Your thoughts...

Cleveland4V · 12-11-2013, 02:58 AM

After more research and a closer detailed look at this piece, it appears that whoever did refinishing did a decent job overall, but removed to much from the top of the receiver and the taper of the barrel. If they welded the s/n and proof. They did one hell of a job filing and finishing. Which brings me back to the original discussion. I'm convinced the witness mark proves this is the original matching Navy barrel to the this receiver. You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. Read the second sentence beneath the sub-title "Conclusions and more questions"
http://www.lugerforum.com/WitnessMarkConclusions.htm

As far as the thought this was assembled be DWM or any other company. That's in the past.

12-11-2013, 02:58 AM	#10
Cleveland4V User Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: New Orleans Posts: 8 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	After more research and a closer detailed look at this piece, it appears that whoever did refinishing did a decent job overall, but removed to much from the top of the receiver and the taper of the barrel. If they welded the s/n and proof. They did one hell of a job filing and finishing. Which brings me back to the original discussion. I'm convinced the witness mark proves this is the original matching Navy barrel to the this receiver. You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. Read the second sentence beneath the sub-title "Conclusions and more questions" http://www.lugerforum.com/WitnessMarkConclusions.htm As far as the thought this was assembled be DWM or any other company. That's in the past. Attached Thumbnails