Blind hog done found an acorne

[Mike B]

Well, that was my grandfather's favorite expression when he would stumble across something of value or interest when he was least expecting it. I can draw a similar parallel to my acquiring this 1915 artillery. I certainly did not expect it to be in the really fine condition when it arrived. It did not look like the pictures the dealer posted on his web site. I will say however, that the salesperson whom I spoke to did try his best to paint a verbal picture of this Luger. I have done my best along with the help a fellow Luger collector to scrutinize this Luger to the last degree. We found no issues, imperfections or problems with any aspect of this artillery. The only one point of discussion is the proof marks. I sent pictures to one of our more distinguished members, who is also an accomplished writer and researcher. Here is a quote from Dwight's comment:

"It is interesting that the receiver has an Erfurt-style power proof, as do the barrel and the breechblock. These are not unusual, but the receiver proof is unexpected. I don't believe that it represents a problem, but it might be worthwhile contacting Jan Still about it and see if he has any comments."

Please take a look at the pictures. Dwight says the last proof on the receiver or the one nearest the barrel is an Erfurt proof. It would be very interesting to know if anyone else has a 1915 with this proof. Any input will be appreciated.

Thanks,

[Jan C Still]

Mike
This is the second 1915 DWM with Erfurt style test proof on its right receiver that I have become aware of in the last few days. See links below;
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=104501382

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthread.php?t=15262

It is unusual but sometimes happens. For more information see page 37 and 55 Central Powers Pistols.
Jan

[Mauser720]

Mike -

I may be wrong; however, my 1915 DWM LP08 seems to have the same proof marks as those shown in your photographs.

Mauser720 - Ron

[Mike B]

Ron,
Please tell us the serial number of your artillery and post a picture of the proof if possible. The artillery that Jan pointed out is not far in serial number sequence from mine. Dwight is of the opinion that there may be a run of Erfurt proofs around this serial number. Any others will be appreciated.

Mike

[Jan C Still]

Mike
1915 DWM LP08, sn 4079 (suffix ?), Erfurt style test proof on right receiver, right barrel, and left breech block.

1915 DWM LP08, sn 4137ns, DWM style test proof on right receiver, Erfurt style test proof on right barrel, left breech block not visible in photograph, page 100 Imperial Lugers.

1915 DWM LP08, sn 6016ns, DWM style test proof on right receiver, Erfurt style test proof on right barrel, and left breech block, page 107 Central Powers Pistols.

1915 DWM LP08, sn 8994ns, DWM style test proof on right receiver, Erfurt style test proof on right barrel, (left breech block?)

1915 DWM LP08, sn 2527a, Erfurt style test proof on right receiver, right barrel, and left breech block.

1915 DWM LP08, sn 3586a, Erfurt style test proof on right receiver, right barrel, and left breech block.

1915 DWM LP08, sn 7169a, Erfurt style test proof on right receiver, right barrel, and left breech block.

1915 DWM LP08, sn 7186a, Erfurt style test proof on right receiver, right barrel, and left breech block.
Jan

[Ron Wood]

Good going Mike. This one I can believe. The one on Gunbroker had an Erfurt toggle train, and there is no way that it was a legitimate 1915 Erfurt arty. I agree with Dwight's assessment that the Erfurt proof on the receiver does not represent a problem. It is one of those anomalies that hasn't been recognized before now. It will be interesting to see what Ron's (Mauser 720) serial number turns out to be. If it is around 71xxa, we have a very real possibility that Dwight is correct about the run of Erfurt proofs on DWM artys in this range.

[Mauser720]

Jan, Mike, Ron -

Well, mine is serial number 3586 with an "a" suffix.

Mauser720 - Ron

[Ron Wood]

Well, at least it is in the "a" block. Any chance of a photo of your receiver proofs Ron?

[the gunman]

My 1915 has the Erfurt proof Serial 2527a

[Ron Smith]

This is kind of a stretch, but is it possible that Erfurt was using DWM contract parts to build artilleries in 1915? It doesn't make sense, but could explain the Erfurt proof.

Although there are no Erfurt proofs on the other parts, indicating that Erfurt didn't make them.

Did I just answer my own question? Haven't had my second pot of coffee yet...

Mike,

You make me wish that I hadn't sold my 1915 and 1916. That's an outstanding 1915. Mine wasn't even close to it.

Ron

[Mauser720]

Ron Wood and Mike B -

Okay, here is a picture of the receiver proof per your requests.

Mike the other proofs appear to be exactly the same as those on your example, and in exactly the same locations too. Since 3586a is totally matching, including the magazine I think it is all original. No evidence of tampering or boosting, etc.

I did not realize this was an Erfurt style proof. I learn something every day. Thank you again for educating me and others. This is kind of stange isn't it?

Mauser720 - Ron

[Mike B]

Ron,
It was not Erfurt parts, but an Erfurt inspector that was re-assigned from Erfurt to DWM and used his old stamp. This is just speculation, but it would explain why only "a" block Lugers are involved and for only just a short run. Many thanks for the kind words about the LP08.
Mike

[John Sabato]

A super find Mike... that one is a KEEPER!

[Dwight Gruber]

Jan,

It is good to have confirmed that Erfurt-style power proofw were stamped on DWM receivers during a suffix production, thanks for taking the time to check.

RonS,

Remember, that the Eagle stamp was a power proof, stamped after the gun was completed and had successfully fired two proof rounds. Also, remember that the inspection and proof stamps were issued to individual inspectors assigned from the Spandau arsenal.

As a matter of speculation:

It is likely that more than one stempel was made from each die master;

Proof inspector(s) were assigned to DWM in 1908 (or perhaps 1909, depending on when First Issue production actually started), and had what we recognize as the DWM proof eagle--in heraldry, an eagle, displayed;

Proofing of P08 did not begin at Erfurt until 1911 (the 1910 production guns are an interresting study in themselves...) and might have stempel made from a different die master at a different time.

It seems rational that a proof inspector could have been reassigned from Efrurt to DWM for a short time in 1915, and then returned to Erfurt. This might result in an Erfurt-style eagle stamped on the receiver for a short time.

It is not known exactly what the stamping protocol order of the power proofs actually was. It would not require disassembly to stamp the receiver, but it certainly would to stamp the breechblock. It is apparent that the receiver and breechblock proofs were stamped before bluing, and the barrel proof (and serial number and guage) were stamped after bluing. Since there is more than one variable involved in the stamping/finishing order, it is not possible to say that the stamping was done by a single operator, all at the same monent.

Considering the large number of P08 with Efrurt-style barrel and breechblock proofs, it seems reasonable to conclude that these stamps may have been made by more than one operator, at different times, once the gun had actually undergone proof firing.

We know that the receiver was proof stamped by one or more inspectors in posession of the DWM eagle, displayed stempel through almost all of production. We also know that there was at least one inspector at DWM, for a long period of time, in posession of the eagle with cross and chalice stempel. It is a speculation with equal value to the one above, that the inspector with the Erfurt stamp may have had certification of the receiver proof as one of his tasks for a short time in 1915.

We Luger collectors can be a pretty insular crowd. It would be useful to know from examples on other weapons when the respective proof eagle designs--eagle displayed, eagle/cross&chalice--came into use, and what their use might have been in other small arms manufacturer's plants.

And Mike's gun is really sharp.

--Dwight

[JoeP.08]

Here's a picture of my '15 LP08's proofs, S/N 8994. It appears that there is an Erfurt proof on the barrel.

Joe Pirolo

[Mike B]

Joe,
Many thanks for the input. Two points of discussions. First, is there not a suffix on the underside of the serial number? Second, it appears your Luger is loaded. Hopefully it is an optical illusion, but if not, please be careful.

Mike

[JoeP.08]

Mike:

I store all my collector pistols with snap caps. I use A-Zoom from Brownells. Leo Lavallee got me hooked on that. I liked the way it looked with the "Geladen" indicator showing. Some say it is good for the firing pin but I don't believe it makes a difference releasing the firing pin on an empty chamber or not.

The S/N on my 1915 DWM LP08 is 8994. I posted it a while ago because it is regimental marked to a machinegun company. I posted it with a few more unit marked LP08's if you want to take a look.

Nice looking artey Mike. Never paid attention to the Erfurt proofs. Nice investigative work!

Best regards,

Joe Pirolo

[John Sabato]

Joe,

Let me advise you that repeatedly dry firing a Luger is NOT a recommended practice. As a pre-teen, I once was blessed to keep in my possession a DWM 1918 Luger that belonged to my uncle while his house was being repaired after a fire... I was allowed to keep it in my room and handle it as much as I wanted because my parents knew that I had no access to ammunition which was carefully locked away by my father... I just wasn't allowed to leave my room with it. I spent many many hours disassembling and reassembling that Luger... It wasn't pristine, but it was all matching... imagine my surprise when I disassembled it for the last time before be required to return it to my uncle to find that the very tip of the firing pin was no longer there... It had fatigued and broken off from repeatedly striking the back of the bolt face.

All in all, I probably dry fired that gun a few hundred times over the couple of months that I had it... It took a lot of allowance to replace that firing pin. The fact that it didn't match the serial numbers on the gun didn't matter to my uncle... only that it went boom if he had to use it to protect his family and property...

All that long story just to make the case that dry firing is not a good practice with Lugers... NEITHER is it a good practice with the Winchester Model 94... Don't ask me how I know...