1937 Mismatch...

kidvett · 01-04-2003, 12:11 AM

A recent acquisition of what I believe to be a Krieghoff 1937 dated receiver...reblued...Wish I had the complete matching pistol [img]frown.gif[/img]

kidvett [img]cool.gif[/img]

lugerholsterrepair · 01-04-2003, 12:21 PM

Kidvett, Very interesting photo's. I have an S code Krieghoff that has no witness mark. It is just like yours. I could not make out a witness mark on your frame and barrel.I don't know if that is what it is called, The alignment mark to fit the barrel to the frame. Is it actually not there? Let me know if you get the time, Jerry Burney

Pete Ebbink · 01-04-2003, 01:04 PM

Jerry,

My S-code HK (serial # 2122) also does not have either half of a barrer/receiver witness mark...

John D.,...do any of your HK's have witness marks missing ? Mr. Randal Gibson seems to be "silent" on this matter in his book...

I would be worried if the barrel was missing it alone, but could not explain both halves of the marks missing or never being struck...on my pistol.

Regards,

Pete... <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

kidvett · 01-04-2003, 03:52 PM

Jerry,

Upon verification there is no witness mark on both the barrel & receiver on this 1937 dated KRIEGHOFF...

Now with yours & Pete's HK it makes 3 KRIEGHOFF pistols WITHOUT the witness mark. This combined with Mr. Gibson's silence on the matter could make me believe that KRIEGHOFF's were assembled without the witness mark [img]confused.gif[/img]

Any comments on this opinion [img]confused.gif[/img]

kidvett [img]cool.gif[/img]

John D. · 01-04-2003, 06:13 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Wm. Pete Ebbink:
<strong>John D.,...do any of your HK's have witness marks missing ? Mr. Randal Gibson seems to be "silent" on this matter in his book...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hi Pete,

The reason Gibson was silent on that, is that there was no sample large enough for him to take, I believe. When he wrote his book, he had only a few samples of each to inspect.

Most Kriegs do not have that mark, until the 1944 production (both variations), the 1945 and the Post War. Therefore - a witness mark is more uncommon in the military G, S, 36, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 Series - and in the 1939 production (commercial). Also - it doesn't appear to follow a Serialized trend - just that in 1944 it became more prevalant.

So - kidvett's 1937 top end is correct as it stands (BTW - my 1937 does NOT have a witness mark either).

Best Always,

John D.

John D. · 01-07-2003, 08:53 AM

Test Post

John Sabato · 01-07-2003, 12:08 PM

test reply

to the test post.

Edward Tinker · 01-07-2003, 12:48 PM

test reply to the test reply test post

01-04-2003, 12:11 AM	#1
kidvett User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 584 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	1937 Mismatch... A recent acquisition of what I believe to be a Krieghoff 1937 dated receiver...reblued...Wish I had the complete matching pistol [img]frown.gif[/img] kidvett [img]cool.gif[/img]

01-04-2003, 12:21 PM	#2
lugerholsterrepair Moderator Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Arizona/Colorado Posts: 7,775 Thanks: 4,995 Thanked 3,133 Times in 1,439 Posts	Kidvett, Very interesting photo's. I have an S code Krieghoff that has no witness mark. It is just like yours. I could not make out a witness mark on your frame and barrel.I don't know if that is what it is called, The alignment mark to fit the barrel to the frame. Is it actually not there? Let me know if you get the time, Jerry Burney __________________ Jerry Burney 11491 S. Guadalupe Drive Yuma AZ 85367-6182 lugerholsterrepair@earthlink.net 928 342-7583 (CO & AZ) Year Round 719 207-3331 (cell) "For those who Fight For It, Life has a flavor the protected will never know."

01-07-2003, 12:08 PM	#7
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,156 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,308 Times in 1,098 Posts	test reply to the test post. __________________ regards, -John S "...We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created EQUAL *and are endowed by their Creator* with certain UNALIENABLE* rights, and among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness..."*

01-07-2003, 12:48 PM	#8
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,966 Thanks: 2,066 Thanked 4,595 Times in 2,116 Posts	test reply to the test reply test post __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV

01-04-2003, 01:04 PM	#3
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Jerry, My S-code HK (serial # 2122) also does not have either half of a barrer/receiver witness mark... John D.,...do any of your HK's have witness marks missing ? Mr. Randal Gibson seems to be "silent" on this matter in his book... I would be worried if the barrel was missing it alone, but could not explain both halves of the marks missing or never being struck...on my pistol. Regards, Pete... <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

01-04-2003, 03:52 PM	#4
kidvett User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 584 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Jerry, Upon verification there is no witness mark on both the barrel & receiver on this 1937 dated KRIEGHOFF... Now with yours & Pete's HK it makes 3 KRIEGHOFF pistols WITHOUT the witness mark. This combined with Mr. Gibson's silence on the matter could make me believe that KRIEGHOFF's were assembled without the witness mark [img]confused.gif[/img] Any comments on this opinion [img]confused.gif[/img] kidvett [img]cool.gif[/img]

01-04-2003, 06:13 PM	#5
John D. Administrator & Site Owner LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Little NE of Somewhere... Posts: 2,651 Thanks: 477 Thanked 515 Times in 128 Posts	[quote]Originally posted by Wm. Pete Ebbink: <strong>John D.,...do any of your HK's have witness marks missing ? Mr. Randal Gibson seems to be "silent" on this matter in his book...</strong><hr></blockquote> Hi Pete, The reason Gibson was silent on that, is that there was no sample large enough for him to take, I believe. When he wrote his book, he had only a few samples of each to inspect. Most Kriegs do not have that mark, until the 1944 production (both variations), the 1945 and the Post War. Therefore - a witness mark is more uncommon in the military G, S, 36, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 Series - and in the 1939 production (commercial). Also - it doesn't appear to follow a Serialized trend - just that in 1944 it became more prevalant. So - kidvett's 1937 top end is correct as it stands (BTW - my 1937 does NOT have a witness mark either). Best Always, John D.

01-07-2003, 08:53 AM	#6
John D. Administrator & Site Owner LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Little NE of Somewhere... Posts: 2,651 Thanks: 477 Thanked 515 Times in 128 Posts	Test Post