Looking at purchasing a luger. - Page 2

wterrell · 11-25-2002, 07:58 PM

[quote] ... it has checkered wooden Walnut grips, without a border or an insignia, but with matching numbers stamped on the insides ("84"); ...<hr></blockquote>

The reason that I say that the grips are replacement is the mismatch of wear of the grips compared to the lack of wear on the metal finish.

wterrell · 11-25-2002, 09:56 PM

Take a good look at the trail from safe to fire.

Jimbo · 11-26-2002, 12:47 AM

Interesting study. I've scrutinized these photos but as Edward said, this gun has to be inspected in person to find defects, if any. If refinished, it is really a fabulous restoration.

In particular, I studied the raised border of the rear frame around the safety to see if the metal is polished (wrong) or if the machine marks are horizontal, but I just can't tell from the photos.

Since there is a visible scratch on the frame's backstrap, and since there is a little wear on the right side of the frame (as Ron Wood noted) I would expect at least a tiny bit of wear on the sideframe and the forward left raised area of the receiver, but there is none. The finish is perfect.

Since Still shows that "u" block Lugers are code 42 for year 1939, it stands to reason the toggle train (or entire cannon) is not original to the frame.

One thing is for certain, the mag is not original to this gun. The "u" shown on the magazine is a different style from the "u" on the frame. The "u" on the magazine shows a horizontal bar on top of the left upper portion. The "u" on the frame shows a leading leg sweeping up to begin the "u". Does anyone with a "u" block Luger have a suffix similar to the one shown on the magazine?

hermit · 11-26-2002, 04:16 AM

It amazes me at how well many of you have become at scrutinizing these guns to check for originality. These days it is a necessity I'm sure. My comment is on the file marks John mentioned. The marks he refers to are perfectly symetrical and it would be very had if not impossible to do that with a file? It looks to me like a greater possibility of a milling machine? Just trying to learn what to look for as to originality. It is a beautiful pistol regardless and worth the money--no? I also noticed what looks like that safety I read about in other posts that has the pin blocking the trigger. It can be seen in one of the pics or is that something else?

Frank · 11-26-2002, 09:33 AM

There are two variations in which an E/63 magazine would support a U-Block. The first is a 1937, 2nd Variation and the other is a 1939 Code 42. There is a slight difference in the two, which is the size of the acceptance mark. The 1937 stamping is smaller that the 1939. The photo tells me this is the Larger of the two and rightfully belongs to the 1939.

There were only 12 receivers that would be available to provide both the 1939 chamber date and the 5084 reciever number, so the chances of it being a different receiver are remote.

The best bet would be a changed toggle assembly or toggle link.

Now, I really hate to muddy the water, but . . .

Jan Still reports what he calls "out-of-sequence" Production, Page 91, Third Reich Lugers. Here he shows a 1940 Code S/42, 1940 byf and a 42 Code 42. Now who knows how many of these exist and if they are indeed legitimate. Now that's 3 pistols in 300,000 or more Lugers. I guess if one would belive the existence of a 1949 Code S/42, a U-Block 1939 Code S/42 is possible.

The pistol in question could be either an out-of-sequence or it has a toggle transplant, and which is original finish or reblued.

I guess at this point, you pays your money and takes your chances. IMHO it is worth more than $500, but would hesitate to spend more than $1000.

Nuff Said, at least from me !! <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

Dwight Gruber · 11-26-2002, 09:41 AM

Regarding the machining marks at the base of the butt around the magazine well: my 1936 S/42 exhibits the same marks. By their size, depth, and regularity they are obviously machining marks, artifacts of manufacture.

Regarding the trail under the safety lever (or lack of same): I have two Lugers which have seen very little use (one a re-blue, one original) whose wear trail is so light that it can only be seen if the light is just right for it.

--Dwight

mayberryusa · 11-27-2002, 09:01 PM

To everyone who has taken the time to write me a response or two, Thank You very much! I still haven't gotten "to the bottom of it," in finding definitive answers to my questions, but the suggestions given by forum members should be of assistance when I get to break down the pistol again.

My initial dilemma was this: the fellow who wants to sell the Luger asked $900.00 for it and as that's a good chunk of change for a working man like me I wanted to be able to justify spending that much (because he will not come down on the price).

At this point in time, I'm still not certain that the full asking price is justified. However, now my wife has become interested in this too, and she agrees, with Frank, that I should pay my money and take my chances. It wouldn't be the first thing we ever spent too much money on! If it turns out that it is actually a collector's piece, great....if not, then we'll both enjoy it out at the range.

I'll be back again once I have answers, or think I do, to the questions that have been raised.

Edward Tinker · 11-27-2002, 09:44 PM

I'd print these pages out and then talk to the guy.

I'd try to get the price down a hundred or two or so???

minigun · 11-30-2002, 02:20 AM

I'm definitly not an expert at whether or not it has been refinished or not. But, to me, it looks refinished. I base this on the fact that it appears by the photo's that there is relatively no holster wear. This is a major warning flag.

If you can, take a mag light and magnifying glass and look at the finish. Under light, does the finish have a rusted/blued look?? That's one way to tell.

To me $900-$1,000 is way too much for a refinished Luger. But it might not be to you.

Just remember that there are other Lugers out there and you don't have to settle for this one particular one.

11-25-2002, 07:58 PM	#21
wterrell User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,096 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	[quote] ... it has checkered wooden Walnut grips, without a border or an insignia, but with matching numbers stamped on the insides ("84"); ...<hr></blockquote> The reason that I say that the grips are replacement is the mismatch of wear of the grips compared to the lack of wear on the metal finish. __________________ Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo, wes --------------------

11-25-2002, 09:56 PM	#22
wterrell User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,096 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Take a good look at the trail from safe to fire. __________________ Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo, wes --------------------

11-27-2002, 09:44 PM	#28
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,966 Thanks: 2,066 Thanked 4,595 Times in 2,116 Posts	I'd print these pages out and then talk to the guy. I'd try to get the price down a hundred or two or so??? __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV

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

11-26-2002, 12:47 AM	#23
Jimbo User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SF CA Posts: 167 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Interesting study. I've scrutinized these photos but as Edward said, this gun has to be inspected in person to find defects, if any. If refinished, it is really a fabulous restoration. In particular, I studied the raised border of the rear frame around the safety to see if the metal is polished (wrong) or if the machine marks are horizontal, but I just can't tell from the photos. Since there is a visible scratch on the frame's backstrap, and since there is a little wear on the right side of the frame (as Ron Wood noted) I would expect at least a tiny bit of wear on the sideframe and the forward left raised area of the receiver, but there is none. The finish is perfect. Since Still shows that "u" block Lugers are code 42 for year 1939, it stands to reason the toggle train (or entire cannon) is not original to the frame. One thing is for certain, the mag is not original to this gun. The "u" shown on the magazine is a different style from the "u" on the frame. The "u" on the magazine shows a horizontal bar on top of the left upper portion. The "u" on the frame shows a leading leg sweeping up to begin the "u". Does anyone with a "u" block Luger have a suffix similar to the one shown on the magazine?

11-26-2002, 04:16 AM	#24
hermit User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: canada Posts: 51 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	It amazes me at how well many of you have become at scrutinizing these guns to check for originality. These days it is a necessity I'm sure. My comment is on the file marks John mentioned. The marks he refers to are perfectly symetrical and it would be very had if not impossible to do that with a file? It looks to me like a greater possibility of a milling machine? Just trying to learn what to look for as to originality. It is a beautiful pistol regardless and worth the money--no? I also noticed what looks like that safety I read about in other posts that has the pin blocking the trigger. It can be seen in one of the pics or is that something else?

11-26-2002, 09:33 AM	#25
Frank RIP Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hot & Dry PHX, AZ Posts: 2,078 Thanks: 24 Thanked 164 Times in 87 Posts	There are two variations in which an E/63 magazine would support a U-Block. The first is a 1937, 2nd Variation and the other is a 1939 Code 42. There is a slight difference in the two, which is the size of the acceptance mark. The 1937 stamping is smaller that the 1939. The photo tells me this is the Larger of the two and rightfully belongs to the 1939. There were only 12 receivers that would be available to provide both the 1939 chamber date and the 5084 reciever number, so the chances of it being a different receiver are remote. The best bet would be a changed toggle assembly or toggle link. Now, I really hate to muddy the water, but . . . Jan Still reports what he calls "out-of-sequence" Production, Page 91, Third Reich Lugers. Here he shows a 1940 Code S/42, 1940 byf and a 42 Code 42. Now who knows how many of these exist and if they are indeed legitimate. Now that's 3 pistols in 300,000 or more Lugers. I guess if one would belive the existence of a 1949 Code S/42, a U-Block 1939 Code S/42 is possible. The pistol in question could be either an out-of-sequence or it has a toggle transplant, and which is original finish or reblued. I guess at this point, you pays your money and takes your chances. IMHO it is worth more than $500, but would hesitate to spend more than $1000. Nuff Said, at least from me !! <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

11-26-2002, 09:41 AM	#26
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,908 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,330 Times in 435 Posts	Regarding the machining marks at the base of the butt around the magazine well: my 1936 S/42 exhibits the same marks. By their size, depth, and regularity they are obviously machining marks, artifacts of manufacture. Regarding the trail under the safety lever (or lack of same): I have two Lugers which have seen very little use (one a re-blue, one original) whose wear trail is so light that it can only be seen if the light is just right for it. --Dwight

11-27-2002, 09:01 PM	#27
mayberryusa New User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: none Posts: 4 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	To everyone who has taken the time to write me a response or two, Thank You very much! I still haven't gotten "to the bottom of it," in finding definitive answers to my questions, but the suggestions given by forum members should be of assistance when I get to break down the pistol again. My initial dilemma was this: the fellow who wants to sell the Luger asked $900.00 for it and as that's a good chunk of change for a working man like me I wanted to be able to justify spending that much (because he will not come down on the price). At this point in time, I'm still not certain that the full asking price is justified. However, now my wife has become interested in this too, and she agrees, with Frank, that I should pay my money and take my chances. It wouldn't be the first thing we ever spent too much money on! If it turns out that it is actually a collector's piece, great....if not, then we'll both enjoy it out at the range. I'll be back again once I have answers, or think I do, to the questions that have been raised.

11-30-2002, 02:20 AM	#29
minigun User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 424 Thanks: 16 Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts	I'm definitly not an expert at whether or not it has been refinished or not. But, to me, it looks refinished. I base this on the fact that it appears by the photo's that there is relatively no holster wear. This is a major warning flag. If you can, take a mag light and magnifying glass and look at the finish. Under light, does the finish have a rusted/blued look?? That's one way to tell. To me $900-$1,000 is way too much for a refinished Luger. But it might not be to you. Just remember that there are other Lugers out there and you don't have to settle for this one particular one.