My first luger

[Kleist]

Hello, I have some questions on my first luger.

It looks like I got a late 1920 commercial. All numbers match that I can see with two exceptions. The clip (great war wood +) and barrel has been scrubbed with no marks and doesn't match the finish of the gun.

Questions are:
1) it has no logo on the tang but has a number. Doesn't look scrubbed unless the number was placed after.

2) No date on top but could have been scrubbed.

3) Has a nitro proof on barrel extention along with the ser#. Every one I see on the net only has the proof and no # there.

4) was the barrel buffed out to hide an import mark?

5) It has a letter suffex that looks like a lower case cursive B. What could the date be?

6) has no markes on right side of barrel extention, could have been scrubbed.

Thanks for any help!!

[Edward Tinker]

welcome to the forum! hell I don't know... Let me see if I can figure out your terminology with ours.

1. not sure what a tang is, I'd think that was the end of something... No marking on the toggle?
2. Does it look scrubbed?
3. Barrel extension, is this the receiver and which side of it are you talking about? Eagle N (nitro proof) is a commerical proof so would be correct rather than the 3-4 marks on the right.
4. Was it buffed out?
5. it could be many dates...
6. does it look scrubbed?

Provide pictures and we can help, clear, light pictures


Ed

[Kleist]

Sorry, yes the toggle. Why wouldn't it have a maker logo on the toggle. It doesn't look scrubbed unless the ser# was placed after it was done.

#3 is on the left side of the receiver but also has the ser# next to it. I haven't seen this on the commercials that I have seen. They just have the nitro proof.

I post some pic but really woundering why it doesn't have a logo on top.

Thanks!!

[Edward Tinker]

2 possiblities, it is actually a "sneak", a term I don't really agree with, during the switch over from DWM to Mauser there were some made with no logo. Or, 2, that it is a repalcement and did not have one (or 3 scrubbed)....


Ed

[Kleist]

Thanks Ed. I did see some "sneak" guns on line.

I'll try to post some pic tonight.

Thanks!!!

[Kleist]

here it is

[Kleist]

side

[Kleist]

frame

[Kleist]

other side

[Kleist]

top

[Kleist]

top again

[c3006]

Looks like it was a nice pistol that has been rebarreled and had the toggle buffed and the number restamped. JMHO clint

[Kleist]

ok, I just caught the "7" on the toggle doesn't match the rest of the numbers so that part must be a replacement part?

[thegundude]

Seemingly so...

[Dwight Gruber]

Archie,

Thanks very much for the presentation. This is a very interesting Luger, sufficiently so that it deserves a momentâ??s consideration.

On the face of it, this gun appears to be an Alphabet Commercial (formerly known as a 1920 Commercial). It seems to have all the earmarks, primarily a four-digit serial number with suffix, and an upright crown-over-N commercial proof.

The long-held theory abut the origin of this variation is that it is a result of formerly military Lugers being reworked into Commercial weapons in the 1920s, thus explaining the characteristic military-style serial number with letter suffix. Jan Still, in Weimar Lugers, asserts that the Alphabet Commercial guns were manufactured from new and surplus parts, not scavenged from pre-existing assembled pistols. My own observations and understanding tend to bear this out.

The gun presented here serves double duty, both an example of a military pistol converted to an alphabet-style commercial Luger, and a demonstration of the characteristics which reveal that Alphabet Commercial Lugers are indeed newly manufactured and assembled.

The proof marks on this Luger are indeed upright c/N, placement indicating that the gun underwent test proof in the civilian proof house which serviced DWM, sometime after approximately 1920. The gunâ??s serial number has a b suffix. The Alphabet Commercial variation begins with the i suffix, so the suffix on this Luger is the first indication that closer examination is in order.

The blank front toggle is an invitation to identify this gun as a â??sneak,â?� another obsolete variation term for Lugers manufactured by DWM in 1929, and now called 29DWM. These guns have s, t, and u suffixes, and sometimes have front toggle pieces which are blank. These, however, seem to have been assembled into guns without having been stamped with the DWM scroll. Close examination of this gun shows that the top of the toggle piece has been shaved to remove the mark. An uncharacteristic ridge at the front of the toggle piece, pointed out here,



shows how the surface has been lowered from its original profile. Close comparison with an unmodified toggle piece will reveal other differences.

Another characteristic of Commercial Lugers is their hidden serial number placement. This gun has serial number stamps on the left receiver, trigger plate face, and extractor, in military style. This explains the re-stamp of the number on the front toggle pieceâ??this would have been removed along with the toggle logo, and would have been replaced. The toggle piece is likely original to the gun.

As Archie has pointed out, it appears that the right receiver has been worked to remove military proof marks formerly stamped there. In the photo below comparisons with the straight lines superimposed on the receiver front show how the profile of the right receiver is straighter than the left, revealing that material has been removed.



The comparison shots of the left and right receiver demonstrate this further, showing how the right receiver is flattened compared to the left, and the flat area is higher due to material removal.

So, why the c/N, and what was this gun originally?

Germany, like all countires in Europe, has a national proof law. The US does not. Since there is no GERMANY stamp on this gun, it is reasonable to believe that it was reworked for domestic sale and not intended for export.

German proof law requires re-proofing whenever one of the pressure elementsâ??barrel, breechblock, or receiverâ??is replaced. Considering that the regulations under the Treaty of Versailles forbade manufacture of handguns in military calibers (i.e. 9mm) or with barrels four inches or longer, the barrel is the most likely part to have been replaced. However, the barrel on this gun is not the original rework barrel. It is patently more than four inchesâ??it would be useful to know whether it is 9mm or .30. It can be seen in the front frame picture that it is not a standard replacement because the barrel flange is smaller in diameter than an original barrel. As it is unnumbered and unproofed, it was probably done in the US. If it is 9mm, it would be interesting to know if it has a chamber step.

There is also a question about the breechblock. It has a c/N in place of the expected Imperial army proof. It would be useful to know if the serial number is present, stamped out of sight below the proof, or if there is any evidence that the original proof has been removed from it as well?

This pistol originated as a DWM, as can be told from the lack of inspectorsâ?? marks on the parts. Although the chamber date has been removed, it can be place post-1913 because it has a stock lug. Furthermore, it has a relieved sear bar, which was instituted late-1916. This is not a positive dating feature, as P-08 were retrofitted with these sear bars or had their existing sear bars modified. Remnants of a serial number on the relieved surface suggest the possibility that this is a modification, it would be useful to know if the serial number is repeated on it under the side plate.

So in conclusion this Luger is originally an Imperial military P-08, certainly 1913 or later, possibly 1916-1918. It was reworked into a Commercial model sometime after 1920 by DWM, and made its way to the US in an unofficial mannerâ??perhaps as a spoil of warâ??where it was again rebarrrelled. As a commercial pistol its characteristics fit a no-longer credible theory of the origin of the Alphabet Commercial variation, and serves as a demonstration of why the current theory is a more likely explanation.

--Dwight

[c3006]

I wish I could play the banjo and knew everything about lugers but since I am unwilling to make the sacrifices it takes to do either I will listen to my CDs and ask Dwight

[Kleist]

Dwight,
First, I would like to thank you for the time you spent posting your detailed analysis. This is exactly the feed back I was looking for. It took me all night to take and post those pictures so I can appreciate the effort. I had trouble finding a similar example online. All of the commercials I could find had the DWM logo on top and no serial number on the side of the receiver next to the nitro mark.
Being that I am new to this, I am still confused on a few things:
1) Why would they need to remove the logo when all the other commercials had them anyway?
2) If this was an original Imperial gun that was â??rebuiltâ?� as a post 1920 commercial, what theory does this prove?
3) How does it relate to the â??newâ?� 1920 commercials?
4) Where does it fall in the database?
5) Or is this in some kind of category of its own?

So, to sum it up, this is a Great War gun that needed its barrel replaced post 1920 (could have seen some action in the war?). In order to replace the barrel it needed to be re-tested or â??nitro proofedâ?�. It seems like in order to do this; all pre-existing military marks had to be removed. Also, the only post war option for a new barrel was a .30 cal less than 4â?�. Some time later it made it to the states but then again had to have its barrel replaced in what appears to be .30 cal (could have seen some use in WW2?).

Very interesting history on such a common Luger.

[Dwight Gruber]

Archie,

Thanks for the opportunity to explore a commonly misunderstood aspect of Luger collecting.

Why the DWM logo was removed is a puzzle with no answer. I think some people might speculate on it, to me it is just one of those imponderables which occasionally crop up when the subject is Lugers. There is no way to know when this was done, it is not necessarily the result of the original rework (the same goes for the removal of the Imperial army proofs).

I'm not sure that this gun rises to the level of "proving" any particular theory. It is an example to be kept in mind when considering the subjects of commercial and commercial-rework Lugers.

This Luger does not relate to the production of "new" 1920 Commercials (better to call them Alphabet Commercials), except to act as an example of how the Alphabet Commercials were not made. Since it is not a newly-produced gun and its serial number is its original Imperial army production number, it does not properly belong in the commercial database at all. It exemplifies its category of commercial rework in a particularly interesting fashion.

As you note, Alphabet Commercial Lugers are not found with their serial numbers on the left receiver at all. In fact, some of these guns which were converted to Police use have a serial number added there later, but they also have a number of other characteristics which this gun and strictly commercial pistols do not share.

Your summation is essentially correct. I would answer that this pistol likely saw actin in WWI, but its later commercial status and caliber means that it served no formal use in WWII. There was no requirement for the pre-existing military marks to be removed. I wouldn't say that the barrel "had" to be replaced in the US, it is just as likely that it was a choice made by the guns owner.

Just how long is this barrell, anyway?

--Dwight

[Kleist]

Dwight,

I think I follow you now. Would it be safe to call this a reworked commercial?

As far as the barrel length, I really have no idea how to accurately measure it. To me, it looks exactly 4â?�.

I guess it doesnâ??t make sense that it saw action in WW2 in .30cal but I canâ??t think of any other reason to change the barrel in the states and still end up with .30cal. Why change it if it isnâ??t shot out? Or at least put a 9mm on it (I assume thatâ??s all it takes to change calibers?).

At first I thought this was some type of carbine and the barrel was salvaged in the states for a more deserving â??projectâ?�. This doesnâ??t seem possible either.

I know itâ??s anyoneâ??s guess and really doesnâ??t matter at this point. The real question is if I can afford the .30 cal to make this â??shooterâ?� shoot.

Thanks!!!

[Aaron]

Possibly the logo was removed to avoid patent infringement by a non-DWM authorized distributor.