1937 Mauser

[Mac Cat]

100.jpg
I tried to over-expose the original photo to expose the S/N and suffix.

I guessed a "t".

[MFC]

It is an 'r' suffix.

[Sergio Natali]

It's an interesting gun I would add, "r" suffix an interesting s/n, and it doesn't seem rebuffed, BUT the most important thing is that it's part of your family heirloom, so it has no price.

[Insayn]

I haven't broke it down. My father did and we sat there staring at it a bit years ago trying to figure out how to reassemble. I'll break it down and try to see what's going on with it and take photos of other parts.

[DavidJayUden]

Regarding the side plate assembly, pressing rearward on the (empty) muzzle will allow you to clip in the rear of the side plate, swing the front in and raise the takedown lever. Also YouTube is a good source of assembly tutorials.
And don't feel bad, lots of these have gone back together incorrectly.
dju

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by DavidJayUden

And don't feel bad, lots of these have gone back together incorrectly.
dju

I've put the sideplate tab outside the slot more than once.

And not gotten the recoil spring lever hooks engaged with the coupling link...My 1900AE came from the seller with the hooks behind the mainspring...Took a lot of pushing, poking, and wiggling to get the cannon assembly freed...

But the pics of the mis-assembled sideplate tab make an excellent addition to the FAQ...

...Or maybe a separate thread on common mistakes???

[Insayn]

Got it.

[DonVoigt]

"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]

[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

[DonVoigt]

John,
thanks for the detailed answer.
Not meant as criticism, but a desire to learn and document.

Am I to conclude from the above that no finished 129mm DWM/BKIW frames were completed by Mauser? Or that none were sold to the military due to the orders quoted? I suppose this is a way of asking what happened to or how were the finished frames used by Mauser(if at all)?

I'm asking as it could be a way to know the mfg. date of the Alphabet commercial pistols, or am I
reaching?

[guns3545]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

John,
thanks for the detailed answer.
Not meant as criticism, but a desire to learn and document.

Am I to conclude from the above that no finished 129mm DWM/BKIW frames were completed by Mauser? Or that none were sold to the military due to the orders quoted? I suppose this is a way of asking what happened to or how were the finished frames used by Mauser(if at all)?

I'm asking as it could be a way to know the mfg. date of the Alphabet commercial pistols, or am I
reaching?

Don,

By no means.

Mauser was desperate for business during these days and took orders from anyone.

My comments were solely directed toward the Model P.08 as specifically ordered by the Heereswaffenamt. And, because of the Order of 6/16/1930, I am relatively certain that no 129mm frames were delivered by Mauser as Model P.08s.

However, in the DWM/BKIW era and the transition to Mauser, several variations were delivered to the Police, various export customers etc. There was ample opportunity to use up the finished parts transferred to Oberndorf from Berlin. However, I have not studied that period extensively.

Perhaps others who study this period may comment. Alternatively, this line of research should be placed in another thread that I recommend you start. This topic is far afield from the OP's initial question and deserving of attention.

John

[guns3545]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

John,
thanks for the detailed answer.
Not meant as criticism, but a desire to learn and document.

Am I to conclude from the above that no finished 129mm DWM/BKIW frames were completed by Mauser? Or that none were sold to the military due to the orders quoted? I suppose this is a way of asking what happened to or how were the finished frames used by Mauser(if at all)?

I'm asking as it could be a way to know the mfg. date of the Alphabet commercial pistols, or am I
reaching?

Don,

Did some digging trying to identify Mauser uses of the 129 mm frame.

Here are some data points which you can follow:

1. The only two transferable contracts to Mauser at the date of the turnover were the Dutch Navy and the A. F. Stoeger contracts.

2. From 1930 to 1934, Mauser delivered commercial contracts with the DWM logo on the center toggle and the F-1, 129 mm frame,delivered at the time of turnover. From 1934 onward, commercial contracts used the Mauser Banner. The early Banner-8 logo guns also had the 129 mm frame, including the Portuguese contract.

3. Between SN 3601v and 9750v, all Mauser frames F-3, i.e. 130mm. Exceptions were the artilleries produced in that SN range which used the 129 mm frame as did the Dutch Navy guns delivered in 1936.

4. There is evidence to suggest the DWM 129 mm frames were used into 1937 for foreign and commercial contracts.

5. And to my surprise, in violation of the 1930 directive, some early K-dates, maybe 180 total had the 129mm frame. Accident?? Intentional?? But the remainder of the K-dates either used the 130mm humped or so called reinforced frame.

So, focus on the v-block guns for the most likely use of the DWM finished 129 mm frames.

BTW, an easy way to tell the difference between the DWM 129 mm frame and the Mauser made 130 mm variations is that the DWM frames do not have the distinctive dimple at the top of the stock lug rail. This is a unique characteristic of the Mauser 130mm frame.

Hope this helps.

BUT... I really think this needs to be in a separate thread.

John

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by guns3545

...the DWM frames do not have the distinctive dimple at the top of the stock lug rail. This is a unique characteristic of the Mauser 130mm frame.

Hope this helps.

BUT... I really think this needs to be in a separate thread.

John

Please post a pic of the stock lug dimple in the separate thread...

[guns3545]

Originally Posted by sheepherder

Please post a pic of the stock lug dimple in the separate thread...

A Mauser stock lug dimple

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by guns3545

A Mauser stock lug dimple

OK, I see what you meant. I usually refer to this (in my head) as a 'starter hole'. It would seem most Lugers have the milled stock lug cut started from the bottom and going up; the Mauser has a 'starter hole' drilled and the end mill cut goes down. That's one theory; another is that the other companies didn't extend their drilled starter holes as deep as Mauser and all the cuts were in the same direction [down].

Reading the tool marks and visualizing how they were made is the main reason I accumulate Lugers (and Mauser & Nambu & any early handgun).

I started out as a production machinist in an aerospace sub-contractor back in 1969 (the Old Curtiss-Wright plant in Buffalo; they made P-40's during WW II). Many of the old machines were still in use, and they were quite interesting to use.

Edit: My Thanks! To kurusu for catching my spelling mistake...

[Mark1]

guns3545,
Thanks for your explanation, very interesting.
It prompted me to measure my 06 Waffenfabrik Bern which dates to 1930 according to Walters Luger Book. Length of the frame is 131mm , so clearly the Swiss were aware of the problem. My question is, when did the Swiss lengthen the frame , in 1918 when they began manufacturing or later ?
My apologies if this should be in a separate thread, I'm not certain how to do that.

[DonVoigt]

Originally Posted by Mark1

guns3545,
Thanks for your explanation, very interesting.
It prompted me to measure my 06 Waffenfabrik Bern which dates to 1930 according to Walters Luger Book. Length of the frame is 131mm , so clearly the Swiss were aware of the problem. My question is, when did the Swiss lengthen the frame , in 1918 when they began manufacturing or later ?
My apologies if this should be in a separate thread, I'm not certain how to do that.

Swiss pistols have the old model "long" receiver, which is 2-2.5 mm longer than the later short receiver; the added length is at the front not the rear, so it does not address the toggle axle "problem".

[Sergio Natali]

On this interesting topic I don't want to add anything more than was written by Ron Wood in an extremely instructive "tutorial" on the other leading luger forum, I would advise anybody interested to learn more about it to click here:

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...Frame-Tutorial

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by luger.parabellum

On this interesting topic I don't want to add anything more than was written by Ron Wood in an extremely instructive "tutorial" on the other leading luger forum, I would advise anybody interested to learn more about it to click here:

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...Frame-Tutorial

It's also posted here, on this forum -

http://forum.lugerforum.com/showthread.php?t=3932