Help with Markings

RockinWR · 05-26-2004, 01:28 AM

Ronnie,
* In the intervening period while you examine your pistol against the last set of questions I posed, let me give an interim update:
- The three digit N417 is far too early for a 1939, 42 code Mauser P.08. A three digit Navy property number would predate the "K" date pistols and would be more consistent with the Weimar Reichmarine period of 1929-1933. Typically an Eagle/M or E/MIII would be pantographed on the frame's left upper panel during this period IMHO.
- I suspect the frame has no "hump" as it should in 1939. The frame's grip surfaces appear to be "rust" blue. The receiver, toggle train, & barrel appear "salt" blued more consistent with a 1939 dated Mauser pistol. The non matching wood "Erfurt" grips seem more consistent with the frame's Weimar period of Mfg.
- No Army nor KMarine 1939, Code 42 Mauser P.08 have been reported in the "No Suffix" block. The overall S/N range given by Jan Still in Third Reich Luger for this date/code is 200r-8250z.
- Only 400 Code 42's were procured by the Kreigsmarine in 1939...mostly in the "y" & "z" block.
- Large sE/63's are not unknown on KMarine "z" block examples reported. Certainly a minority combination as sE/655's predominated this late in 1939 examples.
- The frame's pantographed sE/M appears to have no halo and appears to post date the frame's age significantly. Style/Font having not been authenticated by the P.08 collecting fraternity(Cabal & other) causes serious questions.
- The bore diameter marking seem off center to the barrel's S/N. I do not ever remember seeing a Marine property number marked on a barrel until seeing this one. The barrel's S/N font seems to differ, relative to the digits "3" & "4", to the receiver's numbers although the picture's angle makes it difficult to confirm this. Your report however is noted.
- The presence or absence of "halo's" around the "N417" markings is difficult to assess given the "white" highlighting.
- Army "t" block Mag appears to be 1937 vintage w/ the small sE/63 acceptance.
* Given the disparity of items noted, wartime rework acceptance by a Naval Arsenal Inspector appears unlikely.
Respectfully,
Bob

05-26-2004, 01:28 AM	#21
RockinWR User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: D/FW, Tx Posts: 279 Thanks: 109 Thanked 31 Times in 16 Posts	Ronnie, * In the intervening period while you examine your pistol against the last set of questions I posed, let me give an interim update: - The three digit N417 is far too early for a 1939, 42 code Mauser P.08. A three digit Navy property number would predate the "K" date pistols and would be more consistent with the Weimar Reichmarine period of 1929-1933. Typically an Eagle/M or E/MIII would be pantographed on the frame's left upper panel during this period IMHO. - I suspect the frame has no "hump" as it should in 1939. The frame's grip surfaces appear to be "rust" blue. The receiver, toggle train, & barrel appear "salt" blued more consistent with a 1939 dated Mauser pistol. The non matching wood "Erfurt" grips seem more consistent with the frame's Weimar period of Mfg. - No Army nor KMarine 1939, Code 42 Mauser P.08 have been reported in the "No Suffix" block. The overall S/N range given by Jan Still in Third Reich Luger for this date/code is 200r-8250z. - Only 400 Code 42's were procured by the Kreigsmarine in 1939...mostly in the "y" & "z" block. - Large sE/63's are not unknown on KMarine "z" block examples reported. Certainly a minority combination as sE/655's predominated this late in 1939 examples. - The frame's pantographed sE/M appears to have no halo and appears to post date the frame's age significantly. Style/Font having not been authenticated by the P.08 collecting fraternity(Cabal & other) causes serious questions. - The bore diameter marking seem off center to the barrel's S/N. I do not ever remember seeing a Marine property number marked on a barrel until seeing this one. The barrel's S/N font seems to differ, relative to the digits "3" & "4", to the receiver's numbers although the picture's angle makes it difficult to confirm this. Your report however is noted. - The presence or absence of "halo's" around the "N417" markings is difficult to assess given the "white" highlighting. - Army "t" block Mag appears to be 1937 vintage w/ the small sE/63 acceptance. * Given the disparity of items noted, wartime rework acceptance by a Naval Arsenal Inspector appears unlikely. Respectfully, Bob