My first Luger!!

[Edward Tinker]

Howard interesting thought... hmmmm, I have no idea, but it might make more sense that guns were simply sent to Mauser / DWM for refurbishment, and they were simply reinspected at the police armorery?

Ed

[Dwight Gruber]

Don,

OK, you can do -all- my photomicrographty for me!!

It looks like the second strike has obliterated the right edge of the first strike--strikes--as well as the strike bottom, thus eliminating the possibility of determining the original strike axis. If you put a straightedge on the left edge of the original strike you will see that the barrel edge and receiver edge do not share the same angle.

Now, having gone through this exercise, it is worth remembering that it is very easy to over-analyse witness marks, as we have just done. A perfect witness mark--single strike, single-instrument, undisturbed, as I keep saying no doubt to everyone's continued ennui--may be primary evidence that a barrel is original to the Luger.

No other configuration or description of witness mark tells us anything whatever. No conclusion can be drawn from a witness mark which isn't perfect, not even the possibility of a gun's rebarrel.

The exercise is fun but ultimately fruitless, something which I must remind myself every so often as I focus closer and closer on any given mark.

--Dwight

[Dwight Gruber]

Howard,

Remember that these "Police" departments were actually paramilitary organizations, with full complement of military rifles, pistols, daggers, bayonets, and other accoutrements to maintain. This would have required an armory sufficient to deal with them, at an unknown level of proficiency.

Documentary evidence is not at hand to describe the capabilities of Police armories. This would be a fruitful subject for research.

--Dwight

[Don M]

Dwight,
Thanks very much for the reality check. I was about to launch into a discourse on my further observations of the minutia of this witness mark. I think I'll save us all some time and accept your conclusion that there is no conclusion.

What do you think about my speculation that the Muenster Police School was created sometime between the issue of the 1922 and 1932 regulations and that it's unit mark prior to 1932 logically would have been governed by the format specified in the 1922 regulations, i.e., "P.M."?

Don

[policeluger]

Dwight
Granted there can be wide differences between todays PD's and post 1945 Germany...but still we have no solid proof that this level of maintance was done at any local PD level, we have no proof that they had the capabilitys, tooling or experance. To say that they "may indeed have had the capabilities" is based on what ? I feel that far to many collectors are will to accept that anything other then factory correct/pure..was done at a local level, yet fail to support that with fact...we know that DWM/Simson/BKIW were capable, but at lower levels of repair/maintance what exist to support this...good hunting !

[Dwight Gruber]

Howard,

Although I think that logic based on knowledge of the social circumstances of postwar Germany and the civilian effects which inevitably result from the release of large numbers of unemployed soldiers into the population can provide insight into how Weimar Police armories might have functioned, you are of course correct that my response was speculative well beyond the known facts and not identified as such.

I have altered my previous comments accordingly.

I also agree with your assessment that many enthusiasts are far too quick to accept unverified theories of local or "armory" work to explain characteristics of their Lugers.

Don,

Policeluger has provided a salutary reminder concerning the value--and danger--of uneducated speculation applied to factual aspects of Luger collecting. It would be an unwarrentable liberty for me to comment on your question.

However, this is a question which should yield to research, and we would all benefit from knowing the results.

--Dwight

[Don M]

This thread seems to have just about run its course. I want to thank all of you who have contributed immensely to my education and to my interest in this subject. Unfortunately, I don't think my wife is as appreciative!

I do think I will try to pursue the "P.M." vs "PM." topic separately so we'll probably be conversing again.

Hasta la vista!

Don

[Don M]

At the risk of stetching this thread to the breaking point, I'd like to toss out one more puzzle about this gun.

When I field-sripped the gun to clean it, I discovered that the firing pin was stamped with the matching 4-digit S/N and had three longitudinal grooves.
[IMG]3299q_firing_pin_copy1.jpg [/IMG]

I think I have read somewhere that Mauser began putting serial numbers on firing pins in 1930. Also, Henrotin, in his ebook on Luger Mechanical Features, says that Mauser added longitudinal grooves to firing pins in the 1930s.

The consensus of the discussion in the above thread is that this gun was manufactured by DWM (BKIW?) about 1927 as a commercial model, barreled (or maybe rebarreled) as 9 mm and issued to the Police School in Muenster (probably).

My question is how did a 1930s Mauser firing pin end up in a DWM pistol manufactured in 1927 with the proper S/N?

Don

[John D.]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Don M:
<strong>
[IMG]3299q_firing_pin_copy1.jpg [/IMG].....</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Here you go - this goes with Don's post above:

[Jesse]

Very nice start! my 1st Luger was a VERY mixed up Vopo 1921 DWM with about 26 Different proofs! talk about some hisory...