Numbers under sight of DWMs

dmdave · 03-11-2010, 05:53 PM

Now you have my curiosity going. I just purchased my first Luger, which I assumed was not completely matching due to the rear sight numbers. I have a 1917 DWM sn 5993, with #4193 stamped on top of the barrel (I originally thought the numbers were stamped on the bottom of the rear sight, before I read this post and realized the sight base was open to the barrel below). The gun currently has a sight mounted on it with no markings, and the v-groove is machined as an integral part of the top leaf. However, another top portion of a rear sight was included with the pistol. It is stamped #41 on the underside of the leaf, as well as #93 on the top side of the leaf, #93 on the side of the sliding bar, and #93 on the back of the adjustable v-groove plate.
My guess would be the original sight base was damaged, and the whole rear sight was replaced with something not quite correct for this pistol, while retaining the original top portion out of good sense. Any thoughts or info on this would be appreciated. Thanks.
Dave.

03-11-2010, 05:53 PM	#1
dmdave New User Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 2 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Now you have my curiosity going. I just purchased my first Luger, which I assumed was not completely matching due to the rear sight numbers. I have a 1917 DWM sn 5993, with #4193 stamped on top of the barrel (I originally thought the numbers were stamped on the bottom of the rear sight, before I read this post and realized the sight base was open to the barrel below). The gun currently has a sight mounted on it with no markings, and the v-groove is machined as an integral part of the top leaf. However, another top portion of a rear sight was included with the pistol. It is stamped #41 on the underside of the leaf, as well as #93 on the top side of the leaf, #93 on the side of the sliding bar, and #93 on the back of the adjustable v-groove plate. My guess would be the original sight base was damaged, and the whole rear sight was replaced with something not quite correct for this pistol, while retaining the original top portion out of good sense. Any thoughts or info on this would be appreciated. Thanks. Dave.