Loading / take down tools for review

Peteyboy · 09-24-2023, 04:10 PM

I just bought two loading tools for the two 1939, 42 Lugers that I recently purchased and posted here. The tools were both listed as originals and I had to believe the well known seller. I have also posted the caliber measurement of thickness next to each tool. From what I researched they conform to the thickness of originals (2.1 to 2.5MM) with reproductions thicker. Also do you think the WaA655 can go with the 1939 Luger? If you could review the pictures and render your opinion. Thanks much!

Peteyboy · 09-27-2023, 10:23 AM

HUMMMM. 69 views and no opinions. I guess they are good to go. Thanks for looking.

velodog455~ · 09-27-2023, 11:57 AM

- I'm no expert but here is what I think I know.

- Most, but not all fakes tend to be closer to 3mm in thickness.

- I think your e/655 loading tool is probably more correct than e/135

- My understanding, which might be faulty, is that the e/655 was used on 1939 P.08's through at least 1941

- Both tools are Mauser, to the best of my knowledge.

- I have an oddity that I am trying to sort out. I have a 2.5mm thick loading tool with e/WaA140, which is a FN/Herstal waffenamt, and I have never seen anything to suggest that the FN made these loading tools, although I guess anything is possible late in the war. Could be a fake, but a dumb one. Without trying to hijack the thread, any helpful comments on this would be welcome.

Peteyboy · 09-27-2023, 10:06 PM

Thanks velodog455. I believe your assumptions are correct in researching the waffenamt codes. I've attached pictures. for the 63 and 655 WaA'a. I also found some information on your WaA140 but not sure it is of much help but will post pictures of what I found.
Both waffenamts were used in 1939.

Peteyboy · 09-27-2023, 10:21 PM

velodog455. Here are pictures of what I found on the internet for your waffenamt 140. The first two pictures are stand alone information. The last three are sections, so you have to put them together to get the whole picture. Holler if I can help anymore and thanks for your confirming information on mine. Pete

tharpo · 09-28-2023, 01:21 AM

Looking at the Luger tools in the book "The Mauser Parabellum". I would say that your E/63 is original and correct for 1939. There are no WaA655 tools mentioned in the book. There are plenty of WaA63 tools pictured in the book.

Peteyboy · 09-28-2023, 10:58 AM

"There are no WaA655 tools mentioned in the book."

Well, I don't know what to make of that. Does that mean the WaA655 tool is fake? It does have all appearances of being original. The WaA655 is mentioned all over the internet.

Is the book infallible? I know the book by Richard Law, "The Backbone of the Wehrmacht", once considered the bible for the K98, now is considered to having many incorrect facts as stated on the K98K forum.

Return the tool for a refund based it not being mentioned in the book or keep it thinking it has all the right characteristics of an original tool?????

sdmark777 · 09-28-2023, 11:39 AM

Here is my Eagle 655 tool from my BYF 41 rig. Just to add to the discussion/confusion?

Peteyboy · 09-30-2023, 10:41 PM

I received word that the WaA655 should be in a straight line. I have included much better pictures showing the 655 as a light strike with the second 5 barely legible. Also pictured is the grinding marks which appear rushed when done, not perfect.

The reproductions for sale are 3mm thick with perfect grind lines.

So I am hoping with the new pictures I can get a thumbs up or down on this tool's originality.

klaus 3338 · 10-03-2023, 05:07 AM

Sorry for the bad news but your 655 tool is a fake. It is missing the typical Mauser shape. There was only a WaA 63 accepted tool but not a WaA 655 tool.

Peteyboy · 10-03-2023, 11:50 AM

Klaus, thank you for your input. This is the answer, clarification of originality, I was hoping for.

klaus 3338 · 10-04-2023, 10:18 AM

An older Pic from 2010: all tools have different acceptance marks. I have collected them for about 40 years. Now are they part of my friend Dave.

klaus 3338 · 10-04-2023, 10:19 AM

Now are they part of the tool collection of my friend Dave. May be that is better English.

Peteyboy · 10-04-2023, 11:36 AM

Thank you for the picture Klaus. Dave is a great guy, sent me the PDF file on the tools and with your help as well, determined the 655 tool was not original. Thank you again Klaus for your determination on the 655, it was returned to the seller. Peter

G41M · 10-26-2023, 01:27 PM

Maybe unnecessary at this point, in the Mauser Parabellum book, pages 618-619, is a text/table/photo discussion of SE/655 marked tools. Can't wait to see the new book on Luger tools.

09-24-2023, 04:10 PM	#1
Peteyboy User Join Date: Aug 2023 Posts: 22 Thanks: 9 Thanked 28 Times in 7 Posts	Loading / take down tools for review I just bought two loading tools for the two 1939, 42 Lugers that I recently purchased and posted here. The tools were both listed as originals and I had to believe the well known seller. I have also posted the caliber measurement of thickness next to each tool. From what I researched they conform to the thickness of originals (2.1 to 2.5MM) with reproductions thicker. Also do you think the WaA655 can go with the 1939 Luger? If you could review the pictures and render your opinion. Thanks much! Attached Thumbnails

09-27-2023, 11:57 AM	#3
velodog455~ User Join Date: Aug 2023 Posts: 76 Thanks: 18 Thanked 58 Times in 35 Posts	- I'm no expert but here is what I think I know. - Most, but not all fakes tend to be closer to 3mm in thickness. - I think your e/655 loading tool is probably more correct than e/135 - My understanding, which might be faulty, is that the e/655 was used on 1939 P.08's through at least 1941 - Both tools are Mauser, to the best of my knowledge. - I have an oddity that I am trying to sort out. I have a 2.5mm thick loading tool with e/WaA140, which is a FN/Herstal waffenamt, and I have never seen anything to suggest that the FN made these loading tools, although I guess anything is possible late in the war. Could be a fake, but a dumb one. Without trying to hijack the thread, any helpful comments on this would be welcome. Last edited by velodog455~; 09-27-2023 at 04:10 PM.

09-27-2023, 10:06 PM	#4
Peteyboy User Join Date: Aug 2023 Posts: 22 Thanks: 9 Thanked 28 Times in 7 Posts	Thanks velodog455. I believe your assumptions are correct in researching the waffenamt codes. I've attached pictures. for the 63 and 655 WaA'a. I also found some information on your WaA140 but not sure it is of much help but will post pictures of what I found. Both waffenamts were used in 1939. Attached Thumbnails

09-27-2023, 10:21 PM	#5
Peteyboy User Join Date: Aug 2023 Posts: 22 Thanks: 9 Thanked 28 Times in 7 Posts	velodog455. Here are pictures of what I found on the internet for your waffenamt 140. The first two pictures are stand alone information. The last three are sections, so you have to put them together to get the whole picture. Holler if I can help anymore and thanks for your confirming information on mine. Pete Attached Thumbnails

09-28-2023, 11:39 AM	#8
sdmark777 User Join Date: Apr 2018 Posts: 288 Thanks: 695 Thanked 672 Times in 174 Posts	Here is my Eagle 655 tool from my BYF 41 rig. Just to add to the discussion/confusion? Attached Thumbnails

09-27-2023, 10:23 AM	#2
Peteyboy User Join Date: Aug 2023 Posts: 22 Thanks: 9 Thanked 28 Times in 7 Posts	HUMMMM. 69 views and no opinions. I guess they are good to go. Thanks for looking.

09-28-2023, 01:21 AM	#6
tharpo Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: West Coast, USA Posts: 543 Thanks: 116 Thanked 382 Times in 157 Posts	Looking at the Luger tools in the book "The Mauser Parabellum". I would say that your E/63 is original and correct for 1939. There are no WaA655 tools mentioned in the book. There are plenty of WaA63 tools pictured in the book.

09-28-2023, 10:58 AM	#7
Peteyboy User Join Date: Aug 2023 Posts: 22 Thanks: 9 Thanked 28 Times in 7 Posts	"There are no WaA655 tools mentioned in the book." Well, I don't know what to make of that. Does that mean the WaA655 tool is fake? It does have all appearances of being original. The WaA655 is mentioned all over the internet. Is the book infallible? I know the book by Richard Law, "The Backbone of the Wehrmacht", once considered the bible for the K98, now is considered to having many incorrect facts as stated on the K98K forum. Return the tool for a refund based it not being mentioned in the book or keep it thinking it has all the right characteristics of an original tool?????

09-30-2023, 10:41 PM	#9
Peteyboy User Join Date: Aug 2023 Posts: 22 Thanks: 9 Thanked 28 Times in 7 Posts	I received word that the WaA655 should be in a straight line. I have included much better pictures showing the 655 as a light strike with the second 5 barely legible. Also pictured is the grinding marks which appear rushed when done, not perfect. The reproductions for sale are 3mm thick with perfect grind lines. So I am hoping with the new pictures I can get a thumbs up or down on this tool's originality. Attached Thumbnails

10-03-2023, 05:07 AM	#10
klaus 3338 User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 517 Thanks: 0 Thanked 411 Times in 160 Posts	Sorry for the bad news but your 655 tool is a fake. It is missing the typical Mauser shape. There was only a WaA 63 accepted tool but not a WaA 655 tool.

10-03-2023, 11:50 AM	#11
Peteyboy User Join Date: Aug 2023 Posts: 22 Thanks: 9 Thanked 28 Times in 7 Posts	Klaus, thank you for your input. This is the answer, clarification of originality, I was hoping for.

10-04-2023, 10:18 AM	#12
klaus 3338 User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 517 Thanks: 0 Thanked 411 Times in 160 Posts	An older Pic from 2010: all tools have different acceptance marks. I have collected them for about 40 years. Now are they part of my friend Dave. Attached Thumbnails

10-04-2023, 10:19 AM	#13
klaus 3338 User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 517 Thanks: 0 Thanked 411 Times in 160 Posts	Now are they part of the tool collection of my friend Dave. May be that is better English.

10-04-2023, 11:36 AM	#14
Peteyboy User Join Date: Aug 2023 Posts: 22 Thanks: 9 Thanked 28 Times in 7 Posts	Thank you for the picture Klaus. Dave is a great guy, sent me the PDF file on the tools and with your help as well, determined the 655 tool was not original. Thank you again Klaus for your determination on the 655, it was returned to the seller. Peter

10-26-2023, 01:27 PM	#15
G41M Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Aug 2022 Location: Texas Posts: 35 Thanks: 83 Thanked 143 Times in 24 Posts	Maybe unnecessary at this point, in the Mauser Parabellum book, pages 618-619, is a text/table/photo discussion of SE/655 marked tools. Can't wait to see the new book on Luger tools.