1914 Erfurt dilemma--SOLVED! - Page 2

drbuster · 08-24-2002, 10:36 AM

Reply to Brandon and Garfield, First I guess the "value" of my Erfurt would have to have been diminished by the revelation that it may have been assembled from parts left over. The "original" ns,a and b suffixes with unrelieved sear bars, un-notched chanbers and double proofed clips were "true" 1914's. But if Garfield is correct, why is the chamber stamped "1914"? In light of all this thread and previous ones on this matter, what is your theory?

Doubs · 08-24-2002, 01:41 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny Peppers:
"Doubs, The military either manufacturers at government arsenals or pays someone to manufacture spare parts to maintain their then current weapon inventory."

I agree.

Johnny: "Domestic production of commercially manufactured weapons depends entirely upon demand and sales. Winchester never intended to have left over inventory sitting around as in the case of the Model 1873, as unsold inventory is capital that is tied up."

Again, I agree. But the fact remains that Winchester and other manufacturers did accumulate inventory of spare parts that sometimes sat for years. The initial buttplate screws used on the Model 52 Winchester were manufactured for the 1873 Winchester rifles you speak of. (FWIW, I have pages 11 - 202 of an original Winchester catalog from the late 'teens or early 1920's that belonged to my father. The 1873 is being offered at prices from $17.50 - $37.50 but my father had annotated in writing that the 1873 is no longer being produced. Sadly, I can't establish the exact year the catalog was published because the covers are missing.)

Johnny: Winchester also manufactured the M1 Rifle and M1 Carbine during WWII, but they did not keep any unsold parts of these weapons sitting around. They were in the business of manufacturing the weapons under contract at a specified price, and hoped to turn a profit. Merchandise sitting on shelves it not profit."

No argument with that. However, any contract parts produced would have been shipped to the government as they were paid for. The receiving arsenal or warehouse would have stored the items for later use or disposition. The parts were not simply destroyed in most cases and were in inventory somewhere. The CMP is, I believe, still using M1 Garand parts that were produced many years ago to repair Garands for sales to members.

LP08 explains, perhaps better than I did, the manufacturing process and how parts management wasn't as sophistocated a century ago as now. Why is it such a leap of faith to think that the Erfurt Arsenal may have had parts available long after manufacture? Once made, they wouldn't have simply dumped them.

There has yet to be a solid explaination for the Erfurt Arsenal to not produce Lugers in 1915. It's conjecture, of course, but suppose an emergency or even immediate directive was issued in late 1914 to cease Luger production "right now" and convert the assembly line to making GEW98's ASAP? Wouldn't there possibly be unused 1914 receivers still available? Put them on the shelf for later use and press on. I'm not saying it happened that way.... only that it's another distinct possibility. There has to be a reason why Luger production by Erfurt in 1915 didn't happen. Considering that LP-08 production only goes to the "b" block in 1914 by Erfurt and standard Luger production also stops at the "b" block, it's unlikely that 1915 was used to produce Lugers dated 1914.

Johnny Peppers · 08-24-2002, 03:33 PM

Doubs,
The comparison between commercial and military production of weapons was intended to illustrate the fact that Winchester did manufacture commercial firearms and leave them in stock, but any military weapons or parts were contracted for before they were manufactured.
During 1920, 1921, and 1922 only 304 Model 1873 Winchesters were manufactured, but in 1923 which was the year the Model 1873 was discontinued records indicate that 18,260 were added to the production ledgers presumably to clean up the remaining stocks of completed guns and those assembled from parts. Apparently all rifles assembled were built from old stock parts remaining in inventory, but they are recorded as having been built in 1923.

Garfield · 08-24-2002, 04:28 PM

Doubs:

Other than pure speculation, can you point to any fact that would tend to establish that 1914 chamber dated Erfurt receivers were placed in "factory stock" and later used by the Erfurt factory to asemble lugers in the following 4 years?

Doubs · 08-24-2002, 06:10 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Garfield:
<strong>Doubs: Other than pure speculation, can you point to any fact that would tend to establish that 1914 chamber dated Erfurt receivers were placed in "factory stock" and later used by the Erfurt factory to asemble lugers in the following 4 years?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Other than the statement from Mr. Fisher concerning Jan Still's observation concerning the 1914 "q" block Erfurt Luger, and some first-hand knowledge of both manufacturing and the military supply system, no. But, then again, when have I been so bold as to phrase my "speculation" in terms of absolution? The possibilities I've advanced have, in each case, been stated as opinion and not fact. They are reasonable and logical "possibilities". Obviously, you don't see it that way.

Back in the first of the four threads on this topic you state that Erfurt didn't go into full production until 1917. What, exactly, is "full" production? Is it meeting the contract requirements? Is it utilizing the available workers to their fullest or is it capacity production of the arsenal using every available worker and resource?

Other than "guesstimated" raw production numbers of Lugers produced by Erfurt in 1914 and 1916, 1917 & 1918, what proof can you provide to support your contention that Erfurt didn't go into "full" production until 1917? Before you use the difference in production numbers between 1916 and 1917 as "proof", you'll need to demonstrate that the Luger assembly line wasn't working to capacity in 1916 using the available tools, workers and supplies. After all, the rest of the asenal workers may have been busy turning out rifles and machineguns. (That's purely speculation on my part. However, SOMEONE at Erfurt was turning out other arms because I've owned 1917 GEW98's.)

Much of what we "know" about Lugers is based on the experience of those who have the means to do the research. Some of those "facts" are concrete as proven by records, regulations, directives, first-hand knowledge of those there at the time etc. Other information that has been formulated from data gathered through various sources is a well-informed estimation... a guess, IOW. Many known "facts" of the earlier years have been proven faulty through additional research and records that have surfaced.

When I state something as a cold, hard fact I also provide my source as can be seen from my previous posts. If it's my opinion or speculation, I say it is. Half of the fun of Lugers is the "what-if" factor. Someone posts a "what-if" and often the result is a good discussion and everyone learns something. I often dive into a book to refresh my memory about a specific fact or to learn something new. Most of my efforts have been toward the Imperial period so I often pick up new information about the Nazi era guns. They just don't interest me as much as the older guns.

Garfield · 08-24-2002, 07:00 PM

I guess the short answer to my question is, No".

Thank you.

drbuster · 08-24-2002, 09:12 PM

With due respect to Garfield, how can one explain a 1914 dated Erfurt with relieved sear bar, notched chamber and only one proof on the clip? It apparently doesn't fit with the ns,a and b suffix Erfurts, yet is dated 1914. I believe Jan Still's conclusion is right, yet this is only conviction, unprovable with what we know now. This woould also hold for the 1914 "r" suffix Erfurt.

Garfield · 08-24-2002, 09:34 PM

While it would appear that the 1914 q suffix Erfurt was not assembled prior to 1916 perhaps we should consider the latest possible date that it could have been assembled as it appears to be a "parts" pistol.

Carl · 08-24-2002, 10:42 PM

Hmm--Veery interisking

Doubs · 08-25-2002, 12:15 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Garfield:
<strong>I guess the short answer to my question is, No". Thank you.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And the short answer to my challenge to prove your assertion would seem to be "you can't".

Garfield · 08-25-2002, 12:20 AM

sSnce you are quoting me out of context, I really don't know how to respond to your "challenge".

However, if it gives you comfort to feel that I cannot respond to your "challenge, by all means, cling to that thought.

Doubs · 08-25-2002, 01:33 AM

Garfield, I believe you to be intentionally obtuse and disengenuous. That is my opinion.

Of all your posts under the four threads devoted to the 1914 Erfurt "q" block Luger, you've been negative with few exceptions and added nothing of value to the discussion. That's a fact.

This is my last message to you on any subject. That's a fact you can take to the bank.

The floor is now yours.

Goodbye, Sir.

Garfield · 08-25-2002, 02:00 AM

Gee, Doubs:

I really don't know what to say? My initial reaction was, "What did I do to warrant this good fortune?". Would you still talk to me if I agreed to play the "What If Game"? Somehow I cannot help put feel that you might be a sore loser.

Good Hunting,

08-24-2002, 10:36 AM	#21
drbuster User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Mateo, California Posts: 1,432 Thanks: 2 Thanked 71 Times in 56 Posts	Reply to Brandon and Garfield, First I guess the "value" of my Erfurt would have to have been diminished by the revelation that it may have been assembled from parts left over. The "original" ns,a and b suffixes with unrelieved sear bars, un-notched chanbers and double proofed clips were "true" 1914's. But if Garfield is correct, why is the chamber stamped "1914"? In light of all this thread and previous ones on this matter, what is your theory?

08-24-2002, 01:41 PM	#22
Doubs User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Byron, Georgia Posts: 1,672 Thanks: 773 Thanked 1,618 Times in 527 Posts	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny Peppers: "Doubs, The military either manufacturers at government arsenals or pays someone to manufacture spare parts to maintain their then current weapon inventory." I agree. Johnny: "Domestic production of commercially manufactured weapons depends entirely upon demand and sales. Winchester never intended to have left over inventory sitting around as in the case of the Model 1873, as unsold inventory is capital that is tied up." Again, I agree. But the fact remains that Winchester and other manufacturers did accumulate inventory of spare parts that sometimes sat for years. The initial buttplate screws used on the Model 52 Winchester were manufactured for the 1873 Winchester rifles you speak of. (FWIW, I have pages 11 - 202 of an original Winchester catalog from the late 'teens or early 1920's that belonged to my father. The 1873 is being offered at prices from $17.50 - $37.50 but my father had annotated in writing that the 1873 is no longer being produced. Sadly, I can't establish the exact year the catalog was published because the covers are missing.) Johnny: Winchester also manufactured the M1 Rifle and M1 Carbine during WWII, but they did not keep any unsold parts of these weapons sitting around. They were in the business of manufacturing the weapons under contract at a specified price, and hoped to turn a profit. Merchandise sitting on shelves it not profit." No argument with that. However, any contract parts produced would have been shipped to the government as they were paid for. The receiving arsenal or warehouse would have stored the items for later use or disposition. The parts were not simply destroyed in most cases and were in inventory somewhere. The CMP is, I believe, still using M1 Garand parts that were produced many years ago to repair Garands for sales to members. LP08 explains, perhaps better than I did, the manufacturing process and how parts management wasn't as sophistocated a century ago as now. Why is it such a leap of faith to think that the Erfurt Arsenal may have had parts available long after manufacture? Once made, they wouldn't have simply dumped them. There has yet to be a solid explaination for the Erfurt Arsenal to not produce Lugers in 1915. It's conjecture, of course, but suppose an emergency or even immediate directive was issued in late 1914 to cease Luger production "right now" and convert the assembly line to making GEW98's ASAP? Wouldn't there possibly be unused 1914 receivers still available? Put them on the shelf for later use and press on. I'm not saying it happened that way.... only that it's another distinct possibility. There has to be a reason why Luger production by Erfurt in 1915 didn't happen. Considering that LP-08 production only goes to the "b" block in 1914 by Erfurt and standard Luger production also stops at the "b" block, it's unlikely that 1915 was used to produce Lugers dated 1914.

08-24-2002, 03:33 PM	#23
Johnny Peppers User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Calion, Arkansas Posts: 1,042 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Doubs, The comparison between commercial and military production of weapons was intended to illustrate the fact that Winchester did manufacture commercial firearms and leave them in stock, but any military weapons or parts were contracted for before they were manufactured. During 1920, 1921, and 1922 only 304 Model 1873 Winchesters were manufactured, but in 1923 which was the year the Model 1873 was discontinued records indicate that 18,260 were added to the production ledgers presumably to clean up the remaining stocks of completed guns and those assembled from parts. Apparently all rifles assembled were built from old stock parts remaining in inventory, but they are recorded as having been built in 1923.

08-24-2002, 04:28 PM	#24
Garfield User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A little SE of Nome Posts: 239 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Doubs: Other than pure speculation, can you point to any fact that would tend to establish that 1914 chamber dated Erfurt receivers were placed in "factory stock" and later used by the Erfurt factory to asemble lugers in the following 4 years?

08-24-2002, 06:10 PM	#25
Doubs User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Byron, Georgia Posts: 1,672 Thanks: 773 Thanked 1,618 Times in 527 Posts	[quote]Originally posted by Garfield: <strong>Doubs: Other than pure speculation, can you point to any fact that would tend to establish that 1914 chamber dated Erfurt receivers were placed in "factory stock" and later used by the Erfurt factory to asemble lugers in the following 4 years?</strong><hr></blockquote> Other than the statement from Mr. Fisher concerning Jan Still's observation concerning the 1914 "q" block Erfurt Luger, and some first-hand knowledge of both manufacturing and the military supply system, no. But, then again, when have I been so bold as to phrase my "speculation" in terms of absolution? The possibilities I've advanced have, in each case, been stated as opinion and not fact. They are reasonable and logical "possibilities". Obviously, you don't see it that way. Back in the first of the four threads on this topic you state that Erfurt didn't go into full production until 1917. What, exactly, is "full" production? Is it meeting the contract requirements? Is it utilizing the available workers to their fullest or is it capacity production of the arsenal using every available worker and resource? Other than "guesstimated" raw production numbers of Lugers produced by Erfurt in 1914 and 1916, 1917 & 1918, what proof can you provide to support your contention that Erfurt didn't go into "full" production until 1917? Before you use the difference in production numbers between 1916 and 1917 as "proof", you'll need to demonstrate that the Luger assembly line wasn't working to capacity in 1916 using the available tools, workers and supplies. After all, the rest of the asenal workers may have been busy turning out rifles and machineguns. (That's purely speculation on my part. However, SOMEONE at Erfurt was turning out other arms because I've owned 1917 GEW98's.) Much of what we "know" about Lugers is based on the experience of those who have the means to do the research. Some of those "facts" are concrete as proven by records, regulations, directives, first-hand knowledge of those there at the time etc. Other information that has been formulated from data gathered through various sources is a well-informed estimation... a guess, IOW. Many known "facts" of the earlier years have been proven faulty through additional research and records that have surfaced. When I state something as a cold, hard fact I also provide my source as can be seen from my previous posts. If it's my opinion or speculation, I say it is. Half of the fun of Lugers is the "what-if" factor. Someone posts a "what-if" and often the result is a good discussion and everyone learns something. I often dive into a book to refresh my memory about a specific fact or to learn something new. Most of my efforts have been toward the Imperial period so I often pick up new information about the Nazi era guns. They just don't interest me as much as the older guns.

08-24-2002, 07:00 PM	#26
Garfield User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A little SE of Nome Posts: 239 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I guess the short answer to my question is, No". Thank you.

08-24-2002, 09:12 PM	#27
drbuster User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Mateo, California Posts: 1,432 Thanks: 2 Thanked 71 Times in 56 Posts	With due respect to Garfield, how can one explain a 1914 dated Erfurt with relieved sear bar, notched chamber and only one proof on the clip? It apparently doesn't fit with the ns,a and b suffix Erfurts, yet is dated 1914. I believe Jan Still's conclusion is right, yet this is only conviction, unprovable with what we know now. This woould also hold for the 1914 "r" suffix Erfurt.

08-24-2002, 09:34 PM	#28
Garfield User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A little SE of Nome Posts: 239 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	While it would appear that the 1914 q suffix Erfurt was not assembled prior to 1916 perhaps we should consider the latest possible date that it could have been assembled as it appears to be a "parts" pistol.

08-24-2002, 10:42 PM	#29
Carl User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Central PA Posts: 113 Thanks: 0 Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts	Hmm--Veery interisking

08-25-2002, 12:15 AM	#30
Doubs User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Byron, Georgia Posts: 1,672 Thanks: 773 Thanked 1,618 Times in 527 Posts	[quote]Originally posted by Garfield: <strong>I guess the short answer to my question is, No". Thank you.</strong><hr></blockquote> And the short answer to my challenge to prove your assertion would seem to be "you can't".

08-25-2002, 12:20 AM	#31
Garfield User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A little SE of Nome Posts: 239 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	sSnce you are quoting me out of context, I really don't know how to respond to your "challenge". However, if it gives you comfort to feel that I cannot respond to your "challenge, by all means, cling to that thought.

08-25-2002, 01:33 AM	#32
Doubs User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Byron, Georgia Posts: 1,672 Thanks: 773 Thanked 1,618 Times in 527 Posts	Garfield, I believe you to be intentionally obtuse and disengenuous. That is my opinion. Of all your posts under the four threads devoted to the 1914 Erfurt "q" block Luger, you've been negative with few exceptions and added nothing of value to the discussion. That's a fact. This is my last message to you on any subject. That's a fact you can take to the bank. The floor is now yours. Goodbye, Sir.

08-25-2002, 02:00 AM	#33
Garfield User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A little SE of Nome Posts: 239 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Gee, Doubs: I really don't know what to say? My initial reaction was, "What did I do to warrant this good fortune?". Would you still talk to me if I agreed to play the "What If Game"? Somehow I cannot help put feel that you might be a sore loser. Good Hunting,