1914 dwm commercial army p08, reworked & police marked

[Don M]

Fortunately for me, the market for pistols is set by the majority of collectors who place the highest value on condition, preferring pistols that appear nearly unused. I, on the other hand, am most interested in an item that has a history of its use written on it. This allows me to occasionally acquire at a reasonable price something in lesser condition that “speaks volumes” about where it has been and what it has experienced. Thanks to the graciousness of Bob Simpson, I am able to present here a case in point.

The Facts

It is a 1914 DWM Commercial Army P08, serial number 71857. I am not very familiar with Imperial Lugers but I understand these are rather rare. On p. 62 of Central Powers Pistols, Jan Still states that some 1908 and 1914 commercial P08s were diverted to military service prior to the beginning of WWI. He notes that only thirteen 1914s have been reported. This will make fourteen.

For those interested in condition, this gun has been graded as having about 86% blue and 10% straw remaining with a very good bore and grips. It has some pitting on the left side of the barrel, the takedown lever and side plate, the left and right sides of the frame, the safety lever and the front and rear grip straps. Except for the magazine and the firing pin which are unmarked, it is all matching. The side plate and takedown lever are stamped 57 in both military and commercial style. The lower receiver is stamped 57 on the lug and 18 before it. All components of the toggle train, including the rear axle, are stamped 57 as are the sear bar, safety arm and insides of the grip panels. There is no “spur” in the main spring housing.

There are horizontal C/N commercial firing proof stamps on the left side of the receiver, the breechblock and the middle link of the toggle train. The right side of the receiver has C/S, C/E, C/S military acceptance stamps. This sequence is apparently unknown on Army commercials. According to Still, all others are reported to have C/X, C/X, C/X stamps. This is clearly an exception. There are a few reported 1913, 1914 and 1915 dated military P08s with the S, E, S sequence (http://luger.gunboards.com/showthread.php?t=8129). The presence of commercial instead of the Army firing proof stamps is also a rarity.

The barrel is a replacement with a small and a larger E/6 (Simson) acceptance stamp, a Berlin police armory PTV/E firing proof stamp and the numeral 5 stamped on the bottom. It has the bore measurement 8,82 stamped as well. There is no serial number on the barrel.

The pistol had Schiwy and Walther safeties installed. The Schiwy (sear) safety has been removed and the Walther (magazine) safety has been deactivated.

The front grip strap has the Prussian police marking LS.T.11., signifying P08 number 11 of the Landjägereischule at Trier. This is the only example of a marking from this school that I am aware of. The stamping has a halo.

The magazine is a shiny (chromed?) tube with an unmarked wood base. The sides of the base are strangely and amateurishly dished. This probably was someone’s idea of a “proper” magazine for this gun. There is no way that an original wood base mag could have survived the 30+ years of the service life of this pistol.

The Story

There is a lot of history evident in the above features. Here is my interpretation. My knowledge of Imperial-era Lugers is quite limited; hopefully, others can correct or add to this story.

Initially destined for the commercial market, this pistol was diverted for military use about 1913-14. Apparently, it already had been commercially proofed, so the Army added only acceptance stamps and military-style serial numbering. It almost certainly saw wartime service, perhaps as a privately purchased officer’s sidearm.

Following WWI, it did not receive the 1920 government property stamp, suggesting it was not part of an official government inventory. This would be consistent with it having been privately purchased.

The gun is rather coy about its ownership and whereabouts during the decade of the 1920s. It found its way into police service, perhaps as a result of being the private property of a former Army officer who became a policeman after the war. In about 1930-31, it was reworked (rebarreled and refinished) by the armory of the Polizeischule für Technik und Verkehr (PTV) in Berlin and was issued to the Landjägerei school in Trier. The rework date can be pinned down fairly accurately. The halo around the police marking indicates it was stamped after the gun was reworked. The Trier school did not open until 1931 and the marking would have been LST.11. (no intermediate period) if had been issued after the February 1932 marking order (HWIS, Chapters 4 & 12). The barrel probably had been manufactured by Simson in 1925 (the number 5 on the bottom) and purchased by the PTV. This rework is very similar to that performed by the PTV in 1929-30 on former Landjägerei LP08s for reissue to various police units (http://forum.lugerforum.com/showthread.php?t=20449).

The unnumbered firing pin is slotted and the rear toggle axle is numbered. It is my understanding that these features were introduced about 1932. If so, they would not likely have been part of the earlier rework. In conformance with the directive of August 1933, the pistol was fitted with Schiwy and Walther safeties, probably in 1934. The firing pin may have been slotted or replaced and the axle numbered at this time or later.

Many of the P08s belonging to police schools were transferred to the military in the mid-1930s, most of them before being fitted with Schiwy and Walther safeties (HWIS, Chapter 12). This gun probably was transferred somewhat later. While the Walther safety may have been deactivated while it was still in the hands of the police, the Schiwy safety probably was removed after it was transferred to the military which did not use these devices.

The pistol likely saw military service during WWII. It would be great if it had capture papers but this is where the story ends.

If this pistol had remained in the same condition as it was originally issued, it certainly would be worth many times what I paid for it but this story would have ended with the first paragraph. However, thanks to the reworking, the police marking and other modifications, it was affordable and quite talkative.

[Norme]

Hi Don, A very interesting Luger indeed. I think you "squeezed" it dry of all it's secrets! I'm glad that it fell into such capable hands. Regards, Norm

[JTD]

Don, thanks for the great presentation of this pistol. It has much history and some mystery under its belt. John

[Dwight Gruber]

Don,

I have some other thoughts about this gun. Can you dredge any more detail out of the right-receiver firing proof? Also, could we see the frame-front serial number?

--Dwight

[Don M]

Dwight,

We have houseguests so it will be a couple of days before I can take more photos. I may be showing my ignorance but I thought the three stamps on the right receiver were acceptance stamps and not a firing proof. They are all three rather lightly stamped and don't photograph well but they are definitely crowns over S, E and S.

[Ron Wood]

Don,
You are corrrect that the SES are acceptance stamps. The firing proof on your gun is to the right of the SES and is all but obliterated. It should be a DWM proof but it is hard to tell in the photo and looks like it might be something else. Can you confirm what it is with your naked eyeball?

[Dwight Gruber]

Don,

Ron beat me to the essentials. The firing proof may have something significant to tell about this gun.

--Dwight

[Don M]

The white spots you see in the photo are stray bits of whiting material that I failed to clean off after whiting the acceptance stamps. With intense light and magnification I can say that there is nothing stamped forward of the SES acceptances. This is why I believe that the gun had already been commercially proofed and this was accepted by the Army after they had inspected the gun.

Dwight, I will get the photo of the front frame serial number in the next day or so.

[Don M]

Here is a photo of the front frame serial number and another photo of the right side of the receiver minus the spurious spots. I have also included a photo of the bottom of the receiver showing how the last four digits of the serial number were stamped.

[LUIS22]

Wow thats a Luger with a lot of Character..Congrats!! I also feel the same about mint guns some how they lack personality!

[Dwight Gruber]

Don,

Thanks for the additonal pics. The apparent absence of an Imperial power-proof mark on the receiver leads me to an alternative theory of this gun's origin.

To recap some things about the 1908/1914 Commercial Armys:

They have no c/N commercial proofs.

They have military power-proofing.

They have unique c/X,c/X,c/X inspection and acceptance marks.

The are serial-numbered in the hidden, commercial fashion.

Conventional wisdom concerning these pistols has it that they were removed from the commercial production stream before power-proofing, inspected and accepted by someone out of the normal military acceptance stream (the anonymous c/X stamps), proofed in the army proofing facilitiy, and delivered to the Army.

On Commercial Army sn 71857, the c/S c/E c/S inspection stamps imply that the gun came from the military production stream in 1914 or early 1915. The absence of an Eagle proof indicates that the pistol was rejected for some reason before military power proofing.

The c/N commercial proofs and serial numbers suggest that the entire pistol was then diverted to the commercial production stream, where it was proofed and then marketed.

It is difficult to know when the parts were serial-numbered. The bottom of the receiver and recoil lug are numbered in the commercial manner; the takedown lever and sideplate are numbered in both military and commercial fashion. It would be useful to know if the center toggle is numbered underneath. It would also be useful to examine the top of the chamber very closely for any evidence that a date has been removed.

The official Army inspection and marking instructions specify that parts are to be serial-numbered after completion, but before power-proofing and final acceptance. That the pistol has all three acceptance stamps, but no proof mark, is anomalous. It is suspected that the inspection instructions applied specifically to the Erfurt factory, bolstered by the demonstrable fact that DWM P08 are not marked in accordance with these instructions. It is not possible to conclude whether or not the pistol fell out of the military production stream before or after it was serial-numbered.

Several factors lead me to believe the pistol was serial-numbered in the commercial fashion first.

The frame-front is very clean, and bears no evidence that a military number was removed and replaced by a five-digit commercial number.

It is recognized that P08s in police service ended up with their parts numbered in military style during police rework, if they were not so numbered originally.

The numerals stamped on the top of the centger toggle are larger than the size specified in the marking instructions, and indeed larger than observed on DWM military production guns.

P08s manufactured before 1916 had the old-style, unrelieved sear bar. These were numbered on the raised surface of the bar. In later production, when the bar was relieved, the number was still stamped on the raised portion of the bar, almost completely hidden beneath the trigger plate. The sear bar on this pistol is relieved, but the number is stamped in the clear, on the relieved portoin of the bar.

This is not the only Luger I know of with these characteristics. Commercial (Army) sn 72024 (a circle-S Police gun) is similarly marked with Imperial inspection marks but no Imperial proof; along with lazy c/N commercial proofs. I do not have a record of the inspector stamps, but it is noted that they are not c/X. The only notation of non-Commercial serial number placement is on the sideplate.

Sorry about the verbosity, I had a lot on my mind to put into words. That there are now two of these guns reported (and thanks very much for it, Don) strengthens my suspicion that DWM wartime commercial Luger production was entirely based on military rejection.

--Dwight

[Don M]

Dwight,

Thank you very much for this thorough expert evaluation. This was just the type of analysis I was hoping to get. To answer your further questions:

* I think a date may have been ground off the top of the chamber. While there is no evidence on the top of the chamber, the arc of the intersection of the bevel in front of the breech block with the surface of the chamber is somewhat flattened compared to my 1918 DWM.

* The center toggle link is numbered on the bottom.

Any further comments will be most welcome.