1941 byf - Page 2

Frank · 09-01-2004, 09:30 PM

Mike, the 963 no suffix is the earliest double E/135 Luger I have recorded.

I can't say for sure the magazines are not correct!! The numbers on the left magazine botton are not in line. The location of the magazine number (1 and 2) are not in the same placement. This would give rise to some question about the numbering.

lugercollector · 09-01-2004, 11:20 PM

Did you buy it directly from a Vets family,or from a dealer??.....

byf42 · 09-02-2004, 12:31 AM

It went from relative of deceased, to a guy whom I have traded with several times before, to me.

I have no doubt on his integrity regarding the rig, but who all had it in the family I have no idea. Would they have known to fake the mags, and go to that much trouble? Nothing surprises me anymore. The guy I traded with was stumped on it. Brought it to my attention, and agreed that it just did not make any sense.

Mike

MauserLugers · 09-02-2004, 01:47 AM

You might want to take a couple of pictures of the sides of the magazine bases to see how they are pinned and what these rivots look like on both sides.

Have byf 41 2766 no suffix that has two E/655 acceptance marks. Has two matching aluminium base fxo magazines, but the serial numbers are smaller than the above mentioned piece and the extra has a + sign.

In my opinion it would be highly unlikely for a byf 41 military gun to have police magazines without the gun having a sear safety. In 1941, Mauser Banner police Lugers all had sear safeties. I have, and have seen police Lugers which had two matching magazines which were not marked one and two, but never military Lugers marked with police magazines.

Bill

09-01-2004, 09:30 PM	#21
Frank RIP Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hot & Dry PHX, AZ Posts: 2,078 Thanks: 24 Thanked 163 Times in 87 Posts	Mike, the 963 no suffix is the earliest double E/135 Luger I have recorded. I can't say for sure the magazines are not correct!! The numbers on the left magazine botton are not in line. The location of the magazine number (1 and 2) are not in the same placement. This would give rise to some question about the numbering.

09-01-2004, 11:20 PM	#22
lugercollector Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: canada Posts: 322 Thanks: 0 Thanked 25 Times in 15 Posts	Did you buy it directly from a Vets family,or from a dealer??.....

09-02-2004, 12:31 AM	#23
byf42 User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Great Plains Posts: 74 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	It went from relative of deceased, to a guy whom I have traded with several times before, to me. I have no doubt on his integrity regarding the rig, but who all had it in the family I have no idea. Would they have known to fake the mags, and go to that much trouble? Nothing surprises me anymore. The guy I traded with was stumped on it. Brought it to my attention, and agreed that it just did not make any sense. Mike

09-02-2004, 01:47 AM	#24
MauserLugers User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Philipsburg, Montana 59858 Posts: 250 Thanks: 0 Thanked 8 Times in 1 Post	You might want to take a couple of pictures of the sides of the magazine bases to see how they are pinned and what these rivots look like on both sides. Have byf 41 2766 no suffix that has two E/655 acceptance marks. Has two matching aluminium base fxo magazines, but the serial numbers are smaller than the above mentioned piece and the extra has a + sign. In my opinion it would be highly unlikely for a byf 41 military gun to have police magazines without the gun having a sear safety. In 1941, Mauser Banner police Lugers all had sear safeties. I have, and have seen police Lugers which had two matching magazines which were not marked one and two, but never military Lugers marked with police magazines. Bill