DWM In 1909...?

[Dwight Gruber]

A comment elsewhere by 'Doc' Fisher was a reminder of Charles Kenyon's article on the 1910 Erfurt in the June 2001 issue of "The Gun Report".

Kenyon's observations pretty much mirror Still's, his conclusion is more positive. He does note that the 1910 Erfurt has the older, non-reinforced rear frame well. The gun referenced in the article is #49, same as Still, but he observes that the markings and physical characteistics of 1910 Erfurt serial# 28 are identical.

--Dwight

[Heinz]

Dwight, Power proofing for DWMs I believe was done at Spandau, not at DWM. That is my impression from Gortz and Bryans. This could explain how an Erfurt style imperial eagle stamp came into use at some point. Spandau would not have had a vested interest in the eagke style. Although they seemed to continue using the DWM style on the frame. I wonder if the barrel proof stamp was slightly curved to accomodate the rather tight radius of the barrel?

[Greg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RockinWR:

have you noticed 1908 First Issues bear a crown Z acceptance overstruck upon another smaller crown? An eagle eyed AutoMag post got me scurrying to my 1st Issue to confirm. Sure enough, C/Z over a smaller crown was there on 9976 a.

Hi Bob,

Is there a chance you can provide a picture of the C/Z over the smaller crown? Should such a situation exist on 1st Issue number 3305 b?

Thanks,

Greg

[RockinWR]

Dwight,
* WAG-1:
* Heinz may have unravelled the Proof mystery. Erfurt & Spandau were both Army run rifle operations. Erfurt coulda/maybe/sorta made up extra barrels and shipped them up to Spandau as DWM Buyer furnished equipment(BFE). Similar thing to the common pactice today in the AirCraft business. A jet engine is an example when provided by a Military block buy to an Airframe prime contractor. So, BFE Proofed Barrel installed in a DWM Frame/Receiver &, voila, off to Spandau for final Proof/Acceptance.
* DWM's toggle logo signified a guarantee of fitness. Either DWM accepted Erfurt pre-proofed loose barrels, installed them, and had Spandau Final proof the pistol Assembly to assure the entire pistol was fit or DWM insisted Spandau apply the Erfurt Proof eagle to the Erfurt barrel on a DWM Assembled pistol for traceablity in the event a warrentee situation arose with the Erfurt barrels.

Greg,
* I'll try & dig that puppy out this weekend. I'm not well set up for close-ups; but, what the hey.
* Wouldn't be concerned if 3305b is missing the sub-crown.
* Question is: Why is the sub-crown present, what is its significance, how common, and does this yield a transition S/N range, a defining characteristic, or an anomoly.
* WAG-2
* My couple of guesses leans toward a DWM use of commercial or Army Contract repaired barrels (headspace??) or a Spandau marking change/mix-up.
-My 9976a would have been scheduled for delivery in Dec., 1909. The 1910 Army Instructions would have been in discussion/coming off the presses about this time & its content would had been known inside Spandau. Your 3305b would have been in the March, 1910 deliveries all else being equal.
- If a repair, the sub crown may indicate an interim proof try or a initial Receiver detail inspection OK.
- If a change/mix-up, the 1910 regs mandated 3 acceptance stamps. The first was Receiver hardness for the receiver detail part. The second was for an assembled pistol ready to proof. Since the '08 1st issue uses only two receiver acceptance marks, this doublet may have been the first two in one location or the 1910 Regs changed a size.
* Any other First Issues with a doublet??
Respectfully
Bob

[Greg]

Thanks Bob, very interesting comments/information.

Greg

[Dwight Gruber]

Follow this link for an excellent and sensible analysis explaining why Erfurt proofs are sometimes found on DWM Lugers.

--Dwight

[Ron Wood]

Dwight,
I thought Jan's discussion has a lot of merit. Of course, it is just theory but it makes sense. For those folks that have not yet joined Jan's forum, it will be necessary for them to join and get a password to be able to read this analysis.

[RockinWR]

Dwight/Ron,
(1) Per Dwight: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">...an excellent and sensible analysis explaining why Erfurt proofs are sometimes found on DWM Lugers.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">(2) Per Ron: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I thought Jan's discussion has a lot of merit. Of course, it is just theory but it makes sense.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">* Jan's discussion certainly merits consideration as it suggests one cogent explaination.
* However, given a random distribution of the two Proof Stamp styles, would we not expect to see the "DWM" Proof show up on Erfurt P.08's also?? So far, I only recall seeing the "Erfurt" Proof showing up on breech blocks/barrels used in DWM assembled pistols.
* Has anyone seen/have an example of an Erfurt frame, breech, or barrel w/ a "DWM" style proof that can be shared??
* IMHO, the style of Proof used is indicative of who had the Contract to manufacture these components. In the case of the "Erfurt" marked breech blocks and barrels, Erfurt had the contract to produce these and the responsibility to see they met the German Proof law which was a National Law. As the proofing tests were standardized, reciprocity prevailed. Hence, DWM would accept proofed "Erfurt" barrels & breech blocks; but, upon Assembly to a DWM receiver, the assembly would continue proofing tests to validate the receiver/assembly met the Proof Law(s). As the barrel/breech already had a stamp & if the assembled unit passed proof, only the receiver needed to be Proof Stamped. If any one of the components failed, rework/replacement "warantee" costs could be assigned to the resonsible party. Gun making was a profit/loss business to DWM after all. Gov't. priorities differ as cost affects quantity/schedule. Profit is merely a distant cousin.
* Throughout the References and Original documents made available by Gortz, Walter, Still, and others, the statement(inference?) is made to the effect the German Government wanted to be as independent as possible of the Commercial (Lowe/DWM) Gunmaking Industry. A Cost & destiny control driven decision I suspect. If the Prussian Government's Erfurt factory could produce critical proofed components for less cost and in greater capacity, the "Contract" work would go to the "low" bidder with an inside track to the Government's own Facilities. In the War period of 1914-1918, the Government had an easier acquisition/writeoff justification for machinery capacity than a private concern like DWM who had investors to consider. Not a new concept.
* So, IMO, I'll suggest the Proof marking combinations we see in steel are a concrete indicator of war footing Army decisions to maximize production. At 8/22/14, neither DWM nor Erfurt were prepared for a 6 time increase in requirements. Added shifts/days can account for maybe a 3x-4x increase; but, more machinery would have to be made available to explain a 6x surge by both sites. That takes time. DWM contributed the 08 & 14 Commercial-Militaries and the 1914 Army utilizing 1913 non-lug frames became acceptable. Erfurt was tooled and could focus on 8" LP.08 barrels, 4" P.08 barrels, blocks, & ?? while repairing/assembling whatever 1914 receivers & parts were on hand. This also helped DWM to contend/fulfill its pre-tooled 6" barrel Navy contract(s) while ramping up 4" production. <img border="0" alt="[icon107]" title="" src="graemlins/icon107.gif" />
* Wonder if Erfurt sub-contracted a barrel/breech maker in Berlin or Suhl? Nah, Kreighoff was busy making shotguns/rifles weren't they?? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Respectfully
Bob <img border="0" alt="[hiha]" title="" src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" />

[Heinz]

Bob, My THEORY on the lack of DWM marks on Erfurts is as follows, both Erfurt and Spandau are Imperial "Gewerfabrik" Erfurt had both manufacturing and proofing/acceptance facilities on site. DWM was a civilian manufacturer, part of the huge Loewe weapons manufacturing complex. At least some DWM Lugers were delivered to Spandau for acceptance/proofing. Lugers proofed at Spabdau after 1916 were barrel proofed with a Spandau Adler stamp in the Erfurt style. Sometime before that a Erfurt stle Proof eagle shows up on the DWM breechblock. Were all military DWMs proofed at Spandau? Don't know, they were all delivered there. May Tom A can chime in on the 1914 style Navy. There is no reason to believe any Erfurts were proofed at DWM. I doubt any Erfurts were ever proofed at Spandau, thus no DWM style proof adlers on Erfurts.

[Dwight Gruber]

This discussion raises the same ugly spectre as the witness mark problem, that we don't -know- what actual practices were followed and what deviation from the Instructions might have been allowable.

The 1910 Instructions require the barrel, receiver, and breechblock to be stamped demonstrating that the -assembled weapon- passed power-proofing.

A while back I did a magnifying-glass comparison of two 1917 DWM LP-08 barrels--one with a DWM Eagle, one with an Erfurt--and an Erfurt LP-08. This revealed that, despite some differences in machining-mark characteristics, the two DWM barrels were much more similar to each other than they were to the Erfurt, particularly in the area of the sight block.

When I started this post my intent was to follow up on Heinz's and Bob's comments. It seems to have expanded itself into a full-blown theory, so please bear with me.

This discussion has caused me to wonder if the Erfurt-proofed parts on DWM Lugers are actually original to the guns?

NOTE: the rest of this post contains SPECULATION based on evidence and documentation at hand, and pertinent questions when I don't know the answer.

G�¶rtz & Bryans, in "German Small Arms Markings", also include the 1913 "Inspection and Acceptance of Pistols 08 and Parts Thereof". Annex G of that document (pp 118-120) lists the requirements for "Power-Proof Shooting and Rapid-Fire Shooting of Pistols 08". As required, completed pistols are subjected to:
C. Power Proof [...];
D. Rapid Fire [...];
E. Cleaning [...];
F. Examination [...];
G. Stamping "Pistols which meet the specifications receive at this time (italics mine) the power-proof stamp on barrel, receiver, and breechblock."

So, according to Army regulations, there is no reason for Erfurt test proofs to show up on DWM pistols. In addition, if an inspector holding Erfurt stamps inspected the weapon after power-proof (or if the die was otherwise available to the Inspectors) it seems most reasonable that -all three- proofs would be Erfurt adlers.

A fair speculation would be that DWM provided repair parts as well as finished pistols--I imagine that documentatin for this actually exists somewhere, perhaps in the original contract wording, but I do not have it.

Joachim G�¶rtz, in the February 1996 "Auto Mag", noted the list of parts available to armorers for field repair, and noted that barrels and receivers were not included, that barrel and receiver repair was an armory-level function. (Although this was a WWII-era edict, I have observed that Weimar and Wehrmacht practices regarding the P-08 tend to follow those established by the Imperial German Army, so I am confident that this practice was current in WWI.)

Where did these repairs take place? Certainly not at DWM, which was a civilian contract manufacturer who would have no responsibility for the weapon once it was delivered to the Army.

Was the Erfurt Armory (or Spandau, for that matter) a major repair depot for weapons repair?

The 1913 annex goes on to specify that if the barrel, receiver, or breechblock have been replaced, the weapon must undergo the power-proof and rapid-fire tests again. As these parts would not have been previously proofed, they would then be stamped and thus bear the proof mark of the repair armory. Is -this- where the Erfurt barrel proofs on DWM P-08s come from?

There are interesting implications here, regarding the huge numbers of 1917 LP-08 with Erfurt proofs. Still ("Imperial Lugers" p 16) notes that LP-08 serial# are interspersed with standard P-08 serial#s. Is it possible that DWM sent Erfurt completed pistols from the regular production run, along with LP-08 barrels, sights, and rear toggles, to have them converted into LP-08 at Erfurt? This would be one way to account for the Erfurt barrel proofs (hmmm, did I just reinvent the wheel here?).

Yes, I recognize that the receiver notch is a fly in this ointment, the guns might have had to be shipped "in the white". Iirc P-08 were proofed before they were blued, so this is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Is there a recognizable difference between DWM and Erfurt bluing?

Do -any- Lugers which have DWM receiver proofs and Erfurt barrel proofs display perfect witness marks?

Annex G goes on to state the requirements for power-proofing of breech blocks as spare parts for troop use, i.e. unit armorer replacement. Spare breechblocks were to be assembled into pistols (which could be made up of otherwise rejected parts) and subjected to test "as if a factory-new pistol were proof fired." Breechblocks which passed the subsequent inspection were proof stamped "on the spot."

If spare-part breechblocks were delivered to an arsenal, say Erfurt, and then proofed for distribution into the field, they would naturally bear that stamp rather than DWM. Under this circumstance, then, Erfurt-proofed breechblocks on DWM P-08s would be the result of field replacement.

Comments are certainly appropriate and edifying, flames are probably inevitable.

--Dwight

[RockinWR]

Dwight,
* No flames from this corner as I appreciate your time & probing logic.
* I can also agree with many of your suppositions and use of Gortz facts as well. However, four inputs surfaced 4 Theories. I think that says it all. Safe to say "I don't know"; but, enjoy contemplating/sharing the possibilities for this 85 year old conundrum with you.

Greg,
* Check the New thread & Member's Gallery for the pics I promised above.

Respectfully,
Bob

[Dwight Gruber]

Bob,

I might rather say four suppositions, of varying plausability, based around the delivery of DWM-manufactured repair parts. It was an attempt to explore the subject while eliminating the imponderable element of the human activity or arbitrary actions of inspectors.

Nonetheless, I seem to have exhausted my speculation quotient for a while.

--Dwight