HK 1936 On Auction...

[John D.]

Hi Folks....

OK - seems like Pete is the only one to take up the challenge - and what a terrific job..!! Pete - if you will e-mail me your address - I'll fire off that commercial mag to you.....

First things first. This seller is *excellent* - and a terrificly honest individual. Based on several conversations, this piece is indeed what I suspected - a post-war HK. These are very diffent then "parts guns" - and actually, are a very collectible HK variation to some of us.

Now - Pete, even though you missed the big question of "what would you ask the seller to do?" The answer is really simple - remove the right grip and look for any stamps. The seller was more then the accomodating - and yes, there is a "7" stamped there. So - what does "7" mean?

Gibson touches on it - but my theory is that, based on the post-wars I have in my collection and those I have authenticated - a frame marked "7" was further into the assembly stage then a "star" rejected frame. On this piece - I do believe that the cannon, reciever and frame were assembled at the time of the major 1936 production, but was "set aside" to either be re-worked or turned into a commercial with a "Star or a" stamp. After the factory was "liberated", this piece was most likelyassembled by the few HK employees that were permitted to finish HK Lugers. Following, I also have several post-war production HKs of this same variation in my collection - 3 of the 4 have the same "7".

As well - I'll be writing a report for the current seller with quite a bit of detail, but in brief - here are some summary observations:

- The trigger does NOT match the outline of the trigger guard. The shoe is correct, however. HK had very good fitting matches on the guard to the trigger top 1/3. My guess is, on a post-war HK such as this, the trigger is stamped to match the frame. I believe that this is the case on this HK;

- The extractor is ill-fitted - correct for an HK postwar, as being assembled from the factory parts which included HK, Simson, DWM, Erfurt, etc.

- The rear toggle appears to be DWM â?? not HK â?? BUT â?? it should have a LWaA2 proof on the underside if taken in at the HK factory and assembled later with the remaining links. This one does, and again is â??correctâ?� for a post war;

Now for the â??obvious stuffâ?�.

- Look at the trigger bar. Closely. It is â??strawedâ?�. As well, the take down is, indeed Simson, not HK. Both are correct for a post war.

- The takedown â??shouldâ?� have the last 2 digets of the frame serial number stamped inside on the relieved portion â?? and this one does as well;

- The sideplate is absolutely correct for a post war. Again â?? the outside should be stamped with the last 2 digets, as this is, the inside can be stamped with any number. This follows suit to post-war HK. The trigger lever mounted in the sideplate can also be â??proofedâ?� or not proofed, but this one is â??proofedâ?� correctly;

- The barrel. You focused on the â??1â?�. Thatâ??s not really where I wanted your attention I wanted you to focus on the â??8â?� and the â??8â?�. Iâ??m looking for the â?? , â??, but it may not have been â??struckâ?� on the dies. Oh â?? and the LWAa2 proof is correct â?? both in placement and era die;

- The grips are correct for a post war â?? but are out of era for an issued HK. They are excellent examples of the fine checkered RITZMANN grips. However, there should be a â??scratched starâ?� on one of the grip panels designating that the grips are fitted to a â??7â?� or â??Starâ?� frame. After speaking with the seller, this is the case on this firearm â?? which would make them correct;

- Frame polish on the rails. If this was fitted as a production HK, the frame/cannon rails should be â??polishedâ?�. When contacting the seller, one should also ask if this is the case. On this example, the answer is no â?? they are not polished â?? as is correct on a post-war HK.

Ummmm - I could go on - but you get the idea. As well - the seller is a terrific person - and I envy the next owner of this piece.

Anyway - great job, Pete!!! No - it's not a PX or G.I "parts gun" - but rather a post war HK production, which is somewhat a rarer variation which should NOT include a "P" prefix and is very different then a PX HK or a GI "parts gun".