A Learning Experience...

Heinz · 03-01-2003, 10:45 AM

In interesting discussion. Thoughts that come to me are why is this mark hand struck? If it was meant to align two parts during assembly, that is to note the 180 degree opposition to the front sight, why not machine stamp the mark and get it close to perfect. Second, as a former production engineer the concept of removing the barrel to remachine the front sight base seems strange, This machining step could be easily accomplished either before the barrel was mounted or while the barrel was in the reciever. Removing it makes no sense.

Next, the mark serves a purpose to show that the original barrel is in place. The shifting that may appear due to torque and aging, if any, would be unlikely to appear to the naked eye. I have never seen a drift in original muzzle loading barrels of 150 plus years in age even though these are subject to loading torque. Likewise I have never seen crankshaft bolts shift on a small block Chevy when properly nstalled, a high stress high vibration environment.

The witness mark serves to witness that hte barrel has not been disturbed since final assembly. It would be interesting to know if checking this alignment was part of the proofing.

Based on what is known, the misaligned of the witness mark must be considered suspicious. I would ask Tom, how many Lugers with misaligned witness marks have you accepted as "righteous" before?

And, I am very much with Wes in asking if anyone has a documented Luger production flow chart? Also, how are the Weimar and Nazi reworks with known rebarrels witness marked??

just my opnion, if I had any facts I would have used them

Heinz

03-01-2003, 10:45 AM	#17
Heinz User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Greenville SC Posts: 1,004 Thanks: 377 Thanked 411 Times in 180 Posts	In interesting discussion. Thoughts that come to me are why is this mark hand struck? If it was meant to align two parts during assembly, that is to note the 180 degree opposition to the front sight, why not machine stamp the mark and get it close to perfect. Second, as a former production engineer the concept of removing the barrel to remachine the front sight base seems strange, This machining step could be easily accomplished either before the barrel was mounted or while the barrel was in the reciever. Removing it makes no sense. Next, the mark serves a purpose to show that the original barrel is in place. The shifting that may appear due to torque and aging, if any, would be unlikely to appear to the naked eye. I have never seen a drift in original muzzle loading barrels of 150 plus years in age even though these are subject to loading torque. Likewise I have never seen crankshaft bolts shift on a small block Chevy when properly nstalled, a high stress high vibration environment. The witness mark serves to witness that hte barrel has not been disturbed since final assembly. It would be interesting to know if checking this alignment was part of the proofing. Based on what is known, the misaligned of the witness mark must be considered suspicious. I would ask Tom, how many Lugers with misaligned witness marks have you accepted as "righteous" before? And, I am very much with Wes in asking if anyone has a documented Luger production flow chart? Also, how are the Weimar and Nazi reworks with known rebarrels witness marked?? just my opnion, if I had any facts I would have used them Heinz