing Co., 1997
(2) Jan Balcar, private correspondence
(3) Joachim G�¶rtz, Automag, February 1996 vol. XXVIII, p. 267
(4) G�¶rtz & Bryans, pp115-123
(5) G�¶rtz & Bryans, p.136

[John Sabato]

Hey Dwight! What a great and well researched article on Luger barrel Witness Marks... The entire membership will benefit from your research and efforts.

Can you send it to me in HTML format and I will add it as a permanent article web page to the forum website under general information.

<img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

[Luke]

Dwight -

Once more, excellent work. Thank you.

I hope you will continue the investigatory work in this area, as you are becoming THE expert on the subject.

Considering recent events on Jan Still's forum where all the data was destroyed, it would profit us to save articles like this one . . . just in case. I have a copy on my computer for future reference.

Luke

[Jim Keenan]

At considerable risk of being flamed, let me try again. The man who did the work is correct in that the barrels were machined, including the front sight ramp, as barrels. The ramp was not machined after the barrel was installed on the receiver.

But I think he is wrong on a few points, and I ask only to think this out without endlessly quoting a misunderstood writing. This is, I grant, an idea or theory, but it is the way the job was done at Springfield Armory on 1903 rifle barrels, and at other factories as well, so at least consider the possibility that the Luger factory did the same.

1. The rough barrel (bar stock or forging) is set up in a machine and a reference point cut (probably the rear face of the barrel). The tang and shoulder are machined and the threads cut. The threads at this point don't line up with anything, they are just threads.

2. A gauge, like a nut, is screwed down over the threads and tightened on the shoulder. Attached to the front of the gauge is a rectangular slot into which a small chisel is inserted. The chisel is struck, making a mark on the barrel shoulder. This is called a draw line, and that term (unlike "witness mark") will be found in machinists' books.

3. The gauge is set up in such a way that the mark will be at the same location as the receiver draw line when the barrel is screwed in and tightened (or "drawn up"; that is where the term "draw line" comes from).

4. The barrel is then set up and finish machined. The round part is lathe turned, leaving a "ring" where the front sight base will be, and the barrel is drilled and rifled. Then the barrel is set up in a horizontal mill with the draw line set to a marking on the exact bottom of the machine(s). The front sight base is then milled by cutters on the top of the machine(s).

5. The rear of the barrel is then faced off to the specified distance from the shoulder, the barrel is chambered, and the extractor cut made, again using the draw line to index the barrel to the right position.

6. The barrel is then proofed in a test jig, even though it will again be proofed after installation if it is for new production. If the barrel passes proof and dimension checks, the inspection mark is applied. If the barrel is to be a spare, it will be blued, otherwise it is left in the white. It is not numbered.

7. In the meantime, in receiver production, the receiver is clamped in a jig and a fixture with a small chisel is used to make the receiver draw line. In the Luger, this is at the bottom of the receiver.

8. At preliminary assembly, the barrel, completely machine finished but not blued, is installed on the receiver and screwed in until the draw lines match. The alignment is checked by eye, and there very likely is a tolerance factor in the interest of production speed.

9. Since the two draw lines were made at different time, by different tools, we will almost always see some misalignment or a difference in depth, width, etc. between the two lines. The ones that appear identical and line up perfectly will probably be the exception rather than the rule.

10. Other parts were inspected, using test gauges, while in the white. If an inspection mark was required, it was applied when the part passed inspection. Parts destined for spares are blued. No parts are numbered.

11. Once the barrel and receiver are been assembled, they are numbered, and the assembler proceeds to test fit the other parts. Small adjustments may be made or some selective fitting may be done, but this will be minor. Parts that fit are numbered to the receiver by the assembler.

12. The pistol is then placed in a clamp in a closed box, proof fired, and the appropriate proof marks applied. Then it is fired, probably in a test jig, for sight adjustment. The sight blade already has an alignment mark and when it is lined up with the bullet hole(s), the sight base is marked in line with it. This will allow a pre-marked replacement blade to be set to the same position as the original.

13. The pistol is then given final inspection and marked, and the acceptance mark applied. The pistol acceptance stamp is applied beside the inspection stamp for the receiver and the inspection stamp for the pistol.

14. The pistol, still in the white, is then disassembled, but the barrel is not removed; the barrel and receiver are finished as a unit. The pistol and its parts receive a final polish, and then are blued. Parts are kept together by the numbers applied by the preliminary assembler.

15. Since batch processing is used, the last two digits are all that is required to ensure that all the fitted parts end up in the same pistol; there will not be two number "53" rear toggles in the same batch.

16. With the pistol blued, it is re-assembled, using the numbered parts to make sure the parts fitted to that pistol are put back for final assembly. Once in a while someone goofs, and toggle pin "53" is put in "55" pistol. Not common, but it did happen.

17. With assembly complete, the pistol is cleaned, oiled and ready for shipment.

OK, flame me, but at least read the above first, and see if it does not conform to what we see on the pistols themselves as well as to common sense.

Jim

[Edward Tinker]

Jim, I don't know anything about machining, but I would like you to address this:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">...only to think this out without endlessly quoting a misunderstood writing.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Why do you feel this is misunderstood writing?

What is the correct interpretation?

Ed

[Luke]

Jim -

Your argument is somewhat persuasive, and I don't even pretend to know all the answers, but I do have a troubling question.

On some of my DWM Lugers the draw lines or witness marks on the barrel and receiver appear to have been made by the same tool in one stroke, while assembled, even under very high magnification. I have trouble accepting the proposition that this is the exception and nothing more than coincidence.

As a design engineer I worked with many manufacturing engineers who were constantly changing their processes to improve quality and efficiency. That's the value they added to the system.

Is it not just possible that the Luger manufacturing process changed over time and/or between manufacturers, thereby accounting for some of the variations we see?

Luke

[wterrell]

No flame. But please be candid and site your source for the machining procedure at Springfield Armory in the year 1903.

Are your sources for the procedure followed for the WWII rifles or the first models ever produced?

May we see pics of the perfect match of the "draw" lines on the Springfield 03 as has been shown for the Luger?

Does the Springfield 1903 have an obround as the front sight blade mount as an integral part of the barrel as does the Luger? Or is it a separate piece of metal?

Which of the manufacturers of the Springfield used the methods sited by you.

(As an aside: Common sense did not rule the day, concerning the Springfield 1903. Teddy Roosevelt remarked that the rod bayonet of the 03 model was a most idiotic invention.)

[wterrell]

The following is some information provided by a friend from Culver's Shooting Page in response to inquiry made by me about the configuration of the front sight of the '03:
http://www.jouster.com/

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">The front sight of an 03 consists of three pieces: fixed base, movable base, and the sight blade itself.

The fixed base is the part which is attached to the barrel, and is held in place by a spline which is an integral part of the barrel, and a cross pin, which goes through a hole in the base, and through the spline as well.

The movable base is held in the fixed base by a dovetail arrangement and a screw which enters from the front, which locks the movable base in place.

The sight blade is held in a slot in the movable base, and is locked in place by a transeverse pin.

The 03A3 is similar, except the base is one piece, and the spline is not integral with the barrel, but is a separate key fitting into grooves in the barrel and the sight base.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I would suggest that the procedure for manufacturing a barrel with this sight has nothing in common with the process for a barrel with a sight for the Luger and the production engineering would differ greatly.

Please respond.

[Ron Wood]

Just a thought...wouldn't the 03 spline or the 03A3 groove for the key have to be indexed in some fashion to assure alignment with the receiver? The groove could be cut after mating the finished barrel with the receiver but I would think a spline would have to be part of the initial barrel machining process.

Cool info Wes, your resources are quite impressive.

[Dwight Gruber]

Pondering the Czech worker's description of Luger barrel manufacture, another thought has occurred to me about the process. On a practical design basis, alternative theories may have the cart firmly before the horse.

There is no need to establish some arbitrary alignment mark preparatory to machining the various elements of the barrel. The sight base is created first, which makes a perfect index for all succeeding machining operations

--Dwight

[Jim Keenan]

I'll try to handle most of those.

Ed, the stuff I have seen describes the lines on each part; it shows the markings aligned (barrel-receiver and sight blade/base) but does NOT say they were to be put on at the same time by the same tool. That is an assumption made by either the person interpreting the stuff or the reader. I think I have shown that there is another possible interpretation.

Wes, on the M1903, the keyway cut is equivalent to the Luger sight base because it must be up when the barrel is installed. The way to ensure that is as I noted, to use the draw line when making the cut and installing the rear and front sight bases, both of which were installed on the barrels before they were installed on the receiver. Spare barrels have both in place. That is not my theory, that is what they did. The source is United States Rifles and Machineguns, which is now available in a photocopy format. It is a fascinating book.

Dwight, how could the front sight base be "created first"? How would the maker ensure that the barrel would line up when installed without a lot of filing and fitting and a difference of maybe as much as one thread between one barrel and another? I know of no evidence of such extensive shoulder filing on the Luger, or of the different barrel lengths that would result. Such things can be done by gunsmiths when installing sporter barrels or "setting back" a barrel to correct headspace; it would be intolerable in a production environment.

I can assure you that the draw line was far from "arbitrary". The gauge that made it was carefully calculated to allow for the precise amount of crush fit necessary for barrel installation. The latter fit is crucial in any firearm and one reason I cannot accept the idea that barrels were fully installed and then removed.

Luke, I don't know if Luger manufacturing might have changed or not over the years, but I have seen no evidence of it. The Germans were (and are) great believers in tradition so I think any change would be slow unless dictated from the top. Mauser rifle manufacture changed a lot toward the end of the war with shortcuts like dropping parts inspection markings and just spot checking (as the US did throughout), but Luger production ceased before the "crunch" came in German weapons manufacture.

Some additional notes. I did not mention the grip frame because it was not directly involved in the draw line question. I believe that the grip frame was serial numbered first, possibly as the last step in manufacture, and then the bench assembler numbered the receiver and other parts to match.

I also stated that the barrel was installed by the assembler; that was probably true in one sense, but I think it more likely that barrel installation was done by one or more skilled workers who did only that job. The tools required would be too bulky and costly to have a set at every bench assembler's position.

Jim

[wterrell]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"> I know of no evidence of such extensive shoulder filing on the Luger, or of the different barrel lengths that would result. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">
There is absolutely no need for filing the shoulder of the barrel or receiver to have the front sight obround line up.

This is accomplished using the characteristics of the lathe upon which the barrel was threaded and the mill upon which the receiver was threaded. The obround is used as a dog to time the barrel in the chuck jaws and the half-nut is engaged into the very same notch each time a pass is made while machining the thread. The position of the start thread is timed exactly each time a barrel is machined. There is absolutely no variation! Old manual machinery work on this principle. The very same principles of half-nut and locating of receiver applies to the old manual mills in threading the receiver.

The most important feature of both items (barrel & receiver) is the positional clocking of the start thread of both items. They can be adjusted minutely! And the barrel will align with the obround in the correct position EVERY time, without fail.

You have failed to mention that with the method that you champion, the start of the threads must be clocked also. Or all will fail! and torque will be different on each pistol produced.

And if the threads are clocked there is no need for a line to which to draw. You cannot torque a barrel to the receiver with the accuracy displayed by the early Luger commercial pistols.

I would enjoy seeing perfect alignments of 'draw' lines on the Springfields as is seen on the Luger commercials.

[Jim Keenan]

That process can be done with careful machining and it was done in the WWII era with M1 rifle and M1 carbine barrels, which do not use draw lines. But I will still stand by the description of the use of draw lines as the way Luger barrels were made and installed.

One point is that if barrels were made, installed, marked, then deinstalled for bluing, the barrel threads should be blued, at least when the hot dip process was used. They aren't, as you can easily confirm by pulling the barrels off a couple of pistols. At the same time, a check can be made to see if every Luger barrel thread start is at exactly the same place. As I recall, they are not.

Another point against that idea is that in the same factory at the same time, Mauser rifles were blued with barrels installed (as barrelled receivers), as shown very clearly in Backbone of the Wehrmacht.

The lines themselves seem to mitigate against your theory. If they were always made with the same tool at the same time, they should, even if reinstalled without perfect alignment, be of the same depth and width. They are not, as the pictures displayed elsewhere show, and as a look at any group of original Lugers will show. It is pretty common for the barrel line to be wider and deeper than that on the receiver or to show tool marks not consistent with those of the receiver line. Examined under a microscope, the lines show definite disjointures which we would not expect if they were done by the same tool.

Jim

[wterrell]

This is idiotic, but I will address.

I have not stated to you my interpretation of why the marks are on the Luger. Please do not argue against something that I have not stated.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"> be of the same depth and width. They are not, as the pictures displayed elsewhere show, and as a look at any group of original Lugers will show. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">OK! Let's look at all 1900 DWM commercial with original barrel. I believe that they would constitute a group. The markings and alignments are beauty, itself. If I am wrong, there are enough collectors of these pistols on this forum to correct me without mercy.

And if you do not mind....pictures please. That will go a long way in pressing your assumptions. And cite the pages in the book that you referred.

[Ron Wood]

Danged if this isn't like Yogi Berra said, "Deja vu all over again". This is almost exactly like the thread on this subject went when it was started back on 02-23-2003 under the topic "A learning experience" in the Navy Lugers forum. I suspect it will end up with the same consensus...none. Still, a spirited debate almost always brings out some good.

[wterrell]

Well, dang it, Ron. This feller is making quite a few assumptions about the biscuit recipe in Algeria and saying my mom made them the same way. All I want is a look see.
I assume Model T production processes changes somewhat from 1907 thru 1926 and I would guess that Chevy was manufactured quite a bit differently during those years.
But, I have no pictures.

[ViggoG]

Gentlemen,
At the risk of being handed my head!
I will again bring forward a few facts relating to the Luger Pistol, And Mass Production In General.
Prior to WW-1 The Central European Nations were the first to emerge into the "mechanical Age", and were the first to develop the principals of rudimentary "Quality Control".
Basically the Clock and Musical Instruments Industries followed rapidly by the Arms Industries entered into the Era of Mass Production where very few if any of the critical design parts ever came togather until Final assembly.
The construction of these parts were made possible by the development of the Fixturing and Gauging devices that assured the most precise allignment of the mating parts even when manufactured many miles apart, and even assured the same accuracy when production was renewed after the plants were destroyed by hostile action.
Henry Ford made a study of the European Methods before setting up his assembly lines, and started the beginning of the USA's Industrial Explosion.
Jim Keenan has in his expert way put forth the Best Description of the use of fixtures and Working and Inspection Gaging that I have seen short of the Contract Specifications placed on Industry by NACA/NASA during the beginning of the "Man In Space Program".
The use of Draw Lines/Witness Marks are Nothing New In The Space Industries.
I myself, During My Thirty Six Years at Langley Research Center, have Designed, Manufactured, and Used many of such devices as described by Jim Keenan.
The proper design and use of such devices assures close reproduction and rapid manufacture of Spacecraft Parts even though made in plants separated by Continents and even the Oceans.
I would be so bold as to suggest that His Most Discriptive Post also be preserved as "Typical Production Methodology", (Most Likely Applied in the Manufacturing of the Luger Pistol).
Viggo G. Dereng, Cmfge, NASA Retired.

[Heydrich]

&gt;&gt;And cite the pages in the book that you referred.&lt;&lt;

Wes, Jim’s reference to Mauser rifles being blued as complete receiver/barrel assemblies is on page 121 of Backbone of the Wehrmacht. There is even a photograph showing this being down. Note that this same Mauser Oberndorf plant made the vast majority of the Third Reich Lugers. Based on this acute observation, I agree with what Jim has written on witness marks for this period. As in my experience Engineers and Managers at the same plant used the same exact procedures of manufacturing overall. He is also correct in the common sense observation that all the removed Luger barrels I’ve seen are not blued on the threading. Looks like some of the “bibles” for Lugers are wrong…

[wterrell]

Heydrich,

I was not asking for the reference for the bluing. The reference for the production process that he cited is what I am asking. However, thank you for the very valuable information that you have given.

You have given the most important qualification to your statement and I admire you for it: for this period
Another qualification might have been "by this company".

I cannot accept as an article of faith that the same processes manufactured both rifles and pistols. They may have been, but that is not an absolute. It is not irrefutable proof. The evidence cited by Dwight and his observations of the marks on the military, police, rework, and commercial pistols is compelling argument. It is good research being subjected to peer review and must be dissected using equally compelling research methods, not the arguments, based upon nonsense, which have been submitted above.

Dwight has shown quite a bit of integrity in methods and presentation. Our arguments to the contrary must be of the same ilk.

[Jim Keenan]

I am sure that all will be relieved to know that this will be my final comment on the "lines" issue. Those who dismiss anything but their own ideas as "nonsense" will not be interested and need read no further.

With that understanding, please permit me a summary of the theories, as I understand them, put forth so far to explain the barrel and receiver markings usually known as "witness marks" or "draw lines".

But let me dispose first of one secondary issue, the contention that barrel and receiver were, for whatever reason, finished, blued separately (rust blue or tank blue), and then (re)assembled. This idea is simply not supported by the guns themselves or by the practice of any other gun maker of the time or since. Luger barrel and receiver threads are "white" where the bluing did not reach; the parts could not have been blued separately, certainly not by the tank bluing method. Further, Mauser blued barrel and receiver as a unit in its rifle work, and there is absolutely no evidence that they or any other maker did differently with the Luger.

Now, let's look at the main barrel-receiver alignment theories.

1. The barrel and receiver were completed except for the barrel front sight and extractor cut. The incomplete barrel was installed on the receiver and the receiver flats used to align and machine the front sight. The assembly was then marked, with a single line and using a single tool, to ensure proper re-alignment on final assembly. The barrel was then removed, the extractor cut was milled, and the barrel re-installed, using the marking to re-align the barrel.

Comment: This is perfectly possible, and there is nothing in the guns to contradict it except that almost all of the alignment marks appear to the eye NOT to have been made with the same tool, and mircroscopic examination indicates that different tools were used even when the line appears continuous. Further, it is inefficient, requiring extra time for disassembly and reassembly. In addition, each assembly would have been unique, and the fitting of spare barrels would have been difficult. (In this discussion, it should be noted that spare barrels have the line, which would not be the case if it were applied only in provisional assembly of production pistols.)

2. The tooling used in Luger production was precise enough that barrel threads could be cut so that alignment and crush fit would be possible without markings. The front sight and extractor cut were machined into the barrel in the barrel making process and the barrel was installed in the receiver. Any minor alignment adjustments were made by aligning on the front sight base.

Comment: This is also perfectly feasible, and is used today, but would require precision machining not easily achieved in production equipment, especially in the early 1900's. But this technique would not have required any "witness lines"; there would have been no need for them and no logical explanation for their presence. Even if they were applied to completed pistols for some unknown reason, there would have been no reason to put them on spare barrels.

3. The Luger markings in question are "draw lines". One is placed on the receiver in its manufacture, and the other is placed separately on the barrel, using a precision gauge tightened down on the threads. The barrel line is then used as a reference point to machine the front sight base and the extractor cut. The completed barrel is installed, being "drawn up" so that the two lines meet, and the assembly is complete.

Comment: This technique is suited to the production environment, and is known to have been used in other arms factories of the general period. It achieves the purpose without precision machinery. Further, it appears to be confirmed by the gun themselves, which indicate that the barrel line and the receiver line were made by different tools and were made while the barrel and receiver were separate (there is no "crossover" in the marking, and microscopic examination shows distinctly different tool marks even when the lines appear to the eye to be one continuous line).

In summary, I believe the "mysterious" marks were made in the process described in paragraph 3 above. In the absence of any detailed description of the process by someone who was actually there, I will accept that explanation.

Jim