Another Circle S, the mystery is safe, more questions!

[DonVoigt]

A friend of mine bought this circle S 1915/ 1920 property marked DWM some time back. Since he won't sell it to me, I "borrowed" it to
take some pictures and start this thread.

In Police Lugers, the authors state that circle S pistols seen are not re-worked; well this one is clearly re-worked. Of course it could have been re-worked After it was stamped with the circle S.

Here is what I see after a couple days looking!

Easy part, the magazine is a matching Haenel Schmeisser chrome with aluminum bottom, no proofs on the body or the base.

Grips have been changed, but the originals had no markings.

Had a sear safety, now removed; never had a magazine safety.

Receiver right side has Imperial proofs, left of breech block has a faint Aya4 proof.

Toggle train is a replacement, breech block, extractor, and striker
are #54, mid toggle link has all 4 digits, 6492 across over old number which was mostly scrubbed, rear of toggle is scrubbed with #92 applied.

Barrel no proof I can see, blue over 6492 h on bottom over 8,82.
Left side of chamber has 6492, with the circle S partially stamped over the 6.

Frame is 6492 stamped deeply over previous number which I believe is 8571 , the d suffix is present and easily seen. Side plate is original #71 over stamped with 6492, and is cut out for the sear safety. Safety lever, safety bar are # 71. Safety bar is cut back, and has an Erfurt inspection remaining, removed area then stamped with #71.

Trigger is Erfurt#64, and take down bolt is #20, i.e. not matching to anything else on the pistol.

Rear of receiver was scrubbed, and new # 1572. applied.

These circle S pistols remain a mystery to me, though I would like an example for my collection of police lugers.

Perhaps the details of this example will stimulate more discussion.

Ideas, comments, corrections, and additions welcome.

Now , lots of pictures!

[DonVoigt]

Another picture with magazine base.

[Dwight Gruber]

Don,

As we noted in "Police Lugers", c-S does not designate a re-work, demonstrated by the existence of completely unmodified pistols so marked. This is to supersede the "conventional wisdom" concerning this marking.

Police pistols are rife with repairs and re-buildings on their own account, and this is c-S marked Luger is a very interesting example.

And, thank you very much for being a purchaser and reader.

--Dwight

[DonVoigt]

Dwight,
thanks for the comments and for the book. The Police Luger book is really one of my favorites,
since I favor the Weimar police Lugers, yours and Don M's HWIS are my go to books.

I got the circle S is not a rework marking from the book and various threads.

This pistol is clearly "re-worked", my question was - Is the rework from before or after it was stamped with the circle S?

I also read that most of the circle S pistols have Not been reworked, so was wondering if this one, like so many Weimar police lugers, is an "anomaly"?

Or are there many other examples of re-worked pistols with the circle S?

[Sergio Natali]

Originally Posted by Dwight Gruber

Don,

As we noted in "Police Lugers", c-S does not designate a re-work, demonstrated by the existence of completely unmodified pistols so marked. This is to supersede the "conventional wisdom" concerning this marking.

Police pistols are rife with repairs and re-buildings on their own account, and this is c-S marked Luger is a very interesting example.

And, thank you very much for being a purchaser and reader.

--Dwight

It's quite intriguing, I've seen Lugers bearing that c-S mark but never really understood ist meaning.


Sergio

[Don M]

I continue to think that the fact that all of the observed P08s with property markings of the Schupo of Mannheim (Ma.xxx.) have circled-S stamps suggests that this represents some sort of depot or cache of weapons that the Mannheim Schupo and others obtained weapons from. The Mannheim Schupo may have used this source exclusively while other clients did not. I have no other evidence on which to base this, however.

[Dwight Gruber]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

Dwight,
thanks for the comments and for the book. The Police Luger book is really one of my favorites,
since I favor the Weimar police Lugers, yours and Don M's HWIS are my go to books.

I got the circle S is not a rework marking from the book and various threads.

This pistol is clearly "re-worked", my question was - Is the rework from before or after it was stamped with the circle S?

I also read that most of the circle S pistols have Not been reworked, so was wondering if this one, like so many Weimar police lugers, is an "anomaly"?

Or are there many other examples of re-worked pistols with the circle S?

Don,

My observations suggest that un-modified c-S marked pistols are the anomaly. Individual pistols require close examination to determine when modifications took place. The c-S mark was in use for less than four years, so there was lots of time after that for use repair.

There are details which help establish the date range for the modification of your friend's pistol.

The frame and upper of this pistol were not originally mated. This is obvious from the overstamped frame serial number and the different serial number suffixes.

The center toggle numbers appear identical to the number set used for the frame serial number overstamp. It would be interesting to know what other numbers might be hidden in the toggle train.

The back-frame unit number dates from before the 1922 Prussian unit marking instruction. Aside from the sear safety (1933) there are no Weimar-era police-associated modifications or markings.

The receiver has the 1920 property mark.

The circle-S overstamps the first digit of the receiver serial number.

Unfortunately, the c-S mark can be dated no closer than 1918-1921. Considering that the 1921 limit is from dated examples, the mark's close connection with pre-1922 unit marking extends the possibility of that range by a year. The collected characteristics of this pistol, as assembled, fall within that range.

So, I am afraid that it is not possible to answer your specific before/after question.

--Dwight

[sgm11z]

I would also like to thank Dwight and everyone else who provided input to the questions. I suspect that the pistol is the classic enigma wrapped within a riddle. Don kindly put up the pictures for me and his strong desire to solve puzzling questions comes through.
David

[DonVoigt]

David,
glad to see you finally made it to this board!

It's bad when your P 08 gets here first!

[Dwight Gruber]

I like these puzzle guns. They make me think.

--Dwight

[Dwight Gruber]

David,

I am still curious about any numbers hidden on the toggle train. Also, what proof mark might be stamped on the breechblock?

--Dwight

[DonVoigt]

Dwight,
In addition to the numbers and marks mentioned above:
"Receiver right side has Imperial proofs, left of breech block has a faint Aya4 proof.
Toggle train is a replacement, breech block, extractor, and striker
are #54, mid toggle link has all 4 digits, 6492 across over old number which was mostly scrubbed, rear of toggle is scrubbed with #92 applied."

Today,
I have it apart and in hand, there are no numbers on the bottom of the middle or rear toggle links. The center link was well scrubbed on the top of the mid link, so was the rear of the rear toggle. If I look really hard I can convince myself that there is a "54" under the 92 stamped on the rear toggle.
The "5" is certain, the "4" very faint.

[DonVoigt]

To add to the circle S discussion, I noticed the luger in the pictures in an auction.
Pictures are limited, but show:
Scrubbed chamber,
1921 property number applied to scrubbed chamber top,
right chamber proofs scrubbed,
Eagle 6 (inspector for Simson) applied

The description:
"Fixed sights, with "1921" on top of the chamber and the Erfurt "Crown" logo on the toggle link. An "eagle/6" proof and a circled "S" are present on the extension, with "25" on the barrel, Imperial "Eagle" on the breechblock and WWI-style proofs on the toggle links. A sear safety is installed, and a magazine well safety has been installed and removed. Straw finished small parts, checkered grips and a nickel finished magazine with an alloy base."

Is this one more "nail" in establishing a connection between the Circle S and Simson re-work? I hope to be able to bring this one home and have a better look, and an example of a "circle S".

Comments and observations, please.

[Dwight Gruber]

Don,

I suggest you be very careful regarding this gun.

This pistol started out either as a DWM LP08 or an Erfurt after 1916. The toggle train appears to be Erfurt, but the rest of the pistol lacks Erfurt inspection marks.

There is no “1921 property mark”.

The sear safety rivet has been blued, along with the scrubbed chamber date. As the sear safety was not instituted until 1933, this poses a serious anachronism for the receiver and extension work, and the chamber numbers.

It might be illuminating to see a diagnostic-quality closeup of the e/6 receiver mark. It is true that the e/6 WaffenAmt inspector worked at Simson. However, there are three problems with its presence here:

1. The WaffenAmt did not work at Simson until their army contract began in 1925.

2. The WaffenAmt inspectors at Simson only concerned themselves with newly-manufactured parts.

3. The e/6 stamp on this gun is in the location reserved for receiver inspection and final (army) acceptance. There are no other marks on the pistol to support this usage.

I’m afraid that the “nail” is more likely to be in the coffin of originality of this pistol. There exist c-S pistols which have been “boosted” to enhance their value by the addition of Simson-like characteristics in order to take advantage of the conventional wisdom of the Simson connection (there used to be a particularly egregious example on the PIA website, I don’t know if it is still there).

I suspect that this is another example of the practice. Since the item is out of the Ralph Shattuck “collection”, I would be doubly wary.

--Dwight

[Norme]

Hi Dwight, I have no opinion one way or the other about the subject pistol, but I would like to correct one point. There is a legitimate 1921 property mark, it is very rare, and in my opinion was likely applied in error by an armorer shortly after Jan 1st 1921. The example shown below is on a P08 Navy (4" barrel), one of a rare 150 gun contract made in 1913/14. There is no reason to believe that the 1921 was applied by some booster as it certainly does not add to the gun's value.
Best regards, Norm

[DonVoigt]

Thanks Dwight and Norm.

I was already suspicious because of the origin, that is why I posed the question in stead of saying,
"it is".

I will bid a "shooter" price and see what happens, can't get hurt too bad if it is all there!

Anyone?
An "aside" question, I understand Simson was producing/repairing rifles before the '20s, how were they marked?
( I know less than nothing about WWI rifles).

[Dwight Gruber]

Norme,

I respectfully, and strenuously, disagree about the "1921 property mark." The recognized 1920 property mark is an officially pronounced artifact from a specific time and for specific circumstance. I am aware of the occasional 1921 mis-application. The error of their presence in no way legitimizes the concept of a "1921 property marking", and describing them in any way other than an anomaly serves only to confuse the topic's history, a fact which RIA is attempting to take advantage of here.

I will go so far as to opine that the pistol which Don has presented has in fact been boosted by the addition of a fantasy 1921 chamber mark and its attendant "explanation", with the intent of increasing its value.

--Dwight

[Edward Tinker]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

...
An "aside" question, I understand Simson was producing/repairing rifles before the '20s, how were they marked?
( I know less than nothing about WWI rifles).

I know a guy who raised a lot of heck about me not knowing rifles, my reply was that I couldn't afford both. I keep my eyes open for WW1 Simson and post war - not very common, but I freely admit I don't notice them like a Luger...

So, I have learned a bit since then but not enough -

- You see the Triangle large S before the 20's and I am trying to learn about this marking (I have seen it on commercial items and the 25 acp)
- you see the eagle 6 AFTER they received the contracts IMO
- I have a 1925 rifle receiver that has eagle 6

WW1 rifles were marked with crowns, not eagles

so repairs marks I am inclined to think eagle 6 as new parts, rather than repaired parts

[DonVoigt]

Thanks Ed,
Your and Dwight's comments make sense,
and raise good issues.

Still the pistol is interesting- I do wish there were a picture of the "25" marking mentioned on the barrel. There must be more "evidence" writ on that piece than seen in the pictures or mentioned in the description.

Originally Posted by Edward Tinker

I know a guy who raised a lot of heck about me not knowing rifles, my reply was that I couldn't afford both. I keep my eyes open for WW1 Simson and post war - not very common, but I freely admit I don't notice them like a Luger...

So, I have learned a bit since then but not enough -

- You see the Triangle large S before the 20's and I am trying to learn about this marking (I have seen it on commercial items and the 25 acp)
- you see the eagle 6 AFTER they received the contracts IMO
- I have a 1925 rifle receiver that has eagle 6

WW1 rifles were marked with crowns, not eagles

so repairs marks I am inclined to think eagle 6 as new parts, rather than repaired parts

[Dwight Gruber]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

...I do wish there were a picture of the "25" marking mentioned on the barrel...

Don,

Simply click the "Ask a question about this lot" link and ask for a picture. They are very good about this, it may take a week or more to get the response.

I'm curious about this mark, too.

--Dwight