Data request 1937 and 1938 S/42

bgoat3 · 03-01-2009, 09:00 AM

Mr. Still,

As per my post with pictures on the forum. Any information/enlightenment would be appreciated.

1938 S/42 'parts marking' as pictured in Kenyon's Lugers at Random page 370

Serial # is 9057, O block, which I believe falls outside the 1938 range and into 1939 production.

Receiver and barrel with no serial numbers, but S/42 marked on left of receiver where serial number would normally be. No WAA's or firing proofs on right side of slide, but barrel is stamped E/655...1939 production?, as per Kenyon's photo's, but no index marks on barrel/slide, all toggle parts and internals including firing pin marked 57, as per normal.

The bottom half is all matching, including mag, which is E/63 marked, grips are 6 digits off.

Rare or just unusual? Kinda spooky looking without proofs and serial numbers. I have never encountered one, but remembered seeing the variation pictured.

Would really appreciate any information on this anomaly from the experts.

03-01-2009, 09:00 AM	#11
bgoat3 User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	1938 S/42 out of posted ser. # range S/42 marked receiver with no proofs/ser.#'s Mr. Still, As per my post with pictures on the forum. Any information/enlightenment would be appreciated. 1938 S/42 'parts marking' as pictured in Kenyon's Lugers at Random page 370 Serial # is 9057, O block, which I believe falls outside the 1938 range and into 1939 production. Receiver and barrel with no serial numbers, but S/42 marked on left of receiver where serial number would normally be. No WAA's or firing proofs on right side of slide, but barrel is stamped E/655...1939 production?, as per Kenyon's photo's, but no index marks on barrel/slide, all toggle parts and internals including firing pin marked 57, as per normal. The bottom half is all matching, including mag, which is E/63 marked, grips are 6 digits off. Rare or just unusual? Kinda spooky looking without proofs and serial numbers. I have never encountered one, but remembered seeing the variation pictured. Would really appreciate any information on this anomaly from the experts.