Mauser Banner Grip Safety Dated Questions?

barr44 · 06-22-2008, 11:56 AM

I would like to verify some information on a 1941 dated Mauser Banner with the grip safety.
One reference that I have read indicates that this model was chambered for 7.65mm and has a 4 and 3/4" barrel. A second reference says it should have a 4" barrel chambered in 9mm. Did they make this particular model in both calibers?
Also one reference indicates the safety lever as being up in the safe position with no safety indications marked on the frame. The other reference infers that the safety position is marked 'Gesichert', with lever being down for the safe position. Again, which is correct, if not both?
I would appreciate any information that is forth coming on this subject.
In 'very good' condition, with all matching parts, no importer's mark, and with a period holster, would this particular gun be valued at $2000? Also, is this a model which could be easily faked? I realize that the price would be speculative without photos, which are not available at this time.
Thank you, barr

drbuster · 06-22-2008, 01:06 PM

Mauser did manufacture some contract lugers with the grip safety, one of the most notable being the "GNR" Portuguese contract. I am not aware of any Mauser contract grip safety lugers dated 1941, so I doubt this luger is original if it is as you say. If you are able, photographs would be of great help. The only 9mm grip safety configuration is the DWM 1906 type, seen with DWM contracts, Vickers Dutch, but not with Mauser banners. One outside thought is a special Swiss contract gun, but again the 1941 date and lack of pictures make this only a wild unlikely guess.

Dwight Gruber · 06-22-2008, 03:16 PM

Barry,

It will be useful if you cite your information sources.

--Dwight

barr44 · 06-22-2008, 09:22 PM

OK guys, kind of didn't want to mention sources, however.
The one source is Kenyon's 'Lugers at Random', page 270 - 271 and the other is 'Standard Catalog of Luger' by Aaron Davis, page 183. According to their information these guns were for small contract or commercial sale. Again the descrepancies between the barrel and chamber measurements described by the two authors makes things difficult.
I haven't seen said Luger yet, but plan to have a look at it in the next week or so. It may be an item I would be interested in purchasing, but not having a lot of knowledge about this unusual gun , I was hoping that those of you on the forum would be able to enlighten me somewhat.
Again, I appreciate your assistance and time.
Thanks again, barr

Dwight Gruber · 06-23-2008, 04:23 AM

Barry,

Knowing the source of information can be crucial in answering a question. Aarron Davis's book is so full of errors and misinformation that any given referral to it must be seriously questioned.

These guns are so seldom seen as to be considerred quite rare, and it would be fair to say that most people have not had an opportunity to examine one, as I have not.

Kenyon's illustrations are not adequate to verify some of his description, particularly the rear frame characteristics which help identify the year of frame production, and how the commercial proof mark matches the chamber date.

Under the circumstances, a gun like this could be faked will enough to fool most aficianados. That is not to say that the gun you are considering is a fake. If photos become available, or if you buy it and can take them, it will be very instructive to us all to see details, particularly those areas which Kenyon points out in his book.

--Dwight

barr44 · 06-23-2008, 04:38 PM

Thanks Dwight,
From reading through some of the posts I figured some of you folks had everything pretty well covered. I mean that in a complimentary way. I browse away a lot of time just reading about the various types and looking over the posts. I find all of this very educational and interesting. I guess I'm a little surprised that more information is not available on this particular model. I've never seen one either, but there are a lot of them that I haven't seen. I have seen some of the earlier DWM models, with the grip safety, but I've never seen any of the Mauser 'Banner' types period.
According to what I've been told by the owner, this particular gun was passed down in his wife's family and he doesn't know much about the gun either. Although, he tells me he has had it appraised a few years ago. The best I've been able to determine is that it is a Mauser with the 1941 date on the chamber and has the grip safety. I am assuming that it has the Mauser Banner, since he claims it is a Mauser(he wasn't too clear on the Banner, but I expect it must have one for him to determine it is a Mauser). He wasn't sure of the caliber but said it had the C/N proof in a couple of places. All of the numbers seemed to match from what he could see and he's never had it apart or attempted to fire it either. I do believe he said the magazine didn't have a matching number.
I won't be able to see the gun until this weekend when he gets back into town. If it looks correct to my novice eyes, I will probably but it. If I do get lucky and get it, I will definitely post photos for all to see. Perhaps if it is a correct piece, we can all learn something.
Again, I thank you for your reply and assistance in this matter.
barr.

Dwight Gruber · 06-23-2008, 05:11 PM

Barry,

Calling this gun a "model" mischaracterises the term, and promotes an expectation of familiarity which, as you have noticed here, is not borne out by experience. This gun is one of those odd variations which crop up in the vastness of Luger variety: which exist in a handful of examples; whose characteristics are completely at odds with contemporaneous production; and for which there is no good explanation. We have come to see guns of this nature as "models" because Kenyon has deemed them so.

I'm anxious to see pictures. Please note that a c/N commercial proof is not proper for the variation Kenyon describes.

--Dwight

barr44 · 06-23-2008, 06:17 PM

Dwight,
I agree that 'variation' would be better a better word.
I believe that I may have been mistaken when I wrote that the prove mark was a C/N, I believe the gentleman told me that it was a C/U, which would probably be correct for Mauser. When did Mauser stop using the C/U and start using the C/N or did they ever? I have an old 'wartime commercial' C-96, that has both the C/U and C/N on it. I have been told that this probably indicated that the gun had been returned for work or something to the factory and then it was reproofed. Not sure if that is correct or not.
I had been looking over a '20's commercial and just had C/N on my mind, I suppose.
Thanks for pointing that out and I will definitely post pictures if at all possible.
barr

barr44 · 06-23-2008, 06:19 PM

Dwight,
I agree that 'variation' would be a better word.
I believe that I may have been mistaken when I wrote that the prove mark was a C/N, I believe the gentleman told me that it was a C/U, which would probably be correct for Mauser. When did Mauser stop using the C/U and start using the C/N or did they ever? I have an old 'wartime commercial' C-96, that has both the C/U and C/N on it. I have been told that this probably indicated that the gun had been returned for work or something to the factory and then it was reproofed. Not sure if that is correct or not.
I had been looking over a '20's commercial and just had C/N on my mind, I suppose.
Thanks for pointing that out and I will definitely post pictures if at all possible.
barr

barr44 · 06-23-2008, 06:22 PM

Dwight,
I agree that 'variation' would be a better word.
I believe that I may have been mistaken when I wrote that the proof mark was a C/N, I believe the gentleman told me that it was a C/U, which would probably be correct for Mauser. When did Mauser stop using the C/U and start using the C/N or did they ever? I have an old 'wartime commercial' C-96, that has both the C/U and C/N on it. I have been told that this probably indicated that the gun had been returned for work or something to the factory and at that time it was reproofed. Not sure if that is correct or not.
I had been looking over a '20's commercial and just had C/N on my mind, I suppose.
Thanks for pointing that out and I will definitely post pictures if at all possible.
barr

drbuster · 06-26-2008, 07:54 PM

Barr, Mauser, during the Nazi era, used E/N proofs for their commercial models. It appeared usually on the left front of the receiver and on the front sight block, at least. The commercial dated 1906 style models prodeced by Mauser are quite scarce and pricey. The only ones I have ever seen were dated in the early pre-war 1930's. Even though Kenyon states they were dated up through 1942, I have never seen one. How about anyof the other folks out there?

Dwight Gruber · 06-28-2008, 04:56 AM

The eagle/N commercial proof was instituted Germany-wide in 1939, and replaced the system by which the commercial proof house in Oberndorf stamped C/c/U.

--Dwight

barr44 · 06-28-2008, 11:55 PM

Sorry folks, I was slightly mislead!
I got a chance to examine the piece and it turns out it was a 41/42, no grip safety, no Mauser banner. I asked the gentleman about the grip safety and he said he thought there was one on it, extending from the back of the grip. I suspect there may have been some dysfunction with the eyes.
Anyway, I appreciate all of your efforts and am sorry to 'cry wolf' prematurely. I suppose it is as the saying goes "If it's too good to be true, then it probably isn't".
I did go ahead and get the 41/42, couldn't pass on it, condition is all matching and about 95%. Mag doesn't match, but has the markings that fit it to this particular variation. I'll try and get some photos up on the military luger section.
Thanks all, barr

06-22-2008, 11:56 AM	#1
barr44 User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: york co., va Posts: 151 Thanks: 27 Thanked 35 Times in 21 Posts	Mauser Banner Grip Safety Dated Questions? I would like to verify some information on a 1941 dated Mauser Banner with the grip safety. One reference that I have read indicates that this model was chambered for 7.65mm and has a 4 and 3/4" barrel. A second reference says it should have a 4" barrel chambered in 9mm. Did they make this particular model in both calibers? Also one reference indicates the safety lever as being up in the safe position with no safety indications marked on the frame. The other reference infers that the safety position is marked 'Gesichert', with lever being down for the safe position. Again, which is correct, if not both? I would appreciate any information that is forth coming on this subject. In 'very good' condition, with all matching parts, no importer's mark, and with a period holster, would this particular gun be valued at $2000? Also, is this a model which could be easily faked? I realize that the price would be speculative without photos, which are not available at this time. Thank you, barr

06-22-2008, 01:06 PM	#2
drbuster User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Mateo, California Posts: 1,432 Thanks: 2 Thanked 71 Times in 56 Posts	Mauser did manufacture some contract lugers with the grip safety, one of the most notable being the "GNR" Portuguese contract. I am not aware of any Mauser contract grip safety lugers dated 1941, so I doubt this luger is original if it is as you say. If you are able, photographs would be of great help. The only 9mm grip safety configuration is the DWM 1906 type, seen with DWM contracts, Vickers Dutch, but not with Mauser banners. One outside thought is a special Swiss contract gun, but again the 1941 date and lack of pictures make this only a wild unlikely guess.

06-22-2008, 03:16 PM	#3
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,890 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,282 Times in 424 Posts	Barry, It will be useful if you cite your information sources. --Dwight

06-22-2008, 09:22 PM	#4
barr44 User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: york co., va Posts: 151 Thanks: 27 Thanked 35 Times in 21 Posts	OK guys, kind of didn't want to mention sources, however. The one source is Kenyon's 'Lugers at Random', page 270 - 271 and the other is 'Standard Catalog of Luger' by Aaron Davis, page 183. According to their information these guns were for small contract or commercial sale. Again the descrepancies between the barrel and chamber measurements described by the two authors makes things difficult. I haven't seen said Luger yet, but plan to have a look at it in the next week or so. It may be an item I would be interested in purchasing, but not having a lot of knowledge about this unusual gun , I was hoping that those of you on the forum would be able to enlighten me somewhat. Again, I appreciate your assistance and time. Thanks again, barr

06-23-2008, 04:23 AM	#5
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,890 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,282 Times in 424 Posts	Barry, Knowing the source of information can be crucial in answering a question. Aarron Davis's book is so full of errors and misinformation that any given referral to it must be seriously questioned. These guns are so seldom seen as to be considerred quite rare, and it would be fair to say that most people have not had an opportunity to examine one, as I have not. Kenyon's illustrations are not adequate to verify some of his description, particularly the rear frame characteristics which help identify the year of frame production, and how the commercial proof mark matches the chamber date. Under the circumstances, a gun like this could be faked will enough to fool most aficianados. That is not to say that the gun you are considering is a fake. If photos become available, or if you buy it and can take them, it will be very instructive to us all to see details, particularly those areas which Kenyon points out in his book. --Dwight

06-23-2008, 04:38 PM	#6
barr44 User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: york co., va Posts: 151 Thanks: 27 Thanked 35 Times in 21 Posts	Thanks Dwight, From reading through some of the posts I figured some of you folks had everything pretty well covered. I mean that in a complimentary way. I browse away a lot of time just reading about the various types and looking over the posts. I find all of this very educational and interesting. I guess I'm a little surprised that more information is not available on this particular model. I've never seen one either, but there are a lot of them that I haven't seen. I have seen some of the earlier DWM models, with the grip safety, but I've never seen any of the Mauser 'Banner' types period. According to what I've been told by the owner, this particular gun was passed down in his wife's family and he doesn't know much about the gun either. Although, he tells me he has had it appraised a few years ago. The best I've been able to determine is that it is a Mauser with the 1941 date on the chamber and has the grip safety. I am assuming that it has the Mauser Banner, since he claims it is a Mauser(he wasn't too clear on the Banner, but I expect it must have one for him to determine it is a Mauser). He wasn't sure of the caliber but said it had the C/N proof in a couple of places. All of the numbers seemed to match from what he could see and he's never had it apart or attempted to fire it either. I do believe he said the magazine didn't have a matching number. I won't be able to see the gun until this weekend when he gets back into town. If it looks correct to my novice eyes, I will probably but it. If I do get lucky and get it, I will definitely post photos for all to see. Perhaps if it is a correct piece, we can all learn something. Again, I thank you for your reply and assistance in this matter. barr.

06-23-2008, 05:11 PM	#7
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,890 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,282 Times in 424 Posts	Barry, Calling this gun a "model" mischaracterises the term, and promotes an expectation of familiarity which, as you have noticed here, is not borne out by experience. This gun is one of those odd variations which crop up in the vastness of Luger variety: which exist in a handful of examples; whose characteristics are completely at odds with contemporaneous production; and for which there is no good explanation. We have come to see guns of this nature as "models" because Kenyon has deemed them so. I'm anxious to see pictures. Please note that a c/N commercial proof is not proper for the variation Kenyon describes. --Dwight

06-23-2008, 06:17 PM	#8
barr44 User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: york co., va Posts: 151 Thanks: 27 Thanked 35 Times in 21 Posts	Dwight, I agree that 'variation' would be better a better word. I believe that I may have been mistaken when I wrote that the prove mark was a C/N, I believe the gentleman told me that it was a C/U, which would probably be correct for Mauser. When did Mauser stop using the C/U and start using the C/N or did they ever? I have an old 'wartime commercial' C-96, that has both the C/U and C/N on it. I have been told that this probably indicated that the gun had been returned for work or something to the factory and then it was reproofed. Not sure if that is correct or not. I had been looking over a '20's commercial and just had C/N on my mind, I suppose. Thanks for pointing that out and I will definitely post pictures if at all possible. barr

06-23-2008, 06:19 PM	#9
barr44 User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: york co., va Posts: 151 Thanks: 27 Thanked 35 Times in 21 Posts	Dwight, I agree that 'variation' would be a better word. I believe that I may have been mistaken when I wrote that the prove mark was a C/N, I believe the gentleman told me that it was a C/U, which would probably be correct for Mauser. When did Mauser stop using the C/U and start using the C/N or did they ever? I have an old 'wartime commercial' C-96, that has both the C/U and C/N on it. I have been told that this probably indicated that the gun had been returned for work or something to the factory and then it was reproofed. Not sure if that is correct or not. I had been looking over a '20's commercial and just had C/N on my mind, I suppose. Thanks for pointing that out and I will definitely post pictures if at all possible. barr

06-23-2008, 06:22 PM	#10
barr44 User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: york co., va Posts: 151 Thanks: 27 Thanked 35 Times in 21 Posts	Dwight, I agree that 'variation' would be a better word. I believe that I may have been mistaken when I wrote that the proof mark was a C/N, I believe the gentleman told me that it was a C/U, which would probably be correct for Mauser. When did Mauser stop using the C/U and start using the C/N or did they ever? I have an old 'wartime commercial' C-96, that has both the C/U and C/N on it. I have been told that this probably indicated that the gun had been returned for work or something to the factory and at that time it was reproofed. Not sure if that is correct or not. I had been looking over a '20's commercial and just had C/N on my mind, I suppose. Thanks for pointing that out and I will definitely post pictures if at all possible. barr

06-26-2008, 07:54 PM	#11
drbuster User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Mateo, California Posts: 1,432 Thanks: 2 Thanked 71 Times in 56 Posts	Barr, Mauser, during the Nazi era, used E/N proofs for their commercial models. It appeared usually on the left front of the receiver and on the front sight block, at least. The commercial dated 1906 style models prodeced by Mauser are quite scarce and pricey. The only ones I have ever seen were dated in the early pre-war 1930's. Even though Kenyon states they were dated up through 1942, I have never seen one. How about anyof the other folks out there?

06-28-2008, 04:56 AM	#12
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,890 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,282 Times in 424 Posts	The eagle/N commercial proof was instituted Germany-wide in 1939, and replaced the system by which the commercial proof house in Oberndorf stamped C/c/U. --Dwight

06-28-2008, 11:55 PM	#13
barr44 User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: york co., va Posts: 151 Thanks: 27 Thanked 35 Times in 21 Posts	Sorry folks, I was slightly mislead! I got a chance to examine the piece and it turns out it was a 41/42, no grip safety, no Mauser banner. I asked the gentleman about the grip safety and he said he thought there was one on it, extending from the back of the grip. I suspect there may have been some dysfunction with the eyes. Anyway, I appreciate all of your efforts and am sorry to 'cry wolf' prematurely. I suppose it is as the saying goes "If it's too good to be true, then it probably isn't". I did go ahead and get the 41/42, couldn't pass on it, condition is all matching and about 95%. Mag doesn't match, but has the markings that fit it to this particular variation. I'll try and get some photos up on the military luger section. Thanks all, barr