1937 Mauser

guns3545 · 01-20-2016, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

John,
thanks for the detailed answer.
Not meant as criticism, but a desire to learn and document.

Am I to conclude from the above that no finished 129mm DWM/BKIW frames were completed by Mauser? Or that none were sold to the military due to the orders quoted? I suppose this is a way of asking what happened to or how were the finished frames used by Mauser(if at all)?

I'm asking as it could be a way to know the mfg. date of the Alphabet commercial pistols, or am I
reaching?

Don,

Did some digging trying to identify Mauser uses of the 129 mm frame.

Here are some data points which you can follow:

1. The only two transferable contracts to Mauser at the date of the turnover were the Dutch Navy and the A. F. Stoeger contracts.

2. From 1930 to 1934, Mauser delivered commercial contracts with the DWM logo on the center toggle and the F-1, 129 mm frame,delivered at the time of turnover. From 1934 onward, commercial contracts used the Mauser Banner. The early Banner-8 logo guns also had the 129 mm frame, including the Portuguese contract.

3. Between SN 3601v and 9750v, all Mauser frames F-3, i.e. 130mm. Exceptions were the artilleries produced in that SN range which used the 129 mm frame as did the Dutch Navy guns delivered in 1936.

4. There is evidence to suggest the DWM 129 mm frames were used into 1937 for foreign and commercial contracts.

5. And to my surprise, in violation of the 1930 directive, some early K-dates, maybe 180 total had the 129mm frame. Accident?? Intentional?? But the remainder of the K-dates either used the 130mm humped or so called reinforced frame.

So, focus on the v-block guns for the most likely use of the DWM finished 129 mm frames.

BTW, an easy way to tell the difference between the DWM 129 mm frame and the Mauser made 130 mm variations is that the DWM frames do not have the distinctive dimple at the top of the stock lug rail. This is a unique characteristic of the Mauser 130mm frame.

Hope this helps.

BUT... I really think this needs to be in a separate thread.

John