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.

alanint · 12-11-2013, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleveland4V

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.

There is no reason on earth that anybody would need to remove this much material from a factory barrel collar. The barrel would have to have been horribly pitted, which would show on the overall barrel assembly. We all have had bouts of wishful thinking while Luger collecting, but I have to agree with those that state that this is NOT a factory gun nor is the barrel a factory Navy offering.

Norme · 12-11-2013, 09:53 AM

Hi Tim, I have of course read Dwight Gruber's article on witness marks and I repeat what I said earlier, they were marks that were applied separately to barrel and receiver as an aid to assembly. If they line up perfectly so they appear to have been struck with one blow from a single instrument (as Dwight defines it), it's by chance. I specialize in Imperial Navy Lugers, and have examined several dozen first hand, the only perfect "witness mark" I've seen was on a known fake! See photo below.
You asked for our thoughts, I gave you mine. You are, of course, free to believe what you like.
Norm

12-11-2013, 02:58 AM	#1
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

12-11-2013, 09:53 AM	#3
Norme Always A Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,417 Thanks: 226 Thanked 2,607 Times in 933 Posts	Hi Tim, I have of course read Dwight Gruber's article on witness marks and I repeat what I said earlier, they were marks that were applied separately to barrel and receiver as an aid to assembly. If they line up perfectly so they appear to have been struck with one blow from a single instrument (as Dwight defines it), it's by chance. I specialize in Imperial Navy Lugers, and have examined several dozen first hand, the only perfect "witness mark" I've seen was on a known fake! See photo below. You asked for our thoughts, I gave you mine. You are, of course, free to believe what you like. Norm Attached Thumbnails

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode