1937 Mauser

DonVoigt · 01-19-2016, 01:25 PM

"Mauser initially remedied the problem by lengthening just the upper part of the frame by 1 mm. Since they were using half finished DWM frames this caused the hump seen on some early K-dates. Thus, they reinforced the DWM frames and caused the hump appearance.

Then as they started using their own forged frames, they just machined the entire frame at 130mm, thus thickening the frame, hence re-inforced as compared to the DWM frame. But the hump disappeared. This continued until early 1937."

Guns3545,
Are you sure about this? Any documentation?
What I've read is that "finished" frames went from BKIW to Mauser.

How would they have added to the frame to reinforce a DWM frame? If the frame was long enough to mill with a hump, why not just leave it long?

IMO,
Mauser developed the longer frame in response to a complaint/problem and only in their own mfg.; it doesn't make sense that Mauser would "waste" time on salvaging frames when they could have simply used them as is.

Just a matter of semantics, but should not the frame be described as lengthened and not thickened? Usage in the above explanations and discussions slips back and forth between the two and could be confusing. At least to a dummy like me.

guns3545 · 01-19-2016, 02:41 PM

[quote=donvoigt;283223]"mauser initially remedied the problem by lengthening just the upper part of the frame by 1 mm. Since they were using half finished dwm frames this caused the hump seen on some early k-dates. Thus, they reinforced the dwm frames and caused the hump appearance.

Then as they started using their own forged frames, they just machined the entire frame at 130mm, thus thickening the frame, hence re-inforced as compared to the dwm frame. But the hump disappeared. This continued until early 1937."

guns3545,

Responses embedded in text.

are you sure about this? YES
any documentation? YES. Mainly chapters 3 and 4 of The Mauser Parabellum
what i've read is that "finished" frames went from bkiw to mauser. NOT TRUE. Finished frames, frames that had not completed the 191 finishing steps and raw forgings were transferred. Mauser paid 119,123.29 Reichsmarks for the finished and unfinished parts they received.

And, BTW, BKIW was DWM who along with MAUSER changed their name in 1922 to one less associated with arms. Same company. Sorry for confusing you. I just use DWM out of habit.

How would they have added to the frame to reinforce a dwm frame? If the frame was long enough to mill with a hump, why not just leave it long?
THEY DID NOT ADD ANYTHING. They simply machined away less. The semi-finished forging was longer than 130mm. Dwm tooling machined the frame to 129 mm. Mauser tooling machined the upper frame to 130 and tapered back, hence the hump.

Imo,
mauser developed the longer frame in response to a complaint/problem and only in their own mfg.; it doesn't make sense that mauser would "waste" time on salvaging frames when they could have simply used them as is. Both Mauser and Krieghoff, when they started P.08 production were responding to an order from the Reichsministerium dated 6/16/1930 covering the P.08. And they did not salvage any frames. Machining changes from 129 to 130 mm length were applied to unfinished frames whose length exceeded 130mm. They simply removed less metal

Just a matter of semantics, but should not the frame be described as lengthened and not thickened? You are absolutely correct. Apologies. I've changed it. Should have said "lengthened the frame and thereby thickened the ears"

usage in the above explanations and discussions slips back and forth between the two and could be confusing. At least to a dummy like me.

Thank you for your questions and criticisms. They keep me on my toes.

John

01-19-2016, 01:25 PM	#1
DonVoigt User Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: near Charlotte NC Posts: 4,681 Thanks: 1,443 Thanked 4,356 Times in 2,041 Posts	"Mauser initially remedied the problem by lengthening just the upper part of the frame by 1 mm. Since they were using half finished DWM frames this caused the hump seen on some early K-dates. Thus, they reinforced the DWM frames and caused the hump appearance. Then as they started using their own forged frames, they just machined the entire frame at 130mm, thus thickening the frame, hence re-inforced as compared to the DWM frame. But the hump disappeared. This continued until early 1937." Guns3545, Are you sure about this? Any documentation? What I've read is that "finished" frames went from BKIW to Mauser. How would they have added to the frame to reinforce a DWM frame? If the frame was long enough to mill with a hump, why not just leave it long? IMO, Mauser developed the longer frame in response to a complaint/problem and only in their own mfg.; it doesn't make sense that Mauser would "waste" time on salvaging frames when they could have simply used them as is. Just a matter of semantics, but should not the frame be described as lengthened and not thickened? Usage in the above explanations and discussions slips back and forth between the two and could be confusing. At least to a dummy like me. __________________ 03man(Don Voigt); Luger student and collector. Looking for DWM side plate: 69 ; Dreyse 1907 pistol K.S. Gendarmerie

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

01-19-2016, 02:41 PM	#2
guns3545 Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 438 Thanks: 661 Thanked 493 Times in 219 Posts	[quote=donvoigt;283223]"mauser initially remedied the problem by lengthening just the upper part of the frame by 1 mm. Since they were using half finished dwm frames this caused the hump seen on some early k-dates. Thus, they reinforced the dwm frames and caused the hump appearance. Then as they started using their own forged frames, they just machined the entire frame at 130mm, thus thickening the frame, hence re-inforced as compared to the dwm frame. But the hump disappeared. This continued until early 1937." guns3545, Responses embedded in text. are you sure about this? YES any documentation? YES. Mainly chapters 3 and 4 of The Mauser Parabellum what i've read is that "finished" frames went from bkiw to mauser. NOT TRUE. Finished frames, frames that had not completed the 191 finishing steps and raw forgings were transferred. Mauser paid 119,123.29 Reichsmarks for the finished and unfinished parts they received. And, BTW, BKIW was DWM who along with MAUSER changed their name in 1922 to one less associated with arms. Same company. Sorry for confusing you. I just use DWM out of habit. How would they have added to the frame to reinforce a dwm frame? If the frame was long enough to mill with a hump, why not just leave it long? THEY DID NOT ADD ANYTHING. They simply machined away less. The semi-finished forging was longer than 130mm. Dwm tooling machined the frame to 129 mm. Mauser tooling machined the upper frame to 130 and tapered back, hence the hump. Imo, mauser developed the longer frame in response to a complaint/problem and only in their own mfg.; it doesn't make sense that mauser would "waste" time on salvaging frames when they could have simply used them as is. Both Mauser and Krieghoff, when they started P.08 production were responding to an order from the Reichsministerium dated 6/16/1930 covering the P.08. And they did not salvage any frames. Machining changes from 129 to 130 mm length were applied to unfinished frames whose length exceeded 130mm. They simply removed less metal Just a matter of semantics, but should not the frame be described as lengthened and not thickened? You are absolutely correct. Apologies. I've changed it. Should have said "lengthened the frame and thereby thickened the ears" usage in the above explanations and discussions slips back and forth between the two and could be confusing. At least to a dummy like me. Thank you for your questions and criticisms. They keep me on my toes. John