Witness Marks Report--Revised and Expanded

Jim Keenan · 09-05-2003, 03:09 PM

I'll try to handle most of those.

Ed, the stuff I have seen describes the lines on each part; it shows the markings aligned (barrel-receiver and sight blade/base) but does NOT say they were to be put on at the same time by the same tool. That is an assumption made by either the person interpreting the stuff or the reader. I think I have shown that there is another possible interpretation.

Wes, on the M1903, the keyway cut is equivalent to the Luger sight base because it must be up when the barrel is installed. The way to ensure that is as I noted, to use the draw line when making the cut and installing the rear and front sight bases, both of which were installed on the barrels before they were installed on the receiver. Spare barrels have both in place. That is not my theory, that is what they did. The source is United States Rifles and Machineguns, which is now available in a photocopy format. It is a fascinating book.

Dwight, how could the front sight base be "created first"? How would the maker ensure that the barrel would line up when installed without a lot of filing and fitting and a difference of maybe as much as one thread between one barrel and another? I know of no evidence of such extensive shoulder filing on the Luger, or of the different barrel lengths that would result. Such things can be done by gunsmiths when installing sporter barrels or "setting back" a barrel to correct headspace; it would be intolerable in a production environment.

I can assure you that the draw line was far from "arbitrary". The gauge that made it was carefully calculated to allow for the precise amount of crush fit necessary for barrel installation. The latter fit is crucial in any firearm and one reason I cannot accept the idea that barrels were fully installed and then removed.

Luke, I don't know if Luger manufacturing might have changed or not over the years, but I have seen no evidence of it. The Germans were (and are) great believers in tradition so I think any change would be slow unless dictated from the top. Mauser rifle manufacture changed a lot toward the end of the war with shortcuts like dropping parts inspection markings and just spot checking (as the US did throughout), but Luger production ceased before the "crunch" came in German weapons manufacture.

Some additional notes. I did not mention the grip frame because it was not directly involved in the draw line question. I believe that the grip frame was serial numbered first, possibly as the last step in manufacture, and then the bench assembler numbered the receiver and other parts to match.

I also stated that the barrel was installed by the assembler; that was probably true in one sense, but I think it more likely that barrel installation was done by one or more skilled workers who did only that job. The tools required would be too bulky and costly to have a set at every bench assembler's position.

Jim

09-05-2003, 03:09 PM	#11
Jim Keenan User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 184 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	I'll try to handle most of those. Ed, the stuff I have seen describes the lines on each part; it shows the markings aligned (barrel-receiver and sight blade/base) but does NOT say they were to be put on at the same time by the same tool. That is an assumption made by either the person interpreting the stuff or the reader. I think I have shown that there is another possible interpretation. Wes, on the M1903, the keyway cut is equivalent to the Luger sight base because it must be up when the barrel is installed. The way to ensure that is as I noted, to use the draw line when making the cut and installing the rear and front sight bases, both of which were installed on the barrels before they were installed on the receiver. Spare barrels have both in place. That is not my theory, that is what they did. The source is United States Rifles and Machineguns, which is now available in a photocopy format. It is a fascinating book. Dwight, how could the front sight base be "created first"? How would the maker ensure that the barrel would line up when installed without a lot of filing and fitting and a difference of maybe as much as one thread between one barrel and another? I know of no evidence of such extensive shoulder filing on the Luger, or of the different barrel lengths that would result. Such things can be done by gunsmiths when installing sporter barrels or "setting back" a barrel to correct headspace; it would be intolerable in a production environment. I can assure you that the draw line was far from "arbitrary". The gauge that made it was carefully calculated to allow for the precise amount of crush fit necessary for barrel installation. The latter fit is crucial in any firearm and one reason I cannot accept the idea that barrels were fully installed and then removed. Luke, I don't know if Luger manufacturing might have changed or not over the years, but I have seen no evidence of it. The Germans were (and are) great believers in tradition so I think any change would be slow unless dictated from the top. Mauser rifle manufacture changed a lot toward the end of the war with shortcuts like dropping parts inspection markings and just spot checking (as the US did throughout), but Luger production ceased before the "crunch" came in German weapons manufacture. Some additional notes. I did not mention the grip frame because it was not directly involved in the draw line question. I believe that the grip frame was serial numbered first, possibly as the last step in manufacture, and then the bench assembler numbered the receiver and other parts to match. I also stated that the barrel was installed by the assembler; that was probably true in one sense, but I think it more likely that barrel installation was done by one or more skilled workers who did only that job. The tools required would be too bulky and costly to have a set at every bench assembler's position. Jim