Curious about halo's - Page 2

skeeter4206 · 05-08-2014, 10:35 AM

Oh I don't think I will re-sell anytime soon. I mean overall the gun looks good. I have had it almost a year now and never really noticed all the funky markings until just the other day. I got a new camera for work to take really close-up (Macro) pictures of damage and corrosion mechanisms for my reporting. So I played around with picture taking on this navy luger when I finally realized that this doesn't look right. And now here we are. I have been wanting to shot it but didn't want to damage something. But since its already been re-worked somewhat, what the hell. Its going with me to the range on my next trip. It'll be fun!

skeeter4206 · 05-08-2014, 11:52 AM

IMGP1652.jpg

IMGP1658.jpg

IMGP1672.jpg

IMGP1685.jpg

IMGP1694.jpg

IMGP1697.jpg

IMGP1696.jpg

IMGP1702.jpg

Norme · 05-08-2014, 01:45 PM

Hi Glenn, Thanks for the photos. I think the gun is probably OK and the serials were just double struck. The barrel looks like it might have had a too vigorous rub down with steel wool at some point, probably to remove some rust. The magazine, however, looks like it was sanded and renumbered. The dealer who did this has succeeded in turning a valuable Navy mag into a cheap fake, it's a shame.
Regards, Norm

CJS57 · 05-09-2014, 08:43 AM

The 7 in the barrel serial 723 is clearly struck twice. But.... the original 7 is curved leg; the second 7 is a straight leg. So... the 7 was not just double struck, it was renumbered with a different number stamp. That is not good for originality of the barrel. Halo's look very odd as well.

alanint · 05-09-2014, 08:59 AM

It is the original barrel. It was just "freshened" through restamping after a buffing, probably to remove rust as Norm points out.

It is still a misrepresentation of the gun's originality.

05-08-2014, 11:52 AM	#2
skeeter4206 User Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Augusta, GA Posts: 448 Thanks: 52 Thanked 88 Times in 49 Posts	after a good cleaning IMGP1652.jpg IMGP1658.jpg IMGP1672.jpg IMGP1685.jpg IMGP1694.jpg IMGP1697.jpg IMGP1696.jpg IMGP1702.jpg

05-08-2014, 10:35 AM	#1
skeeter4206 User Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Augusta, GA Posts: 448 Thanks: 52 Thanked 88 Times in 49 Posts	Oh I don't think I will re-sell anytime soon. I mean overall the gun looks good. I have had it almost a year now and never really noticed all the funky markings until just the other day. I got a new camera for work to take really close-up (Macro) pictures of damage and corrosion mechanisms for my reporting. So I played around with picture taking on this navy luger when I finally realized that this doesn't look right. And now here we are. I have been wanting to shot it but didn't want to damage something. But since its already been re-worked somewhat, what the hell. Its going with me to the range on my next trip. It'll be fun!

05-08-2014, 01:45 PM	#3
Norme Always A Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,417 Thanks: 226 Thanked 2,607 Times in 933 Posts	Hi Glenn, Thanks for the photos. I think the gun is probably OK and the serials were just double struck. The barrel looks like it might have had a too vigorous rub down with steel wool at some point, probably to remove some rust. The magazine, however, looks like it was sanded and renumbered. The dealer who did this has succeeded in turning a valuable Navy mag into a cheap fake, it's a shame. Regards, Norm

05-09-2014, 08:43 AM	#4
CJS57 User Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 224 Thanks: 0 Thanked 81 Times in 41 Posts	The 7 in the barrel serial 723 is clearly struck twice. But.... the original 7 is curved leg; the second 7 is a straight leg. So... the 7 was not just double struck, it was renumbered with a different number stamp. That is not good for originality of the barrel. Halo's look very odd as well.

05-09-2014, 08:59 AM	#5
alanint User Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Marco Island, Florida Posts: 4,867 Thanks: 1,685 Thanked 1,917 Times in 1,193 Posts	It is the original barrel. It was just "freshened" through restamping after a buffing, probably to remove rust as Norm points out. It is still a misrepresentation of the gun's originality.