Luger Frame Tooling Marks Study

mrerick · 07-11-2010, 11:54 AM

Here's a very quick study on the tooling marks found on P-08 and LP-08 Luger frames.

It's clear that the toolings built by DWM and by the Erfurt arsenal were different, utilizing different milling techniques.

The DWM Equipment that went to Mauser used the same milling technique.

The Erfurt Equipment that went to Simson used the same milling technique. I expect that Krieghoff frames would show the same.

Here are the photos in order of year of manufacture:

- - - -

I wonder what the Swiss and Vickers tooling looks like here?

Marc

Edward Tinker · 07-11-2010, 01:27 PM

Nicely done, good pictures, although I had a heck of a time trying to figure out where it was taken (I can see the ears, but wheres the mainspring?)

The first Krieghoff markings would be the same, until they had used all the parts; krieghoff always stated that they made their own tools (see Gibson)

There is NO vickers tooling, since they were DWM parts?

Ed

PS: Put them altogether

Ron Wood · 07-11-2010, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward Tinker

There is NO vickers tooling, since they were DWM parts?

Ed,
Here is something from Simpson's site that I find interesting and would love to know the source of their information;
"Recently discovered documents prove that Vickers manufactured these guns from scratch in 1920"

Edward Tinker · 07-12-2010, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Wood

Ed,
Here is something from Simpson's site that I find interesting and would love to know the source of their information;
"Recently discovered documents prove that Vickers manufactured these guns from scratch in 1920"

I had heard this also, and would love to see these documents...

mrerick · 07-11-2010, 01:47 PM

Ed, Here's a wider view of the Erfurt...

The recoil spring lever is just below this area...

Marc

Edward Tinker · 07-11-2010, 01:49 PM

ahh, its amazing how I get easily confused "late" at night

Thanks!

tharpo · 07-11-2010, 02:29 PM

Here is a picture of my Dutch Vickers frame for your study.

mrerick · 07-11-2010, 03:35 PM

Tom, thanks for the Vickers update. Round like DWM...

Marc

FNorm · 07-11-2010, 04:54 PM

Thanks to all. I learned something new today!

FN

Vlim · 07-11-2010, 06:32 PM

Post-war Mauser Parabellum on the left,
Swiss 06/29 on the right.

Vlim · 07-11-2010, 06:50 PM

Which does not fit the claim by former Mauser and DWM executive Dr. Holl, who was in charge of the Vickers deal in those days, that they (DWM) provided Vickers with DWM parabellum parts and some minor tools that were needed to finish them.

newluger · 07-11-2010, 07:17 PM

I have a question regarding wear on/in the area between the ears on the Luger frame. Looking at the photo submitted by Tharpo of his Dutch Luger in this post, there are the ears. Counting from left to right, begining with the left ear, there are eight stations, flats or elevations. I hope this isn't a dumb question, but when I bought my first Luger, I was told to pay attention to those stations I'll call 4 and 6. The seller mentioned that I should note the amount of wear caused by the toggle recoil. I guess he was refering to the areas being rounded off. Can anyone explain what causes the rounding off and how to minimize it?

Newluger

mrerick · 07-12-2010, 01:17 PM

Vlim, thanks for your posting.

Looks like the Swiss tooling used a round tool for the cut like the DWM tooling. Is the area above the rounded cut flat or curved up to the back wall of the frame?

The post war Mauser (1960s-1970s?) has the more regular and uniform look of CNC equipment, possible a mill that can change tools automatically.

Interesting that the rear of the receiver is flat, lacking the two vertical inner "ears", in both the late Mauser and early Swiss.

Was the post war tooling based upon the Swiss design?

Marc

Vlim · 07-12-2010, 03:25 PM

Marc,

The Swiss 06/29 curves upwards. The center of the milled out portion is marked with the SIG logo (as SIG produced these frames).

CNC tooling was not used during the post war Mauser production. The cutouts were made by several horizontal and vertical milling/cutting machines. Although the drawings and jigs were based on the Swiss design, all tools, jigs and production steps had to be redone, because of differences in standards, calculations and production methods. Only a handfull of Swiss jigs and gauges found their way into the Mauser production process.

Mauser used relatively standard cutting, drilling and milling tools for the job.

The deletion of the two vertical 'inner ears' makes sense. They are completely pointless anyway

Dwight Gruber · 07-13-2010, 04:08 AM

"It's clear that the toolings built by DWM and by the Erfurt arsenal were different, utilizing different milling techniques."

"The Erfurt Equipment that went to Simson used the same milling technique. I expect that Krieghoff frames would show the same."

Actually it looks like the difference is not in the tooling, but in the order in which the final milling strokes were made. DWM practice appears to have been to finish the sides and back inside the frame first, then to make the final center routing stroke.

Erfurt practice seems to have been to make the center routing first, then finish the sides and back, intersecting the upper arc of the center stroke. Considering the origin of the Simson tooling, the similarity of machining makes sense--one can imagine the instructions for use coming along with the tools.

Actually, the rear frame Krieghoff finishing follows the pattern of DWM.

Here is a picture of my Dutch Vickers frame for your study.

As was mentioned, Vickers was supplied with sufficient tooling to finish work the parts. The most logical conclusion is that the inner frame machining characteristics represent Vickers finish craftsmanship.

The deletion of the two vertical 'inner ears' makes sense. They are completely pointless anyway

I'm not so sure they are pointless. They provide the only critical lateral positioning guides for the rear toggle piece--rather than depending on the manufacturing tolerances of the inside of the frame ears plus the manufacturing tolerances of the receiver extension widths.

--Dwight

Vlim · 07-13-2010, 05:29 AM

Dwight, interesting but I'm not convinced.

A bit of play between the toggle, receiver and frame ears is not that exciting. Accuracy of the gun is based on the fit between the areas where rear toggle rests against the receiver.
The toggle pushes against these flats during recoil and if both sides impact at different times, the gun will either pull to the right or to the left, influencing accuracy a great deal.

As a result, during post war Mauser Parabellum production these were the only parts that were physically matched to each other (that is why the rear toggle was marked with the gun's serial number), the rest was produced with such tight tolerances that 'in the white fitting' could be skipped altogether.

It would be a nice test to shoot a DWM P08 with the 'inner ears', then remove them and repeat the test. My bet is that you will not notice any difference whatsoever.

Edward Tinker · 07-13-2010, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlim

...It would be a nice test to shoot a DWM P08 with the 'inner ears', then remove them and repeat the test. My bet is that you will not notice any difference whatsoever.

Brother, I will await your testing with baited breath

Surely there are extra lugers just lying around the old DWM factory?

Vlim · 07-13-2010, 07:57 AM

There must be someone out there with a beat up frame and some spare time

John Sabato · 07-13-2010, 09:34 AM

Quote:

There must be someone out there with a beat up frame and some spare time

...and a milling machine Gerben?

this is a GREAT educational thread and I will make it a Sticky... Thanks to the original poster mrerick for contributing such neat information.

Dwight, Its good to hear from you. Hope things are better than the last time we spoke... Your in depth knowledge of machine tools and machining is quite surprising considering your chosen vocation... maybe you should have been a pistolsmith eh? It is never too late.

kind regards, -John

mrerick · 07-13-2010, 11:21 AM

John, I'm very happy that this discussion is proving useful. Perhaps someday it will help with accurate identification and elimination of fraudulent activity.

I would enjoy learning more about the fabrication processes the factories developed for constructing our Lugers. I've ordered a copy of Gibson's Krieghoff book.

My grandfather was a Swedish trained machinist working in the Chicago area in the 1910-1945 period. He made commercial sewing machines (Union Special) and must have followed practices that were similar to those used in the German arms industry.

He had a great aptitude for analyzing and improving processes. He even fabricated special tooling for his own personal use. The resulting efficiency and accuracy helped him stay employed through the 1930s depression.

There must be similar stories - perhaps mostly lost - of the artisans that made our Lugers.

Marc

07-11-2010, 11:54 AM	#1
mrerick Super Moderator - Patron LugerForum Life Patron Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Eastern North Carolina, USA Posts: 3,909 Thanks: 1,374 Thanked 3,110 Times in 1,510 Posts	Luger Frame Tooling Marks Study Here's a very quick study on the tooling marks found on P-08 and LP-08 Luger frames. It's clear that the toolings built by DWM and by the Erfurt arsenal were different, utilizing different milling techniques. The DWM Equipment that went to Mauser used the same milling technique. The Erfurt Equipment that went to Simson used the same milling technique. I expect that Krieghoff frames would show the same. Here are the photos in order of year of manufacture: - - - - I wonder what the Swiss and Vickers tooling looks like here? Marc

07-11-2010, 01:27 PM	#2
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,933 Thanks: 2,032 Thanked 4,530 Times in 2,092 Posts	Nicely done, good pictures, although I had a heck of a time trying to figure out where it was taken (I can see the ears, but wheres the mainspring?) The first Krieghoff markings would be the same, until they had used all the parts; krieghoff always stated that they made their own tools (see Gibson) There is NO vickers tooling, since they were DWM parts? Ed PS: Put them altogether Attached Thumbnails

07-11-2010, 02:29 PM	#7
tharpo Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: West Coast, USA Posts: 543 Thanks: 116 Thanked 382 Times in 157 Posts	Here is a picture of my Dutch Vickers frame for your study. Attached Thumbnails

07-11-2010, 06:32 PM	#10
Vlim Moderator Lifetime LugerForum Patron Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 5,053 Thanks: 1,036 Thanked 3,988 Times in 1,205 Posts	Post-war Mauser Parabellum on the left, Swiss 06/29 on the right. Attached Thumbnails

07-11-2010, 01:47 PM	#5
mrerick Super Moderator - Patron LugerForum Life Patron Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Eastern North Carolina, USA Posts: 3,909 Thanks: 1,374 Thanked 3,110 Times in 1,510 Posts	Ed, Here's a wider view of the Erfurt... The recoil spring lever is just below this area... Marc

07-11-2010, 01:49 PM	#6
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,933 Thanks: 2,032 Thanked 4,530 Times in 2,092 Posts	ahh, its amazing how I get easily confused "late" at night Thanks!

07-11-2010, 03:35 PM	#8
mrerick Super Moderator - Patron LugerForum Life Patron Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Eastern North Carolina, USA Posts: 3,909 Thanks: 1,374 Thanked 3,110 Times in 1,510 Posts	Tom, thanks for the Vickers update. Round like DWM... Marc

07-11-2010, 04:54 PM	#9
FNorm Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Colorado Posts: 978 Thanks: 68 Thanked 127 Times in 108 Posts	Thanks to all. I learned something new today! FN

07-11-2010, 06:50 PM	#11
Vlim Moderator Lifetime LugerForum Patron Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 5,053 Thanks: 1,036 Thanked 3,988 Times in 1,205 Posts	Which does not fit the claim by former Mauser and DWM executive Dr. Holl, who was in charge of the Vickers deal in those days, that they (DWM) provided Vickers with DWM parabellum parts and some minor tools that were needed to finish them.

07-11-2010, 07:17 PM	#12
newluger User Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Franklin Tennessee Posts: 119 Thanks: 22 Thanked 10 Times in 7 Posts	I have a question regarding wear on/in the area between the ears on the Luger frame. Looking at the photo submitted by Tharpo of his Dutch Luger in this post, there are the ears. Counting from left to right, begining with the left ear, there are eight stations, flats or elevations. I hope this isn't a dumb question, but when I bought my first Luger, I was told to pay attention to those stations I'll call 4 and 6. The seller mentioned that I should note the amount of wear caused by the toggle recoil. I guess he was refering to the areas being rounded off. Can anyone explain what causes the rounding off and how to minimize it? Newluger

07-12-2010, 01:17 PM	#13
mrerick Super Moderator - Patron LugerForum Life Patron Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Eastern North Carolina, USA Posts: 3,909 Thanks: 1,374 Thanked 3,110 Times in 1,510 Posts	Vlim, thanks for your posting. Looks like the Swiss tooling used a round tool for the cut like the DWM tooling. Is the area above the rounded cut flat or curved up to the back wall of the frame? The post war Mauser (1960s-1970s?) has the more regular and uniform look of CNC equipment, possible a mill that can change tools automatically. Interesting that the rear of the receiver is flat, lacking the two vertical inner "ears", in both the late Mauser and early Swiss. Was the post war tooling based upon the Swiss design? Marc

07-12-2010, 03:25 PM	#14
Vlim Moderator Lifetime LugerForum Patron Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 5,053 Thanks: 1,036 Thanked 3,988 Times in 1,205 Posts	Marc, The Swiss 06/29 curves upwards. The center of the milled out portion is marked with the SIG logo (as SIG produced these frames). CNC tooling was not used during the post war Mauser production. The cutouts were made by several horizontal and vertical milling/cutting machines. Although the drawings and jigs were based on the Swiss design, all tools, jigs and production steps had to be redone, because of differences in standards, calculations and production methods. Only a handfull of Swiss jigs and gauges found their way into the Mauser production process. Mauser used relatively standard cutting, drilling and milling tools for the job. The deletion of the two vertical 'inner ears' makes sense. They are completely pointless anyway

07-13-2010, 04:08 AM	#15
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,902 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,317 Times in 431 Posts	"It's clear that the toolings built by DWM and by the Erfurt arsenal were different, utilizing different milling techniques." "The Erfurt Equipment that went to Simson used the same milling technique. I expect that Krieghoff frames would show the same." Actually it looks like the difference is not in the tooling, but in the order in which the final milling strokes were made. DWM practice appears to have been to finish the sides and back inside the frame first, then to make the final center routing stroke. Erfurt practice seems to have been to make the center routing first, then finish the sides and back, intersecting the upper arc of the center stroke. Considering the origin of the Simson tooling, the similarity of machining makes sense--one can imagine the instructions for use coming along with the tools. Actually, the rear frame Krieghoff finishing follows the pattern of DWM. Here is a picture of my Dutch Vickers frame for your study. As was mentioned, Vickers was supplied with sufficient tooling to finish work the parts. The most logical conclusion is that the inner frame machining characteristics represent Vickers finish craftsmanship. The deletion of the two vertical 'inner ears' makes sense. They are completely pointless anyway I'm not so sure they are pointless. They provide the only critical lateral positioning guides for the rear toggle piece--rather than depending on the manufacturing tolerances of the inside of the frame ears plus the manufacturing tolerances of the receiver extension widths. --Dwight

07-13-2010, 05:29 AM	#16
Vlim Moderator Lifetime LugerForum Patron Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 5,053 Thanks: 1,036 Thanked 3,988 Times in 1,205 Posts	Dwight, interesting but I'm not convinced. A bit of play between the toggle, receiver and frame ears is not that exciting. Accuracy of the gun is based on the fit between the areas where rear toggle rests against the receiver. The toggle pushes against these flats during recoil and if both sides impact at different times, the gun will either pull to the right or to the left, influencing accuracy a great deal. As a result, during post war Mauser Parabellum production these were the only parts that were physically matched to each other (that is why the rear toggle was marked with the gun's serial number), the rest was produced with such tight tolerances that 'in the white fitting' could be skipped altogether. It would be a nice test to shoot a DWM P08 with the 'inner ears', then remove them and repeat the test. My bet is that you will not notice any difference whatsoever.

07-13-2010, 07:57 AM	#18
Vlim Moderator Lifetime LugerForum Patron Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 5,053 Thanks: 1,036 Thanked 3,988 Times in 1,205 Posts	There must be someone out there with a beat up frame and some spare time

07-13-2010, 11:21 AM	#20
mrerick Super Moderator - Patron LugerForum Life Patron Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Eastern North Carolina, USA Posts: 3,909 Thanks: 1,374 Thanked 3,110 Times in 1,510 Posts	John, I'm very happy that this discussion is proving useful. Perhaps someday it will help with accurate identification and elimination of fraudulent activity. I would enjoy learning more about the fabrication processes the factories developed for constructing our Lugers. I've ordered a copy of Gibson's Krieghoff book. My grandfather was a Swedish trained machinist working in the Chicago area in the 1910-1945 period. He made commercial sewing machines (Union Special) and must have followed practices that were similar to those used in the German arms industry. He had a great aptitude for analyzing and improving processes. He even fabricated special tooling for his own personal use. The resulting efficiency and accuracy helped him stay employed through the 1930s depression. There must be similar stories - perhaps mostly lost - of the artisans that made our Lugers. Marc