Weimar Police rework ?

Keller · 06-17-2006, 07:09 PM

Hi there,
I need help to find out what I have. I presume it is a Weimar Police rework from a Marine gun. sr. nr. 4173, with Schiwy sear safety and a removed magazine safety. Aluminium bottom magazine w/matching number and 2.
Can someone on the panel tell me what it was before the rework, and what timeframe the proof eagle/crow was used.

policeluger · 06-17-2006, 09:17 PM

Could very well be a Navy gun, pictures really help, are mags original or forced matched a ,ot of question and pictures are a must....sounds nice, and as you noted safetys are from the Weimar period/early nazi....would love to see it.....

Keller · 06-18-2006, 03:18 AM

I will try again to upload pctures...........

policeluger · 06-18-2006, 08:40 AM

The double crowns M's means it started live as a P08 navy 6" barrel, there might be navy unit marks on back of frame, was re-worked in the 20's to a 4" barrel, but the 1920 chamber marking is a property mark and not a date of re-work, take down is mis-matched and I could live with that, sear and mag safety installed in the 20's and 30's, must have seen police service until the end of WW2 and a beautiful gun that I would love to own, please let us know if will can help and welcome to the forum!

Don M · 06-18-2006, 10:59 AM

Hermann,

Welcome to the forum.

Does this gun have any markings on the front of the grip strap?

Keller · 06-18-2006, 05:06 PM

Nothing on back of frame and nothing on front of grip strap.
Re. picture 4 and 5. As I understand it, change of safety direction should mean that it started life as a Model 1904 with the 'up safe' thumb safety configuration which was later changed to the 'safety in upward position'.
Can anybody tell me what timeframe this proof eagle/duck/ or whatever was used.
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload..._044_copy1.jpg

Dwight Gruber · 06-19-2006, 02:57 AM

Hermann,

Your barrel proof may ultimately go unidentified. The closest mark to it in Costanzo is #59, p.88. It is described as a Simson proof from 1921, found on reworks. Costanzo in unreliable when it comes to detailed identification of marks like this, I think it is fair to say that it is a military or police style test proof (depending on who was actually proofing reworks for Police acceptance, maybe a WaffenAmt?) from fairly early in the Weimar era.

The frame has puzzled me since I first saw your post, as has the receiver. I have been wondering if this is an altered safety; the lack of a grip safety would tend to discount this. The frame is a short frame, but the front of the left-receiver power proof is missing, and I can't imagine that a proof inspector would stamp the receiver in this fashion.

I am wondering, is this a 1906-style frame, altered, which has had the grip safety removed and the frame and receiver front ground so a standard 4" barrel would fit?

It would be usefule to see a picture of the left grip frame, without the grip, to see if there is evidence of grip safety fittings and filling-in of the rear grip strap. It would also be useful to see a couple other angles of the frame front, including a reasonably close side view, to see it it can be determined if the front has been shortened. A picture of the bottom of the receiver including the witness mark and the bottom of the recoil lug might be diagnostic as well.

A question for the gunsmiths in the audience, are the receiver threads on a Luger cut such that, if a mm was shaved from the front of a long receiver, would a short-frame barrrel's feed ramp, front sight, and extractor notch line up properly if it was screwed into place?

--Dwight

Keller · 06-20-2006, 10:04 AM

Inside of grip is numbered to the gun and cut out for magazine safety. Can not se that anything is cut out from the back of grip.
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/pict2394.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/pict2397.jpg

Dwight Gruber · 06-20-2006, 12:23 PM

Hermann,

The tab at the bottom of the recoil spring well with the hole and the slot is the mounting point for a grip safety and its spring; this configuration does not exist on a P-08 style Luger. This is strong evidence that this was, indeed, a 1906 Navy, and the safety marking strongly suggests a First Issue, altered.

The questions about the front of the frame and receiver are more pressing than ever.

--Dwight

Hugh · 06-20-2006, 06:31 PM

("A question for the gunsmiths in the audience, are the receiver threads on a Luger cut such that, if a mm was shaved from the front of a long receiver, would a short-frame barrrel's feed ramp, front sight, and extractor notch line up properly if it was screwed into place?")

Dwight,

Yes, although it might take a little more or a less depending on the particular reciever and new bbl. A "long receiver" is actually 2mm longer than a "short receiver". However the receiver on this gun seems to be a little bit shorter than the frame, and the way that the front part of the first proof mark is almost gone is a good indication that your premise is correct!

Ron Wood · 06-20-2006, 08:00 PM

Hugh,
I am glad you could verify that a long frame and receiver can be cut back to short frame dimensions. The extra length of the long frame is all forward of the takedown lever, so all that is required is squaring up the forward part of the frame to remove the extra 2mm. This particular example was especially well done by carrying the radius smoothly into the squared off reduction. Properly done, I suspect that "clocking" the new barrel would be a relatively simple matter.

I believe that Dwight is right on the money that this was originally a 1906 First Issue Navy. I also think that the appearance that the reciever is a little bit shorter than the frame is due to the fact that the toggle action was not fully back into battery in the first photo. If you look at forward toggle link, it is canted and not parallel to the receiver rail (probably the recoil lever was not hooked to the mainspring bellcrank as well since the takedown lever isn't up and locked). Also if you look at the second photo, the frame and receiver line up just right. Your observation about the truncated front proof mark is just more verification of this rather well executed rework.

I am a little puzzled however by the gap between the rear toggle link and the receiver rails. Obviously the original Navy rear toggle link was replaced, but there shouldn't be any difference in overall length of the link.

Dwight Gruber · 06-20-2006, 08:44 PM

Hermann,

Is there a stamp on the top surface of the rear toggle link? I am struck by Ron's notice of the poor fit of the rear toggle to the receiver rail, and wonder if it might be the result of a poorly finished rework part?

--Dwight

Keller · 06-21-2006, 02:09 PM

Just the number on the top surface of rear toogle link.
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/pict2409.jpg

and then some more:
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/pict2401.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/pict2403.jpg

Thank you all for your help!

Dwight Gruber · 06-23-2006, 03:44 PM

Hermann,

Thanks for the additional pictures. The lack of a mark on the rear toggle piece does not illuminate the question. However, the fact that this used to be a Navy means that the rear toggle piece has been replaced. I have a parts gun on which the toggle train does not match the receiver; it has a slight gap in this same place. I suggest that the part on your gun, not being original, is simply a poor fit.

I am intrigued by the beveling of the back edges of the part.

--Dwight

Keller · 06-24-2006, 04:10 AM

Thank you Dwight,

can you please enlighten me on what you mean by:

"the beveling of the back edges of the part."

06-17-2006, 07:09 PM	#1
Keller User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Norway Posts: 8 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Weimar Police rework ? Hi there, I need help to find out what I have. I presume it is a Weimar Police rework from a Marine gun. sr. nr. 4173, with Schiwy sear safety and a removed magazine safety. Aluminium bottom magazine w/matching number and 2. Can someone on the panel tell me what it was before the rework, and what timeframe the proof eagle/crow was used. __________________ Hermann

06-18-2006, 03:18 AM	#3
Keller User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Norway Posts: 8 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I will try again to upload pctures........... __________________ Hermann

06-18-2006, 05:06 PM	#6
Keller User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Norway Posts: 8 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Nothing on back of frame and nothing on front of grip strap. Re. picture 4 and 5. As I understand it, change of safety direction should mean that it started life as a Model 1904 with the 'up safe' thumb safety configuration which was later changed to the 'safety in upward position'. Can anybody tell me what timeframe this proof eagle/duck/ or whatever was used. http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload..._044_copy1.jpg __________________ Hermann

06-20-2006, 10:04 AM	#8
Keller User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Norway Posts: 8 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Inside of grip is numbered to the gun and cut out for magazine safety. Can not se that anything is cut out from the back of grip. http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/pict2394.jpg http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/pict2397.jpg __________________ Hermann

06-20-2006, 06:31 PM	#10
Hugh RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Southeast Texas Swamp Posts: 2,460 Thanks: 2 Thanked 166 Times in 65 Posts	("A question for the gunsmiths in the audience, are the receiver threads on a Luger cut such that, if a mm was shaved from the front of a long receiver, would a short-frame barrrel's feed ramp, front sight, and extractor notch line up properly if it was screwed into place?") Dwight, Yes, although it might take a little more or a less depending on the particular reciever and new bbl. A "long receiver" is actually 2mm longer than a "short receiver". However the receiver on this gun seems to be a little bit shorter than the frame, and the way that the front part of the first proof mark is almost gone is a good indication that your premise is correct! __________________ *TRUMP FOR PREZ IN '20!*

06-17-2006, 09:17 PM	#2
policeluger RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ca. Posts: 2,141 Thanks: 8 Thanked 89 Times in 54 Posts	Could very well be a Navy gun, pictures really help, are mags original or forced matched a ,ot of question and pictures are a must....sounds nice, and as you noted safetys are from the Weimar period/early nazi....would love to see it.....

06-18-2006, 08:40 AM	#4
policeluger RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ca. Posts: 2,141 Thanks: 8 Thanked 89 Times in 54 Posts	The double crowns M's means it started live as a P08 navy 6" barrel, there might be navy unit marks on back of frame, was re-worked in the 20's to a 4" barrel, but the 1920 chamber marking is a property mark and not a date of re-work, take down is mis-matched and I could live with that, sear and mag safety installed in the 20's and 30's, must have seen police service until the end of WW2 and a beautiful gun that I would love to own, please let us know if will can help and welcome to the forum!

06-18-2006, 10:59 AM	#5
Don M Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 1,429 Thanks: 67 Thanked 292 Times in 191 Posts	Hermann, Welcome to the forum. Does this gun have any markings on the front of the grip strap? __________________ Regards, Don donmaus1@aol.com Author of History Writ in Steel: German Police Markings 1900-1936 http://www.historywritinsteel.com

06-19-2006, 02:57 AM	#7
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,908 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,330 Times in 435 Posts	Hermann, Your barrel proof may ultimately go unidentified. The closest mark to it in Costanzo is #59, p.88. It is described as a Simson proof from 1921, found on reworks. Costanzo in unreliable when it comes to detailed identification of marks like this, I think it is fair to say that it is a military or police style test proof (depending on who was actually proofing reworks for Police acceptance, maybe a WaffenAmt?) from fairly early in the Weimar era. The frame has puzzled me since I first saw your post, as has the receiver. I have been wondering if this is an altered safety; the lack of a grip safety would tend to discount this. The frame is a short frame, but the front of the left-receiver power proof is missing, and I can't imagine that a proof inspector would stamp the receiver in this fashion. I am wondering, is this a 1906-style frame, altered, which has had the grip safety removed and the frame and receiver front ground so a standard 4" barrel would fit? It would be usefule to see a picture of the left grip frame, without the grip, to see if there is evidence of grip safety fittings and filling-in of the rear grip strap. It would also be useful to see a couple other angles of the frame front, including a reasonably close side view, to see it it can be determined if the front has been shortened. A picture of the bottom of the receiver including the witness mark and the bottom of the recoil lug might be diagnostic as well. A question for the gunsmiths in the audience, are the receiver threads on a Luger cut such that, if a mm was shaved from the front of a long receiver, would a short-frame barrrel's feed ramp, front sight, and extractor notch line up properly if it was screwed into place? --Dwight

06-20-2006, 12:23 PM	#9
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,908 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,330 Times in 435 Posts	Hermann, The tab at the bottom of the recoil spring well with the hole and the slot is the mounting point for a grip safety and its spring; this configuration does not exist on a P-08 style Luger. This is strong evidence that this was, indeed, a 1906 Navy, and the safety marking strongly suggests a First Issue, altered. The questions about the front of the frame and receiver are more pressing than ever. --Dwight

06-20-2006, 08:00 PM	#11
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 7,040 Thanks: 1,106 Thanked 5,257 Times in 1,724 Posts	Hugh, I am glad you could verify that a long frame and receiver can be cut back to short frame dimensions. The extra length of the long frame is all forward of the takedown lever, so all that is required is squaring up the forward part of the frame to remove the extra 2mm. This particular example was especially well done by carrying the radius smoothly into the squared off reduction. Properly done, I suspect that "clocking" the new barrel would be a relatively simple matter. I believe that Dwight is right on the money that this was originally a 1906 First Issue Navy. I also think that the appearance that the reciever is a little bit shorter than the frame is due to the fact that the toggle action was not fully back into battery in the first photo. If you look at forward toggle link, it is canted and not parallel to the receiver rail (probably the recoil lever was not hooked to the mainspring bellcrank as well since the takedown lever isn't up and locked). Also if you look at the second photo, the frame and receiver line up just right. Your observation about the truncated front proof mark is just more verification of this rather well executed rework. I am a little puzzled however by the gap between the rear toggle link and the receiver rails. Obviously the original Navy rear toggle link was replaced, but there shouldn't be any difference in overall length of the link. __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

06-20-2006, 08:44 PM	#12
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,908 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,330 Times in 435 Posts	Hermann, Is there a stamp on the top surface of the rear toggle link? I am struck by Ron's notice of the poor fit of the rear toggle to the receiver rail, and wonder if it might be the result of a poorly finished rework part? --Dwight

06-21-2006, 02:09 PM	#13
Keller User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Norway Posts: 8 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Just the number on the top surface of rear toogle link. http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/pict2409.jpg and then some more: http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/pict2401.jpg http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/pict2403.jpg Thank you all for your help! __________________ Hermann

06-23-2006, 03:44 PM	#14
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,908 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,330 Times in 435 Posts	Hermann, Thanks for the additional pictures. The lack of a mark on the rear toggle piece does not illuminate the question. However, the fact that this used to be a Navy means that the rear toggle piece has been replaced. I have a parts gun on which the toggle train does not match the receiver; it has a slight gap in this same place. I suggest that the part on your gun, not being original, is simply a poor fit. I am intrigued by the beveling of the back edges of the part. --Dwight

06-24-2006, 04:10 AM	#15
Keller User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Norway Posts: 8 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Thank you Dwight, can you please enlighten me on what you mean by: "the beveling of the back edges of the part." __________________ Hermann