DWM Commercial with military markings

[pursihei]

Hi,
I acquired a Luger pistol about two weeks ago. This is my first Luger and it was sold as DWM m23 commercial but I have found difficult to identify this gun from the Luger literature.

It seems to ne rebarrelled to 7,65mm and has now 3 7/8" barrel. It also has military type markings. All parts are matching except that takedown lever has no number. SN is 913f

There are 4 lazy C/Ns proofs in barrel, receiver, frame and breechlock.
right side of the frame is without any markings. See photos





Right side of the receiver is without markings and the chamber is unmarked. Also no markings near the backsight. There is a small Prussian eagle in the left side of the breechlock. See photos





There is small proof mark in the receiver which looks like a wing or chicken:


Being new in this field I would guess that it is an early DWM/Krieghoff rework of 1915 imperial? Is this correct? Thank you for your help

[Don M]

pursihei,

I'm not enough of an expert to try to identify this Luger but am replying to get your post back "on top" in hopes that someone knowledgable will respond. Good luck!

[Dwight Gruber]

pursihei,

Yes, liktely a rework of an Imperial military Luger, but probably not DWM. Their practice was to use an upright c/N on the left receiver, and not to stamp the frame. It would be useful to see a closeup of the left-side c/Ns, with brighter exposures.

--Dwight

[pursihei]

Dwight,

Here are some additional photos, this time taken with a scanner and with some more precision.

I don't think this a 'rare' Luger but anyways I would be interested to know some of the history of this pistol. I'm not sure if this gun is of Finnish origins maybe the seller bought it from somewhere in Europe because he mentioned he travels a lot. He had 8 Lugers to sell, all where model 23 commercials according to him. However this is actually a 20 commercial?







Thank you kindly for your help in identifying!

[Pete Ebbink]

Could this be a Krieghoff rework of a DWM luger that got "sanitized" of any HK proofs on the right side and on the rear frame HK markings...?

When I saw the initial photo of the rear frame area, it looked to me like heavy sanding occurred there...

Simpsons LTD has this one for sale :

http://www.simpsonltd.com/LugerRoom/.../K-03/K-03.htm

[pursihei]

Hi,
Well, who knows but if this one was "sanitized" then someone should have removed:

- the date above the chamber
- imperial acceptance proofs on the right side of the receiver
- HK marking on the back of the frame
- HK proof marks on the right side of the frame
- HK proof mark on the breechlock

This is not very likely when I examine the pistol since all corners are sharp and there are no traces of grinded surfaces in the locations where the imperial and HK proofs are normally found (only my photo was quite bad). The finish is original, rust blue at 95%.

Takedown lever is not numbered so propably it has been replaced by a spare part at some point of the pistol's life. Right grip is numbered "94" so also this is mismatching, no number on the left grip. Magazine is has wooden base and it is unnumbered.

My last guess: can this pistol been assembled in 1920's from a DWM 1915 military model luger S/N 913f (maybe with a damaged receiver?). In this rework new barrel and a commercial model receiver was been added (and numbered to match) and then the pistol was proofed at the Krieghoff factory?

[Dwight Gruber]

Pursihei,

Your guess of a Krieghoff commercial rework of an Imperial military DWM I think is a good one. The c/Ns and their position match those shown in Gibson for that model. Reworking is often done so skillfully that it takes an experienced eye and hands-on inspection to detect the removal of dates and right-receiver proofs.

Nothing can be determined from receiver bottom (or lug well) markings. There is no evidence of a Finnish connection for this gun.

--Dwight

[Lugerdoc]

Pete & JP, I serious doubt that this was ever one of the "back frame marked" Kreighoff commerecials, as those were new production DWM in the 2000i to 8000i (i suffix) block and most are dated 1921, when they were manufactured. This is most likely a later Weimar era KH rework of an Imperial military PO8. The proofing is correct for that. TH

[pursihei]

Hi,
Thank you all for your replies. Yes, the C/N proofs placement is such that it really looks that this pistol has been reworked by the Krieghoff factory.

Here is the proof mark found on the breechlock:

http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfuploa...breechlock.jpg

However did HK make Luger reworks without adding their own eagle-proof markings or any other HK mark?

[Dwight Gruber]

Originally posted by pursihei
However did HK make Luger reworks without adding their own eagle-proof markings or any other HK mark? [/B]

According to Gibson, these markings are appropriate for a Krieghoff rework pre-April 1940, when the 1939 proof law went into effect. The eagle/2 inspector stamps were for Krieghoff-manufactued guns, and there was no Krieghoff or LWaA proofs because these were military proofs.

What does the number on the front of the frame look like?

--Dwight

[pursihei]

Dwight,

Here is the foto of the front of the frame:



Well I just have to ask: any estimates about the commercial value in this condition and as mismatched (take-down lever & right grip plate)? I do plan not sell but it always nice to know?

[Dwight Gruber]

pursehei,

See your private messages.

--Dwight