Krieghoff Rework II

Dwight Gruber · 11-23-2005, 03:07 PM

Bob,

The receiver on this gun is 1918. My WAG would be that it made it through hardening (including the Revisions-Commission) and date stamping and was prepared with the crowns for the other two inspection steps, but never made it out of the parts bin before the war ended.

The figure next to the e/6 is not exactly represented in Costanzo, but is very similar to others which he attributes to Simson.

I think there is more to the lazy c/N, and less, than meets the eye. The reason we are so conscious of it is its use on DWM Lugers before 1920, differentiated from the upright c/N after that year. There is no "official" or regulatory (that I know of) reason for the change, it is simply a convention chosen at the time.

Similarly, commercial c/N (and c/U) on other commercial Lugers were stamped lazy or upright for unknown reasons. Considering the locations it could be for convenience, or fit, or esthetics, or some combination of these reasons.

The liklihood of the Luger you are looking at having gone to Simson -and- Krieghoff seems very remote indeed. Gibson documents comercial Krieghoff conversions as having matching lazy c/N on the left frame rail and reciever; I accept the other conversion as an example of Simson doing the same thing. Yes, this does muddy the water, but I think it also properly focuses the search for a commercial conversion's provenance on more characteristically indisputable markings.

--Dwight

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

11-23-2005, 03:07 PM	#22
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,908 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,330 Times in 435 Posts	Bob, The receiver on this gun is 1918. My WAG would be that it made it through hardening (including the Revisions-Commission) and date stamping and was prepared with the crowns for the other two inspection steps, but never made it out of the parts bin before the war ended. The figure next to the e/6 is not exactly represented in Costanzo, but is very similar to others which he attributes to Simson. I think there is more to the lazy c/N, and less, than meets the eye. The reason we are so conscious of it is its use on DWM Lugers before 1920, differentiated from the upright c/N after that year. There is no "official" or regulatory (that I know of) reason for the change, it is simply a convention chosen at the time. Similarly, commercial c/N (and c/U) on other commercial Lugers were stamped lazy or upright for unknown reasons. Considering the locations it could be for convenience, or fit, or esthetics, or some combination of these reasons. The liklihood of the Luger you are looking at having gone to Simson -and- Krieghoff seems very remote indeed. Gibson documents comercial Krieghoff conversions as having matching lazy c/N on the left frame rail and reciever; I accept the other conversion as an example of Simson doing the same thing. Yes, this does muddy the water, but I think it also properly focuses the search for a commercial conversion's provenance on more characteristically indisputable markings. --Dwight