1939 42 Code mag proof question

Doug G. · 06-06-2002, 12:57 AM

Ok, I negotiated the price of the 1939 42 code from $1000 to $800. Gun is in the "W" block and has E/655 proofs. Now the mag has the correct serial number and suffix, but a E/63 proof. What's the consensus right or wrong? TIA <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" />

MauserLugers · 06-06-2002, 01:40 AM

Hi Doug,
The 1939/42 with 655 acceptance proofs is a fairly hard variation to find. If I remember correctly, the "W" block was the transition block from the E/63 to the E/655 with a very few examples have one of each. Since it is in the transition block and does have the 655 acceptance marks I would say that the E/63 is correct on this gun only because of the transition. Normally the base has the same proofs as the acceptance marks on the right receiver. Hope this helps you some -- Bill Munis

Doug G. · 06-06-2002, 01:48 AM

Thanks, I was thinking that it looked right, but only have a 1 day instection period. Now for another question. Since these guns could have black plastic or wood grips (mine has wood) are they numbered to the gun? My other E/63 profed 1939 "T" block does. These grips are just marked with a "M" "Q" "R" "T" in large letters. TIA again.

<img src="graemlins/icon107.gif" border="0" alt="[icon107]" />

MauserLugers · 06-06-2002, 02:24 AM

Hi,
The first black plastic grips were not used until the byf 41's in the "T" block -- which would be June of 1941.

The grips on a 1939/42 can be numbered, or blank, or blank but proofed, or numbered and proofed. All are correct.

Doug G. · 06-06-2002, 10:08 AM

Thanks for the help. if you check Still's book it says that the plastic grips were used on the E/655 1939 dated guns when wood grips were not available. This is of course assuming the Mr. Stills data is correct?

MauserLugers · 06-06-2002, 11:05 AM

Hi Doug,
Black plastic grips before June of 1941 have to be replacement grips. There is a directive stating that they were not issued as standard issue until June of 1941. I guess you'll just have to use your own judgement on this and go with what you think is correct. -- Later -- Bill Munis

Frank · 06-06-2002, 01:05 PM

Hi Doug, for what it's worth, I concur with Bill's conclusion. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Herb · 06-06-2002, 01:06 PM

Doug, if the eagle over 63 has curved wings it is found on Mauser 'G' date 1934's and 1937 S/42's. It is inspector #63 at Oberndorf. If the eagle has straight wings then it is correct for for a 39 model. This will also be found as a barrel proof on 38 models. Also this eagle has no body or feet.

MauserLugers · 06-06-2002, 05:31 PM

Hi Herb,
Hi Herb,
The straight wing 63 is correct for some of the 1939/42 Lugers, but not all of them. There are actually 4 variations of this model -- small E/63, Large 63, One Large 63 and one E/655, and E/655 E/655. It really depends on which variation you have if the straight eagle 63 is correct or not, and then which size it is. A "Y" block gun with 655 655 acceptance marks would probably not be correct with a E/63 based magazine because the change took place in the "w" block. There are transition periods between these changes that could have an ealier proofed base than the acceptance marks on the gun. So, the 1939/42 magazines could have a small straigh winged 63 on them, a large straight winged 63 on them, or a E/655 on them depending on where they are in the production. Take care -- Bill M

Cristi · 08-22-2009, 10:22 AM

I have a P 08 1939 42 , bottom of the magazine marked 63 + w, and the right side of the pistol marked two times 655 and an eagle with swastika. All serial numbers match , including magazine .Is this an interesting variation, or is a common one? But the upper dug up relic in the picture is still a mistery for me.. More comments here
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?t=127294

Ice · 08-22-2009, 04:15 PM

Hi Cristi, welcome to the forum. I can't say that your 1939 42 is a variation but it is a VERY desirable model with matching numbers including magazine. Looks like its in great shape. Your dugup relic is also interesting; probably the result of some creative gunsmithing during gun ban times. Maybe the owner/creator died and the person who inherited it got scared and buried it. I would keep it just the way that it is since it is a piece of history from when times were hard. More so, its a perfect example of why those of us who love freedom - around the world - must fight to keep that freedom.

My best

Charlie

Cristi · 08-25-2009, 04:00 AM

Few pictures

06-06-2002, 12:57 AM	#1
Doug G. User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 713 Thanks: 1 Thanked 53 Times in 17 Posts	1939 42 Code mag proof question Ok, I negotiated the price of the 1939 42 code from $1000 to $800. Gun is in the "W" block and has E/655 proofs. Now the mag has the correct serial number and suffix, but a E/63 proof. What's the consensus right or wrong? TIA <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" /> __________________ Suppose you were an idiot.....and suppose you were a member of Congress.....But I repeat myself" ~~ Mark Twain

06-06-2002, 01:48 AM	#3
Doug G. User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 713 Thanks: 1 Thanked 53 Times in 17 Posts	Thanks, I was thinking that it looked right, but only have a 1 day instection period. Now for another question. Since these guns could have black plastic or wood grips (mine has wood) are they numbered to the gun? My other E/63 profed 1939 "T" block does. These grips are just marked with a "M" "Q" "R" "T" in large letters. TIA again. <img src="graemlins/icon107.gif" border="0" alt="[icon107]" /> __________________ Suppose you were an idiot.....and suppose you were a member of Congress.....But I repeat myself" ~~ Mark Twain

06-06-2002, 10:08 AM	#5
Doug G. User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 713 Thanks: 1 Thanked 53 Times in 17 Posts	Thanks for the help. if you check Still's book it says that the plastic grips were used on the E/655 1939 dated guns when wood grips were not available. This is of course assuming the Mr. Stills data is correct? __________________ Suppose you were an idiot.....and suppose you were a member of Congress.....But I repeat myself" ~~ Mark Twain

06-06-2002, 01:06 PM	#8
Herb User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Utah, in the land of the Sleeping Rainbow Posts: 1,457 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Doug, if the eagle over 63 has curved wings it is found on Mauser 'G' date 1934's and 1937 S/42's. It is inspector #63 at Oberndorf. If the eagle has straight wings then it is correct for for a 39 model. This will also be found as a barrel proof on 38 models. Also this eagle has no body or feet. __________________ Utah, where gun control means a steady trigger pull

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-06-2002, 01:40 AM	#2
MauserLugers User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Philipsburg, Montana 59858 Posts: 250 Thanks: 0 Thanked 8 Times in 1 Post	Hi Doug, The 1939/42 with 655 acceptance proofs is a fairly hard variation to find. If I remember correctly, the "W" block was the transition block from the E/63 to the E/655 with a very few examples have one of each. Since it is in the transition block and does have the 655 acceptance marks I would say that the E/63 is correct on this gun only because of the transition. Normally the base has the same proofs as the acceptance marks on the right receiver. Hope this helps you some -- Bill Munis

06-06-2002, 02:24 AM	#4
MauserLugers User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Philipsburg, Montana 59858 Posts: 250 Thanks: 0 Thanked 8 Times in 1 Post	Hi, The first black plastic grips were not used until the byf 41's in the "T" block -- which would be June of 1941. The grips on a 1939/42 can be numbered, or blank, or blank but proofed, or numbered and proofed. All are correct.

06-06-2002, 11:05 AM	#6
MauserLugers User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Philipsburg, Montana 59858 Posts: 250 Thanks: 0 Thanked 8 Times in 1 Post	Hi Doug, Black plastic grips before June of 1941 have to be replacement grips. There is a directive stating that they were not issued as standard issue until June of 1941. I guess you'll just have to use your own judgement on this and go with what you think is correct. -- Later -- Bill Munis

06-06-2002, 01:05 PM	#7
Frank RIP Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hot & Dry PHX, AZ Posts: 2,078 Thanks: 24 Thanked 164 Times in 87 Posts	Hi Doug, for what it's worth, I concur with Bill's conclusion. [img]smile.gif[/img]

06-06-2002, 05:31 PM	#9
MauserLugers User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Philipsburg, Montana 59858 Posts: 250 Thanks: 0 Thanked 8 Times in 1 Post	Hi Herb, Hi Herb, The straight wing 63 is correct for some of the 1939/42 Lugers, but not all of them. There are actually 4 variations of this model -- small E/63, Large 63, One Large 63 and one E/655, and E/655 E/655. It really depends on which variation you have if the straight eagle 63 is correct or not, and then which size it is. A "Y" block gun with 655 655 acceptance marks would probably not be correct with a E/63 based magazine because the change took place in the "w" block. There are transition periods between these changes that could have an ealier proofed base than the acceptance marks on the gun. So, the 1939/42 magazines could have a small straigh winged 63 on them, a large straight winged 63 on them, or a E/655 on them depending on where they are in the production. Take care -- Bill M

08-22-2009, 04:15 PM	#11
Ice User Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 552 Thanks: 13 Thanked 69 Times in 57 Posts	Hi Cristi, welcome to the forum. I can't say that your 1939 42 is a variation but it is a VERY desirable model with matching numbers including magazine. Looks like its in great shape. Your dugup relic is also interesting; probably the result of some creative gunsmithing during gun ban times. Maybe the owner/creator died and the person who inherited it got scared and buried it. I would keep it just the way that it is since it is a piece of history from when times were hard. More so, its a perfect example of why those of us who love freedom - around the world - must fight to keep that freedom. My best Charlie