What Differences If any between an Erfurt and a DWM luger

cirelaw · 07-07-2010, 09:03 AM

Apart from markings they seem identical. Are they? Is the quality the same. Which company produced more? Which years are the most valuable. Do they both shoot the same? Etc...

paid4c4 · 07-07-2010, 09:53 AM

Good question and one that a beginner like myself will be interested in knowing the answer.
Bill

Edward Tinker · 07-07-2010, 10:31 AM

Well a few differences, but not a lot, after all Erfurt was contracted and given specifications from DWM.

For what is rarest, which had more, that info is in Imperial Lugers and Central Powers, which I am pretty sure that you have Eric

I think its too much info for me to write up the changes as outlined in Central Powers.

Ed

cirelaw · 07-07-2010, 07:38 PM

Just as I was taught in Law School. "Back To The Books"

cirelaw · 07-07-2010, 07:53 PM

Ed, one more question!! Which company consistantly produced the finest Lugers?

Edward Tinker · 07-08-2010, 04:32 PM

Gibson's book says that Krieghoff did; that their parts for reject to parts to use ration was low (more parts were accepted for useage)

Ed

tau-delt · 07-08-2010, 06:23 PM

Eric... DWM would be my pick. All rust blued with straw. Many variations and contracts. Their quality didn't slip even during the late years of WW1 and into the 1920s.

cirelaw · 07-08-2010, 06:45 PM

Dave I would agree with You but the pre-war Krieghoff like this 1937 is as close to perfect than any of my collection.

Vlim · 07-09-2010, 06:43 PM

From a quality / metallurgy point of view the 1937-1948 Mausers are the best. They were the result of some 40 years of steady improvements.

Where DWM failed was in the hardening and overall steel quality, which was less due to the production methods (of the steel) in those days. When it comes to finishing, I think it will be hard to beat the straw and rust blue finish on a 1920s DWM commercial pistol.

tomaustin · 07-09-2010, 09:26 PM

say that quality began to slide in late 38-39........

Vlim · 07-10-2010, 04:07 AM

Of the final finish, probably, but of the metallurgy and build quality, nope.

suum cuique · 07-10-2010, 02:50 PM

There are no bad Lugers, just too high expectations

Compared to other service pistols in the same time period, Lugers has been always the finest.

FNorm · 07-10-2010, 04:05 PM

Erfurts have C/rc stamps all over them.....

FN

cirelaw · 07-10-2010, 05:03 PM

Their marking are like Luger Tatoos. Although I do need one Erfurt marked grip screw!!

guns3545 · 07-10-2010, 07:44 PM

Eric,

Getting back to the original question.

DWM was a commercial enterprise that built both military and commercial guns. They had to be both functional and pretty and no doubt DWM struggled with the former as they geared up to produce, in volume, George Luger's invention.

Erfurt was the Prussian government arsenal that built war guns, period. P08 and P08LPs. Their guns needed to work, not be pretty. No doubt they negotiated a deal similar to that struck by the Springfield Arsenal with Colt, that gave them the right to build so many guns after DWM had supplied a specified number.

Private versus government enterprise.

No doubt the DWM guns especially the early commercials were the most beautiful guns in the world. Sorry, I'm prejudiced. But rightfully so. Their quality was adequate. So..we have a difference between form and function as pointed out by Vlim. I agree with him that function reached its pinnacle with respect to the Luger P.08 under Mauser. Let's not forget that in 1940 and beyond,( a little thing like WWII does that) Mauser had to take costs and time out of the manufacturing process so 1940's and beyond were not pretty just as the second variation 1937 was not a pretty as the first variation but it functioned well.

Erfurt guns were neither more functional or prettier. They were made by government employees who were obsessed with meeting standards. The German Grundlichkeit was obvious with the obsessive over inspection and proofing you see on Erfurts. You see; they had all the time in the world to make guns that worked and they were not worried about making a profit.

But was the finish better? No, the contrary. And by finish I mean both final machining and polishing as well as bluing. But the guns worked. You see they were making war guns not collectibles.

Krieghoffs were both functional and pretty but you see they were not supposed to build a 100,000 per year. They built what, 13000 or so over 9 or 10 years. And besides they did not have to invest much capital; they were "given" the Simson line that had been confiscated by the Nazi Regime. A gift to Krieghoff from their old hunting buddy and best customer, Goering.

So Eric, like most things in life, the answer to the question you posed depends on the perspective of the questioner and to a greater extent on the perspective of the answerer.

As always just MVHO.

John

cirelaw · 07-10-2010, 08:38 PM

John that was both truly informative and enlightening. I don't believe that more has be written or analysed that our favorite firearm. You prove that most things can be solved with common sence and not conjecture, I feel honored and privaleged to own a piece of genuine History. Ps I only wish some of my professors were as estute!

MikeP · 07-10-2010, 10:29 PM

Observation of Erfurts, especially later ones show lack of attention to finish detail with lots of tool marks and uneven external surfaces.
Lots of C/RC stamps.

Krieghoffs are purtiest.

cirelaw · 07-11-2010, 09:25 AM

It is my favorite

mrerick · 07-11-2010, 09:30 AM

Back to DWM versus Erfurt...

I noticed that the tooling marks on the rear inside part of the frame (just below where the rear pin holds the toggle assembly to the receiver) is different.

The tooling that made my DWM 1916 Luger left round marks. The tooling that removed metal in this area on my 1917 Erfurt is squared.

It's apparent that the milling technique used by the two manufacturers was different.

I've posted a quick study with photographs in this forum at: http://forum.lugerforum.com/showthread.php?t=24367

Marc

cirelaw · 07-11-2010, 09:40 AM

Great observation. Does anyone know the history of the anchor in the Krieghoffs' trademark?

07-07-2010, 09:03 AM	#1
cirelaw Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PORT ST LUCIE, FLORIDA Posts: 12,216 Thanks: 6,209 Thanked 4,138 Times in 2,176 Posts	What Differences If any between an Erfurt and a DWM luger Apart from markings they seem identical. Are they? Is the quality the same. Which company produced more? Which years are the most valuable. Do they both shoot the same? Etc... Attached Thumbnails

07-07-2010, 10:31 AM	#3
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,960 Thanks: 2,062 Thanked 4,592 Times in 2,114 Posts	Well a few differences, but not a lot, after all Erfurt was contracted and given specifications from DWM. For what is rarest, which had more, that info is in Imperial Lugers and Central Powers, which I am pretty sure that you have Eric I think its too much info for me to write up the changes as outlined in Central Powers. Ed __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV

07-08-2010, 04:32 PM	#6
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,960 Thanks: 2,062 Thanked 4,592 Times in 2,114 Posts	Gibson's book says that Krieghoff did; that their parts for reject to parts to use ration was low (more parts were accepted for useage) Ed __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV

07-08-2010, 06:23 PM	#7
tau-delt User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 106 Thanks: 0 Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts	Eric... DWM would be my pick. All rust blued with straw. Many variations and contracts. Their quality didn't slip even during the late years of WW1 and into the 1920s. __________________ dave

07-08-2010, 06:45 PM	#8
cirelaw Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PORT ST LUCIE, FLORIDA Posts: 12,216 Thanks: 6,209 Thanked 4,138 Times in 2,176 Posts	Dave I would agree with You but the pre-war Krieghoff like this 1937 is as close to perfect than any of my collection. Attached Thumbnails

07-07-2010, 09:53 AM	#2
paid4c4 User Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Northern Kentucky Posts: 62 Thanks: 1 Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts	Good question and one that a beginner like myself will be interested in knowing the answer. Bill

07-07-2010, 07:38 PM	#4
cirelaw Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PORT ST LUCIE, FLORIDA Posts: 12,216 Thanks: 6,209 Thanked 4,138 Times in 2,176 Posts	Just as I was taught in Law School. "Back To The Books"

07-07-2010, 07:53 PM	#5
cirelaw Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PORT ST LUCIE, FLORIDA Posts: 12,216 Thanks: 6,209 Thanked 4,138 Times in 2,176 Posts	Ed, one more question!! Which company consistantly produced the finest Lugers?

07-09-2010, 06:43 PM	#9
Vlim Moderator Lifetime LugerForum Patron Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 5,053 Thanks: 1,036 Thanked 3,990 Times in 1,205 Posts	From a quality / metallurgy point of view the 1937-1948 Mausers are the best. They were the result of some 40 years of steady improvements. Where DWM failed was in the hardening and overall steel quality, which was less due to the production methods (of the steel) in those days. When it comes to finishing, I think it will be hard to beat the straw and rust blue finish on a 1920s DWM commercial pistol.

07-09-2010, 09:26 PM	#10
tomaustin Lifer X5 Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: texas Posts: 708 Thanks: 87 Thanked 522 Times in 201 Posts	Vlim, my '36s are VERY well made...i have heard too many on this board say that quality began to slide in late 38-39........

07-10-2010, 04:07 AM	#11
Vlim Moderator Lifetime LugerForum Patron Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 5,053 Thanks: 1,036 Thanked 3,990 Times in 1,205 Posts	Of the final finish, probably, but of the metallurgy and build quality, nope.

07-10-2010, 02:50 PM	#12
suum cuique User Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: MD / Currently about 9000 klicks east of the Potomac Posts: 497 Thanks: 108 Thanked 47 Times in 35 Posts	There are no bad Lugers, just too high expectations Compared to other service pistols in the same time period, Lugers has been always the finest. __________________ Regards, Andy There's No Place Like Home (Wizard Of Oz)

07-10-2010, 04:05 PM	#13
FNorm Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Colorado Posts: 978 Thanks: 68 Thanked 127 Times in 108 Posts	Erfurts have C/rc stamps all over them..... FN

07-10-2010, 05:03 PM	#14
cirelaw Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PORT ST LUCIE, FLORIDA Posts: 12,216 Thanks: 6,209 Thanked 4,138 Times in 2,176 Posts	Erfurts' Are The Most Interesting Their marking are like Luger Tatoos. Although I do need one Erfurt marked grip screw!! Attached Thumbnails

07-10-2010, 07:44 PM	#15
guns3545 Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 438 Thanks: 661 Thanked 493 Times in 219 Posts	Differences Eric, Getting back to the original question. DWM was a commercial enterprise that built both military and commercial guns. They had to be both functional and pretty and no doubt DWM struggled with the former as they geared up to produce, in volume, George Luger's invention. Erfurt was the Prussian government arsenal that built war guns, period. P08 and P08LPs. Their guns needed to work, not be pretty. No doubt they negotiated a deal similar to that struck by the Springfield Arsenal with Colt, that gave them the right to build so many guns after DWM had supplied a specified number. Private versus government enterprise. No doubt the DWM guns especially the early commercials were the most beautiful guns in the world. Sorry, I'm prejudiced. But rightfully so. Their quality was adequate. So..we have a difference between form and function as pointed out by Vlim. I agree with him that function reached its pinnacle with respect to the Luger P.08 under Mauser. Let's not forget that in 1940 and beyond,( a little thing like WWII does that) Mauser had to take costs and time out of the manufacturing process so 1940's and beyond were not pretty just as the second variation 1937 was not a pretty as the first variation but it functioned well. Erfurt guns were neither more functional or prettier. They were made by government employees who were obsessed with meeting standards. The German Grundlichkeit was obvious with the obsessive over inspection and proofing you see on Erfurts. You see; they had all the time in the world to make guns that worked and they were not worried about making a profit. But was the finish better? No, the contrary. And by finish I mean both final machining and polishing as well as bluing. But the guns worked. You see they were making war guns not collectibles. Krieghoffs were both functional and pretty but you see they were not supposed to build a 100,000 per year. They built what, 13000 or so over 9 or 10 years. And besides they did not have to invest much capital; they were "given" the Simson line that had been confiscated by the Nazi Regime. A gift to Krieghoff from their old hunting buddy and best customer, Goering. So Eric, like most things in life, the answer to the question you posed depends on the perspective of the questioner and to a greater extent on the perspective of the answerer. As always just MVHO. John

07-10-2010, 08:38 PM	#16
cirelaw Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PORT ST LUCIE, FLORIDA Posts: 12,216 Thanks: 6,209 Thanked 4,138 Times in 2,176 Posts	John that was both truly informative and enlightening. I don't believe that more has be written or analysed that our favorite firearm. You prove that most things can be solved with common sence and not conjecture, I feel honored and privaleged to own a piece of genuine History. Ps I only wish some of my professors were as estute!

07-10-2010, 10:29 PM	#17
MikeP User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: ILL Posts: 686 Thanks: 36 Thanked 452 Times in 198 Posts	Observation of Erfurts, especially later ones show lack of attention to finish detail with lots of tool marks and uneven external surfaces. Lots of C/RC stamps. Krieghoffs are purtiest.

07-11-2010, 09:25 AM	#18
cirelaw Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PORT ST LUCIE, FLORIDA Posts: 12,216 Thanks: 6,209 Thanked 4,138 Times in 2,176 Posts	I must agree with You! It is my favorite Attached Thumbnails

07-11-2010, 09:30 AM	#19
mrerick Super Moderator - Patron LugerForum Life Patron Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Eastern North Carolina, USA Posts: 3,919 Thanks: 1,377 Thanked 3,135 Times in 1,518 Posts	Back to DWM versus Erfurt... I noticed that the tooling marks on the rear inside part of the frame (just below where the rear pin holds the toggle assembly to the receiver) is different. The tooling that made my DWM 1916 Luger left round marks. The tooling that removed metal in this area on my 1917 Erfurt is squared. It's apparent that the milling technique used by the two manufacturers was different. I've posted a quick study with photographs in this forum at: http://forum.lugerforum.com/showthread.php?t=24367 Marc

07-11-2010, 09:40 AM	#20
cirelaw Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PORT ST LUCIE, FLORIDA Posts: 12,216 Thanks: 6,209 Thanked 4,138 Times in 2,176 Posts	Great observation. Does anyone know the history of the anchor in the Krieghoffs' trademark?