New FAQ - Update suggestions and Corrections Thread

[Zorba]

Originally Posted by mrerick

See page 25 of the current FAQ... Marc

Darnit, and I looked TWICE!!

Glad it wasn't a snake!

[mrerick]

Originally Posted by sheepherder

Another rarely asked question...What does the mysterious and often-misunderstood '1921' chamber date signify???

We cover the "1920" Reichswehr property stamp on page 33 of the FAQ. IIRC, 1921 actually is a date. Is there more to this to add?

Thanks, Marc

[Edward Tinker]

Originally Posted by sheepherder

Another rarely asked question...What does the mysterious and often-misunderstood '1921' chamber date signify???

its a date - no other trick to it

1920 can be a date or more commonly a Reichswehr property stamp

a 1921 and one 1922 I saw and owned for a short time (should have kept that) is an actual date...

[kurusu]

Originally Posted by sheepherder

I own a 1917...and I've seen pics of a 1918...Was/is there a 1919??? How about a 1922??? Just how high do the dates go???

Hey! Another FAQ question!!!

In a P.08? 42.

And there was no 1919.

[Edward Tinker]

Originally Posted by kurusu

In a P.08? 42.

And there was no 1919.

Krieghoffs, dated 41, 42, 43, 44 and some people say 1945

[kurusu]

Originally Posted by Edward Tinker

Krieghoffs, dated 41, 42, 43, 44 and some people say 1945

Keep forgetting about the Krieghoffs.

[mrerick]

I've posted a minor FAQ pdate dated 11/4/2016.

[mrerick]

I have posted an update 1/23/2017 with a couple of additional items.

[mrerick]

Rich, it might relate to the PDF viewer being used, or settings on the viewer.

I have multiple computers and the document is rendering with balanced contrast, color and density. Graphics look normal.

Under preferences; page display look at the Rendering settings and Page Content settings. Make sure to "show large images". Use rendering settings appropriate for your actual display (LCD or Monitor).

I'm using the "Acrobat Reader DC" version, but the document is written to work with every version of reader since 5.0.

[mrerick]

Just posted a February 22, 2017 update with information on Luger grip screws.

[mrerick]

Just posted the May 2nd 2017 update. Adds manufacture quantities on Wartime Lugers.

[mrerick]

Just posted the July 16, 2017 version of the FAQs. It adds discussion of Halos and finish wear.

[sheepherder]

Marc, has the "C/X" marking (crown over X) been added to the FAQ??? I tried Searching the forum and the FAQ but no luck.

I know it has been discussed and seems to be found on parts marked C/RC also [Revisions Commission].

I checked TBLAP and got no hits either.

[mrerick]

To confirm, the Crown/X C/X is only found on the 1908 DWM Commercial Lugers purchased on a Military contract? About 500 exist in the commercial serial number range 69100 to 70100?

Please verify.

We probably need a complete list of DWM inspectors including this one. I'd like to verify the names associated with the inspectors as well if that is possible.

Thanks, Marc

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by mrerick

To confirm, the Crown/X C/X is only found on the 1908 DWM Commercial Lugers purchased on a Military contract? About 500 exist in the commercial serial number range 69100 to 70100?

So it's an inspector's stamp and not a proof??? I'm only guessing that this is an "X"...

It's on a military 9mm x 100mm barrel which has a finish rough enough to be an Erfurt...

Here's the C/X w/C/RC stamp, eagle, and serial. They're on a mixemaster so that's no help...

[Ron Wood]

There are at least 3 variations of the C/X C/X C/X acceptance marked Lugers that were routed from commercial production to military use during the build up in armament during late 1913 to early 1914.

The first variant is what might be called a “1908 Commercial/Military”. It is a 1908 pattern without stock lug completely constructed, finished, numbered in the commercial 5-digit fashion (in the approximate serial number range 69000-70100 that you noted) and bearing no chamber date, evidently still in the inventory but without final commercial proof before being diverted to the military and acquiring acceptance and proof marking (I have #69879).

The second variation is what I call a “1908/14 Military/Commercial” (note the commercial/military description reversal ). It is of the 1908 pattern without stock lug, evidently still in the stock inventory but in unfinished condition since it is numbered in a 4-digit a-suffix military fashion (in the approximate 8000a-9400a range as noted by Jan Still). Apparently, it received final assembly, finish, numbering, acceptance/proofing and a 1914 chamber date when transferred to the military (I have #8310a).

The third variation marks the transfer of last of the pre-war commercials to the military, produced late 1913 early 1914, bearing no chamber date and with a stock lug. This could be considered a “1913 Commercial/Military” (or a “1914 Commercial/Military”?). I do not know the approximate serial number range, it may start below the aforementioned 70100 but most likely just above that number (I have #70185).

[mrerick]

Ron, can you post a good photo of the C/X acceptance marks.

Are they similar to what Rich posted above? If not, is the mark on Rich's barrel an effort to "X" out a prior imperial proof during the Revisions Commission evaluation of the part?

Marc

[Ron Wood]

They are similar but I think smaller without a side-by-side comparison. I have not seen a mark like the one posted by Rich, but it probably is an inspector's mark.

[DonVoigt]

The crown/x is just another inspection mark, belonging to an inspector who's last name was X.... or perhaps a special inspector that "approved" parts after the Revisions Commission approved its release, JMHO.

I see no reason why it is anything else or an attempt to obscure another mark.

We commonly see C/B on replacement parts which are not numbered, also perhaps a name or a stamp used for specially gauged parts for use as replacements. For example they could have been chosen for their close adherence to tolerance and deemed more likely to be a "universal" fit.

Or they may simply be inspectors names who were assigned to these duties due to seniority or other special consideration. Again JMHO.

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by Ron Wood

They are similar but I think smaller without a side-by-side comparison. I have not seen a mark like the one posted by Rich, but it probably is an inspector's mark.

I pasted my C/X next to yours...Pic attached. It appears similar but not exact...Or perhaps someone struck a diagonal line through one of your X's...

My own WAG is that C/X is an approval mark of a C/RC item that was reworked for whatever reason and then returned to the assembly line/parts bin...

But what do I know; I am only an egg...

In any event, it is probably worth a line in the FAQ if only to acknowledge that it is sometimes found in the general area of proof marks...And is possibly an inspector's mark rather than a proof...