Artillery barrels and frames

Heinz · 08-25-2002, 10:04 PM

After reading Jan Still's Imperial Lugers and the recent thread on 1914 Erfurts I have some questions. Perhaps some of the more experienced can smarten me up.

1) The absence of Erfurt production in 1915 is puzzling.

2) Why do most artillery barrels have Erfurt style proof eagles?

3) Why would most Erfurt frames be notched for the Artillery sight when Erfurt never made (or made very few) long P08s after 1914.

A possible solution that was suggested to me by Norm is that Erfurt made the "Lauf and Gablegehause" or barrel and reciever, for DWM. This would make some sense if switching from producing 4 and 6 inch barreled recievers to 8 inch barreled recievers required significant switchover/setup tme or a different rifling machine than DWM had in place. Is there any information on this issue? Lack of a rifling machine does not seem possible since they manufactured Luger carbines with an even longer barrel but setup time changeover could be an issue.

Erfurts lack of P08 production in 1915 could have been do to other production (rifles?). Is there any information on this?

Jan Still notes that long P08 production serial numbers are intermixed with P08 numbers from DWM 1914 through 1918. I believe this but find it remarkable. If you are running a production line, and Loewe and Co. were masters at high speed and high tech production, why would you interject short bursts of different barrel lengths, unless you had a stock of barrels or barreled recievers you could feed in as needed?

I realize this is conjecture and am seaching for support or rejection of the hypothesis.

One point that would help to clarify the issue is exactly when were the barrel and reciever serial numbered? If they were assembled, proofed and then not serial numbered until mating to the frame unit, this wild hypothesis could have some plausibility. If they were serial numbered at the same time they were proof stamped. Then this email goes to the bottom of the canary cage.

Any thoughts, or even better, data??

kind regards, Heinz

08-25-2002, 10:04 PM	#1
Heinz User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Greenville SC Posts: 1,004 Thanks: 377 Thanked 411 Times in 180 Posts	Artillery barrels and frames After reading Jan Still's Imperial Lugers and the recent thread on 1914 Erfurts I have some questions. Perhaps some of the more experienced can smarten me up. 1) The absence of Erfurt production in 1915 is puzzling. 2) Why do most artillery barrels have Erfurt style proof eagles? 3) Why would most Erfurt frames be notched for the Artillery sight when Erfurt never made (or made very few) long P08s after 1914. A possible solution that was suggested to me by Norm is that Erfurt made the "Lauf and Gablegehause" or barrel and reciever, for DWM. This would make some sense if switching from producing 4 and 6 inch barreled recievers to 8 inch barreled recievers required significant switchover/setup tme or a different rifling machine than DWM had in place. Is there any information on this issue? Lack of a rifling machine does not seem possible since they manufactured Luger carbines with an even longer barrel but setup time changeover could be an issue. Erfurts lack of P08 production in 1915 could have been do to other production (rifles?). Is there any information on this? Jan Still notes that long P08 production serial numbers are intermixed with P08 numbers from DWM 1914 through 1918. I believe this but find it remarkable. If you are running a production line, and Loewe and Co. were masters at high speed and high tech production, why would you interject short bursts of different barrel lengths, unless you had a stock of barrels or barreled recievers you could feed in as needed? I realize this is conjecture and am seaching for support or rejection of the hypothesis. One point that would help to clarify the issue is exactly when were the barrel and reciever serial numbered? If they were assembled, proofed and then not serial numbered until mating to the frame unit, this wild hypothesis could have some plausibility. If they were serial numbered at the same time they were proof stamped. Then this email goes to the bottom of the canary cage. Any thoughts, or even better, data?? kind regards, Heinz