Witness Marks Report--Revised and Expanded

Pete Ebbink · 09-08-2003, 08:09 PM

Hello Jim,

I for one would be disappointed if you chose to leave the Forum, just based on the run of this discussion thread. I have enjoyed your postings and always look forward to see something new that you might have posted. Just because a few members, present and departed, use words like "idoitic" or "foolish" should not distract your participation.

I have learned a great deal about all the theories posted on the subject, some old and some new.

The "theory" I like is that the methodology(ies) changed over time, changed due to staff, changed at various companies making lugers, and changed due to production & war time pressures. As Ron Wood concluded, we might just never know for sure...maybe there are many "right" answers depending on the time period, the company, and any contract pressures present when the order was filled.

At the Reno gun show last year, a LF member brought a Masuer luger for some of us to see. One thing we noticed was the lack of alignment of the barrel/receiver marks. As Dwight pointed out, this alone may not be the go-no-go indication that this gun was "messed with". But other attributes of this pistol such as an ill-fitting extractor and one that was not numbered, and the prevalence of cold-bluing; lead the owner to conclude he did not receive the advertised "all original" luger he thought he had purchased and was able to negotiate a return (or refund) from the selling dealer.

PLEASE HANG IN THERE. JIM !!!

Hello Dwight,

This is an outstanding piece of research you have done!!!

One comment I have regarding your opening posting :

In your option # 3 of "no witness mark of barrel or receiver; produced that way"...might such lack of both marks also indicate that, possibly, both barrel and receiver were replaced at some time ?

Regards,

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

09-08-2003, 08:09 PM	#25
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts	Hello Jim, I for one would be disappointed if you chose to leave the Forum, just based on the run of this discussion thread. I have enjoyed your postings and always look forward to see something new that you might have posted. Just because a few members, present and departed, use words like "idoitic" or "foolish" should not distract your participation. I have learned a great deal about all the theories posted on the subject, some old and some new. The "theory" I like is that the methodology(ies) changed over time, changed due to staff, changed at various companies making lugers, and changed due to production & war time pressures. As Ron Wood concluded, we might just never know for sure...maybe there are many "right" answers depending on the time period, the company, and any contract pressures present when the order was filled. At the Reno gun show last year, a LF member brought a Masuer luger for some of us to see. One thing we noticed was the lack of alignment of the barrel/receiver marks. As Dwight pointed out, this alone may not be the go-no-go indication that this gun was "messed with". But other attributes of this pistol such as an ill-fitting extractor and one that was not numbered, and the prevalence of cold-bluing; lead the owner to conclude he did not receive the advertised "all original" luger he thought he had purchased and was able to negotiate a return (or refund) from the selling dealer. PLEASE HANG IN THERE. JIM !!! Hello Dwight, This is an outstanding piece of research you have done!!! One comment I have regarding your opening posting : In your option # 3 of "no witness mark of barrel or receiver; produced that way"...might such lack of both marks also indicate that, possibly, both barrel and receiver were replaced at some time ? Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />