Horizontal Crown N's

[Rick K]

Below is a picture of my DWM 1916/1920. Notice the horizontal Crown N proof marks. There are four altogether,including one on the barrel and one on the toggle link (if you can make them out). Does anyone think these are unusual?






http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/DW...oofsedited.jpg

[Rick K]

I'm learning how to work with photos as I go. I really would like to know what you knowledgeable guys really think about these crown N's if that's what they are, because I truly, don't know. Are these the "German ""nitro"" commercial proof" marks, No. 28 in Kenyon's book? He says they are supposed to be upright on the receiver. I own two Lugers and the one in the picture is only the third one I've ever seen in person! So when I say "I don't know", I truly don't know! I am pleading for enlightenment.




http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/DW...ofscropped.jpg

[Kyrie]

Hi Rick,


I'm having a little trouble seeing them clearly, but they certainly look like commercial C/N proof marks. Interesting! One seldom sees a proof on the Luger frame.


Best regards,


Kyrie

[Rick K]

Hi Kyrie,


Thanks for responding. Yes, they are kind of faint. There's one also by the extractor on the right side of the breechblock.

[Rick K]

Here's a photo of the Crown N on the right side of the breechblock, if you can make it out.






http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/Topleft.jpg

[Kyrie]

Hi Rick,


This is yet another very interesting 1920's rework Luger. A Great War military, "1920" property stamp, retains Imperial military acceptance and proof, but re-barreled and re-proofed commercially. Moreover, the commercial proofs are oddly placed for a Luger. I think this one is a good sample of the results of the confusion and chaos in Germany in the 1920's, and especially the early 1920's.


In the early 1920's there were pitched battles in the streets between Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Nihilists, Fascists, Imperialists, and the Republican forces of the Weimar Republic government. German states attempted to withdraw from the German confederation, and entire cities tried to go Socialist and make common cause with the Bolshevik government of the newly formed Soviet Union. Intimidation, violence, and murder became common forms of political expression and pitched battles raged between what amounted to private armies composed of experienced veterans equipped with weapons left over from the Great War. A large part of the reason for the Weimar requirement of the "1920" stamp on its military equipment has nothing to do with the Allies - it was to stop, or at least slow, the flow of weapons diverted from government arsenals to the warring factions.


In the midst of all this we have DWM and some (probably large) number of smaller concerns refurbishing Lugers for use by the various factions and for commercial sale. Small wonder at the large variation we see in both the quality and marking of Lugers from this period!


My, but I do go on [wry smile]. Let me speculate a bit about this specific Luger...


Lugers typically had proof marks applied to barrel, barrel extension, and breechblock. German Army proofs were usually applied (after 1908) to the right side of the barrel extension, the right side of the barrel, and the left side of the breechblock - frames were not proof marked. Successful commercial proof resulted in C/N proof marks applied to the left side of the barrel extension, the bottom of the barrel, the breechblock, and the first toggle link - once again the frame was not proof marked.


Yet here we have a rework Luger with commercial proofs on the right side of the barrel, the right side of the breechblock, the right side of the barrel extension - and the right side of the frame! How very odd. But I have a theory


The placement of the commercial proof marks on the Luger is something of an anomaly. For the most part, commercial proof marks on self-loading pistols were placed on barrel, slide/breechblock, frame, and the critical component of the locking mechanism. The proof marks on the barrel, slide, and frame were usually placed on the same side of the pistol, more or less in a vertical line as far as that was possible so all the proofs could be seen at a glance (I've attached a photo of a 1907 Dreyse pistol so folks can see an example of this). All of which suggests that the stamping of the commercial proof marks on this Luger was done by someone with no experience with Lugers, and much experience with other pistols.


If true this would open up some interesting lines of further speculation


Thanks for listening to me ramble!


Best regards,


Kyrie






http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/Dreyse_L_scan.jpg

[Rick K]

That's exactly the kind of info I am looking for! Thank you so much! You can ramble as much as you like!


Here's a photo of the left barrel proof. It's up on the "Does anyone know" thread too.


Rick K




http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/barrel3.jpg

[Marvin]

Kyrie,


Great article on the commercial stamp. I do have one more thought that may help a little. During the Weimar era and later, many officers were required to purchase their own hangun. If the officer had been issued a Luger, he could buy this one, or if not issued one, he could buy a military Luger from the arsenal/depot at a reduced cost. I wonder if this was the case with this pistol. It was a Weimar rework, issued to an officer and he purchased the pistol. Now, why the commercial proof. This officer, or anyone, could submit a firearm to the Proof House for testing. If it passed the proof test, it was stamped with the commercial stamp as any other pistol would have been. This could be a good hypothysis for why the commercial stamp is present. This is all speculation, but seems the right answer as the military would not have presented the pistol to a commercial Proof House for any test. What are other thoughts on this??????


Marvin

[Kyrie]

Hi Marvin,


Sounds like a perfectly reasonable line of speculation to me! Here's yet another...


The pistol is stolen from a Weimar arsenal (or a Weimar officer goes over to some other faction and takes his pistol with him). For some reason it requires a major repair shortly after that, and is submitted via the back door to the proof house, which quickly proofs it and hands it back.


One of the nice things about pieces like this is they present the opportunity to almost free associate ideas on their history and spin some interesting yarns. I freely confess I have no solid idea of how this pistol came to be, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it has a rich and complex history. And probably a history more mixed and bizarre than any we could conjure up from the deaths of out collective imaginations


Best regards,


Kyrie

[Rick K]

Thanks guys. You have taught me a lot. Here's a photo of a DWM 1917/1920 that belongs to Walt J. He's the one that alerted me to the fact that my Luger was unusual.


Rick K




http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/Walt1.jpg

[bill m]

Kyrie, Marvin, and all,

I'm not buying either one of you two's last opinions. The gun was originally a 1916 Artillery. It was re-barrelled most likely at the time it was issued to the Weimar Military. When in this service it was stamped with the 1920 stamp to show it belonged to the Weimar Military. -- Now, it has what looks like Erfurt acceptance stamps on the barrel and rear toggle. Not uncommon on Weimar military and police guns to have mixed manufactures. Walt's gun has the same RC stamp on the barrel, which Jan Still has told him is correct, and as I remember his barrel is the original. I do not agree with this and have asked all my Imperial friends and no one else has ever seen a Crown RC on a DWM gun that was on the original, as issued part. Anyway, both of these have the Crown RC on the barrle. So when was the Horizontal C/N's put on and why on the RIGHT side? Kyrie, the pistol you show the picture of is stamped on the normal, LEFT side. I'm beginning to agree with Tom, that this is a Krieghoff proof. This proof is a commercial proof and was not just randomly put on the right side. There is a reason for it. This is only the third one that I have heard of. The Germans just didn't let inspectors go around stamping stuff, but had a regular assembly and purpose for everything they stamped. I do not know if this is a Krieghoff proof or not, and I don't think there is anyway to tell, but I'm pretty sure it isn't a self purchase, and it isn't just some new guy randomly stamping stuff. My opinion is leaning towards another rework in the 1920's by Krieghoff.

[Rick K]

One last photo to contribute to this discussion.


Rick K




http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/triggerguard.jpg

[bill m]

Thats an Army Test Proof, which is seldom seen on a DWM and noticed a lot on Erfurts.

[Marvin]

Bill,


Point well taken on your theory and this is a good possiblity. The only thing is that you state the pistol was originally an Artillery. I assume this is because of the cut in the receiver. It may not have been an Artillery because the cut was put into all Erfurt receivers in the later part of WWI so they could be used for either type pistol.


As to the Crown RC on the barrel; when did the Crown RC get stamped? Was it stamped prior to assembly or after assembly of the entire pistol? I feel the parts were passed and stamped with the Crown RC before assembly of the pistol and this would give you a mixture of correct parts vs. off spec. parts. During the later years of the war, I am sure they were producing them as fast as possible ans used whatever they could and still be a safe pistol for the troops.


This is really a good conversation and great interaction with ideas. I am definetly not an Imperial Luger expert as some of you are, but I am enjoying this thread.


marvin

[Kyrie]

Hi Bill,


There are some interesting points in here. I especially like trying to make a connection to Krieghoff, though I agree there will never be a way to positively confirm or refute such a connection.


But concerning the C/N proofs being on the left of the Dreyse rather than the right, I'm afraid that is a slender reed upon which to place much reliance. On a Luger, it would have been tough to find a place on the left side to more or less line up the proof marks (the sear bar and sear get in the way). Also, the placement of the C/N proofs on the right side of a pistol was not unusual - I'll attach a copy of a shot of an Ortgies to illustrate this.


Best regards,


Kyrie






http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/Ortgies_R_Photo.jpg

[Walt J.]

Time for me to chime in for a short here since I've been working on trying to find an answer to these right side lazy N's all over the country for the last few months and pretty well getting laughed at by the "experts" I've tried to contact. I've had three basic responses. Primarily, none, or "doesn't exist" or in one case "You're aÃ?Â*fraud and this is a fake". Real encouraging. Was overjoyed to find Rick and a virtual twin to my 1917/1920. Shows, as Bill has insisted, that thereÃ?Â*hadÃ?Â*to be a specific reason for these markings to be applied if only on aÃ?Â*few guns. Did chat with Jan Still on this and mentioned theÃ?Â*possibility of it being a KreighoffÃ?Â*rework. Jan doesn't believe that to be the case but freely admits that he has no idea what the markings indicate. He also has a fully original DWM artillary which has a crown

RC on the toggle, so we know that DWM did use the marking, but only sparingly and in rare cases. Both Rick's barrel and mine are replacements from the originals, and assuming we are measuring these correctly from the front of the breech to the muzzle, are 3Ã?Â*7/8" and not 4". The receiver cut for the artillary sight although not used on the majority of DWM's was used on a fair amount, and both weapons show the TSS inspection stamp of DWM so we know that theyÃ?Â*areÃ?Â*not Erfurts.

In the caseÃ?Â*of my Luger, after receiving the nitro marks on barrel, toggle and breechblock, they were then almost buffed intoÃ?Â*oblivion, and yet the right side crown N's show only the slight buffing akinÃ?Â*toÃ?Â*all the other markings. Believe the same thing to be the caseÃ?Â*with Ricks, although IÃ?Â*stand toÃ?Â*beÃ?Â*corrected. Believe Bill's contention that whateverÃ?Â*happened toÃ?Â*these guns happened between the end of theÃ?Â*war and the restrictions laidÃ?Â*down by the Allied Control Commission in 1919 to be correct, with later takeover by the Weimar military explaining the attempted removal of theÃ?Â*applied commercial nitros and receipt of the 1920 marking. That's it, guys. I could rattle on about this for a few more paragraphs, but that's pretty well the crux of the thing.

Thanks for all the interest....Walt