my profile |
register |
faq |
search upload photo | donate | calendar |
10-01-2002, 12:34 PM | #1 |
User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
1915 Luger Unit Marking
I have a 1915 DWM Luger that I believe was used by Germany in France. The unit marking is 2.M.G.K.R.J.R.65 with a small 6 following. Serial number is 168 a. Anyone have any ideas on the meaning? Appreciate any help.
|
10-01-2002, 12:51 PM | #2 |
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Box 240188, Douglas, Alaska, 99824
Posts: 463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 52 Times in 32 Posts
|
|
10-01-2002, 01:01 PM | #3 |
User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Thank you very much for the information.
|
10-01-2002, 04:12 PM | #4 |
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Byron, Georgia
Posts: 1,692
Thanks: 789
Thanked 1,671 Times in 548 Posts
|
Jan, while I agree with your interpretation of the markings, aren't they well outside of the approved sequence? Wouldn't it be more correct if it read: "R.J.R.65.M.G.K.2.6."?
In past correspondence with Rheinhardt Kornmayer, he stated that Imperial markings often deviated from the regulations. It seems to me that the markings on this Luger are not IAW the regs. (I'm at work and don't have my books handy so I may be all wet but I don't think I am.) Anyway, I'm just curious as to your thoughts on this. |
10-01-2002, 05:23 PM | #5 |
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Box 240188, Douglas, Alaska, 99824
Posts: 463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 52 Times in 32 Posts
|
|
10-01-2002, 05:25 PM | #6 |
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Box 240188, Douglas, Alaska, 99824
Posts: 463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 52 Times in 32 Posts
|
|
10-01-2002, 07:29 PM | #7 |
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Byron, Georgia
Posts: 1,692
Thanks: 789
Thanked 1,671 Times in 548 Posts
|
[quote]Originally posted by Jan C. Still:
<strong><Snip> The substitution of J.R. for R, and R.J.R. for R(script) is officially designated on dog tags, and may be the source of such incorrect designations on Lugers. Jan</strong><hr></blockquote> Jan, thanks for the reply. I was aware of the script "R" but the dog tags information is something I'd not heard before. I wonder if the unit armorer was also the individual who stamped the individual dog tags? He would certainly have had the equipment for it. Confusing/combining the regulations could easily have happened. (It does all the time in today's military.) That is very interesting indeed. |
|
|