Witness Marks Report--Revised and Expanded

[wterrell]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"> I am sure that all will be relieved to know that this will be my final comment on the "lines" issue. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">
Naw, Jim. You have not caused that much stir. No one is upset with your posts.

And I agree that all you have posted is your ideas and assumptions. Not evidence. And not very impressive ideas.

And there is a difference between "summary" and "final arguments".

If you think that the machinery of 1900 was not precise enough to time threads, you do not know of what you speak. And do not understand the workings of a lathe or mill. Do some research.

And you have not posted one single pic to support your 'theory'. Your whole argument is lame.

[Dwight Gruber]

When I posted the witness mark information I didn't expect the kind of controversy which it engendered. The original article has passed far upscreen, and much conflicting information and opinion has followed. In the service of clarity, I here excerpt from the text salient details which bear particularly on Luger barrel manufacture:

A Mauser factory worker participating in P-08 barrel manufacture described the process--steel barrel rod stock cut to length; bored through and reamed; outer surface shaped; front sight base milled; threads milled; barrel (in the white and unmarked) passed to next operation.

Original replacement barrels are reported with no witness marks.

19 of the 23 reported Krieghoff's (manufactured with the same tooling as Erfurts and Simsons) have no witness marks whatsoever.

Rework Lugers are reported, examined, pictured with no barrel witness mark. Mauser Interarms Lugers (manufactured with Swiss Bern tooling) are examined with no witness marks.

Lugers are examined and reported--and pictured--with perfect, single-strike, undisturbed witness marks.

German Army instructions explicitly provide that witness marks be struck on finished pistols immediately prior to power-proof and shooting-in.

First-person commentary provides at least one scenario where Luger barrels would have been replaced after power-proof firing, resulting ultimately in, among other things, mismatched witness marks.

No secondary sources--writers writing about Lugers--were used in this study. Published English translation of German Army instructions and regulations were referenced, these can be considered authoritative.

--Dwight

[Dwight Gruber]

Jim,

I agree with a couple of things you say, although not, perhaps, for the reason you say them.

There is no evidence that witness marks were necessary--or even used--in the manufacture of Lugers, and yet the marks were required to be struck once the pistols were finished. The reasons for this requirement are unknown, and certainly perplexing.

Many more Lugers are seen with slightly misaligned and mismatched witness marks than with perfect marks. Obviously some of these represent rebarrelling; we have been presented with one explanation for this, and can imagine similar reasons for others. What vexes me is the lack of an authoratative dynamic explanation for minutely misaligned marks.

--Dwight

[JR.]

In reading all the above posts, and drawing on my own observations & experience.... I have to side with Jim's and Viggo's theory on Luger barrel manufacture and assembly.... I believe there are two schools of thought here, one being the way they said they did, (or were supposed to do) the assembly, and the other being the way it was really done! I have stamped thousands of wittness marks over my thirty plus years of being a small engine mechanic... and rarely if ever, they turn out like a Luger barrel & receiver mark... 99% of the time, they look just as they did in Dwights tests! (Impressive tests Dwight!) I think that the marks were made as Jim described, and lined up somewhere down the road... marks could come from the same tool, as they may of had one technition doing all the marks and indexing....it may all be theory, but for any one who have ever attempted to mass produce something on primitive machines (by today's standards) realizes quickly that any step you can combine or delete, is a monster time saver... so, be careful about taking everything you read as fact... you would be surprised how many shortcuts are attempted in any type of production effort..... Till...later....GT

[Heydrich]

I believe an important historical issue is being overlooked here. This is the assumption that the Germans of the 20th century in industry, government, and the military always followed orders and written directives. Nothing could be further from the truth. I grew up in a German family, have traveled, talked to citizens and veterans, avidly read, and it’s a huge myth that German society (even the bootlicking Third Reich) was a model of order, discipline, and the perceived culture of robots that always followed orders. Even in the firing squad regulated German Army of WW2, there were instances were even Hitler’s orders were intentionally ignored or circumvented, even when the recipients knew they might be shot otherwise. (Check out Warlimont’s great book, Inside Hitler’s Headquarters for this long-term pattern of insubordination to Hitler.) The Third Reich was actually a pretty corrupt place overall, and lots of people blew off orders, ad-libbed, and sometimes just did whatever the hell they felt like.

This was especially true in German industry. Bribes, kickbacks, using slave labor and prisoners, snuggling up to that abomination Himmler (i.e. gutter morals), duplicity like the MP44, etc. Watch Schindler’s List again, and check out some of the shady things that went on in corners of German industry. German industrialists also tended to be rock hard stubborn and insulated when it came to how they did things. An example here is the Walther family disregarding the German Army instructions on the design limitations of the G41W. (See that section in Weaver’s book for details.) This leaves us with two facts: the German arm’s factories sometimes went their own way when they really felt like it, and even orders from a guy like Hitler could be ignored. So flat out just because there was a “German Army instruction” or “directive” that P.08 production was to be done a certain way, does not mean it was being followed.

And with all the discrepancies that everyone admits to, is it a stretch saying that these P.08 instructions were probably not being followed?

This post in no way is meant to degrade that outstanding first article of yours up there Dwight. Reads like the work of an intellectual.

[Dwight Gruber]

Thank you.

I have three questions to be accounted for in any alternative theory:

1. The alternative requires witness marks as an essential element of production. Account for the samples observed without witness marks.

2. The alternative has witness marks struck on barrel and receiver at different times. Account for the observed perfect single-strike witness marks.

3. The barrel-making process has been described by a person who participated in the work. Explain why you discount this person's testimony.

Please, please, find documentation or other contemporary evidence to support your contentions!

--Dwight

[John Sabato]

I know I can speak for the majority of the membership when I thank all contributors for attempting to keep this intellectual discussion from getting "out of hand"...

Opinions are like errr...Elbows... everyone has some and everyone has their own experiences to contribute...

If there is a disagreement... at least we can agree to disagree... there has been much theory AND factual information presented here that has been both interesting and educational for those who have no background in mechanical engineering...

If this discussion is to continue, I would repectfully request that any followup comments from this point on... address those three issues that have been isolated by the original author of this message thread as the crux of the discussion.

Thank you one and all.

[Jim Keenan]

OK, I'll break a promise with one more comment, and then it's bye-bye.

The original discussion was on the "witness" marks on the receiver and barrel of Luger pistols. Being new to the site, I was not aware of the previous discussions. In my ignorance I thought that I could simply explain what those marks are and describe the commonly understood process of using draw lines.

Instead, it appears that no new discussion of any Luger issue is permitted. Luger collectors seem to me to be totally narrow minded and unable to even consider any ideas that have not had the blessings of some book written by people as ignorant as themselves.

So, in reward for my efforts to explain to the newbies what I thought was a well known process, I have been put on trial, my posting has been called nonsense, I have been called names, and people have given me the third degree demanding that I produce evidence. (Why not demand evidence that drills drill holes? It is as simple a process.)

I never intended to explain every variation or possibility, even the radical idea that barrel installers in a peace-time era might have been able to work more carefully than in war time.

I will not be put on trial here; I resent would-be TV lawyers trying to accuse me of everything they can think of because I suggested a reason for those marks other than that "Whoosis and Whatsis" says they have to be there.

Have fun folks, with your error-filled "bibles" and your ideas of manufacture that could never have produced all those pistols you like so much and know so little of.

Jim

[John Sabato]

Jim, Please check your regular email...

Thank you.

[Pete Ebbink]

Hello Jim,

I for one would be disappointed if you chose to leave the Forum, just based on the run of this discussion thread. I have enjoyed your postings and always look forward to see something new that you might have posted. Just because a few members, present and departed, use words like "idoitic" or "foolish" should not distract your participation.

I have learned a great deal about all the theories posted on the subject, some old and some new.

The "theory" I like is that the methodology(ies) changed over time, changed due to staff, changed at various companies making lugers, and changed due to production & war time pressures. As Ron Wood concluded, we might just never know for sure...maybe there are many "right" answers depending on the time period, the company, and any contract pressures present when the order was filled.

At the Reno gun show last year, a LF member brought a Masuer luger for some of us to see. One thing we noticed was the lack of alignment of the barrel/receiver marks. As Dwight pointed out, this alone may not be the go-no-go indication that this gun was "messed with". But other attributes of this pistol such as an ill-fitting extractor and one that was not numbered, and the prevalence of cold-bluing; lead the owner to conclude he did not receive the advertised "all original" luger he thought he had purchased and was able to negotiate a return (or refund) from the selling dealer.

PLEASE HANG IN THERE. JIM !!!

Hello Dwight,

This is an outstanding piece of research you have done!!!

One comment I have regarding your opening posting :

In your option # 3 of "no witness mark of barrel or receiver; produced that way"...might such lack of both marks also indicate that, possibly, both barrel and receiver were replaced at some time ?

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

[Navy]

All,
As the guy who originally threw the pebble into the pond that started all of this, let me please say that reasonable and logical peoplpe can have legitimate disagreement over matters of interpretation or inference. Only fools argue facts.
The interesting part of this discussion is the blending of fact and interpretation.
Lets keep this cordial.
Tom A

[Edward Tinker]

Jim, I have just found it odd that you state things as fact, and then refuse to back them up with anything but your own observations? (I have to assume that will make you mad by stating this, sorry in advance). Books have been written and written incorrectly, but unless you produce evidence to refute their incorrect statements, then it is simply your views. Which I thought was what was being examined here, EVERYONE's views.

This might be accepted US practice and Dwight and others stated that this was from a (what I thought) well known book. So, I ask, why do you think this book is no good?

I do get tired of people stating that they will drop from the forum when they have a subject that is challeneged, challeneged because others have stated their views in contrast to their views.

Overall this has been fairly civil, or I would have locked the thread, I do apoligize if you, Jim, feel that you have been pointed at and felt foolish, but as a newer member, you came and told several members that their views were wrong and foolish, so I can see why others would get their backs up.

Ed

[Dwight Gruber]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Pete Ebbink:
<strong>In your option # 3 of "no witness mark of barrel or receiver; produced that way"...might such lack of both marks also indicate that, possibly, both barrel and receiver were replaced at some time ?
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Logic requires the answer to be "yes".

On a practical basis, the -implications- of the Army regulations (and I stress this because we don't know the actual practice) requiring that replacement of barrel, receiver, or breechblock be treated (inspected, power-proofed, and shot-in) as new construction mean that they would be witness-marked. We know that replacement barrels were not marked; we know that many were replaced after inspection; the samples reported demonstrate that even known rebarrels are commonly marked.

From the samples reported, Krieghoffs and 1970s Mausers are so overwhelmingly unmarked that one is led to conclude that this is original manufacture; or at least to continue observing these models to determine if a larger sample continues to bear the conjecture out.

Krieghoff's contract was with the Luftwaffe, and Krieghoff's Lugers were inspected by the Luftwaffewaffenamt (Luftwaffe Arms Inspection Dept) rather than the Heereswaffenamt (Gibson, "Krieghoff Parabellum", p.79). It can be conjectured (indeed it has) that the LWaA was not beholden to the Army Luger regulations, and so could pass on the omission of the witness mark. Of course by 1970 the Heeres regulations were moot, so Mauser could mark or not at will.

A principle which may have been lost in the discussion is that perfect witness marks can tell us something positive about the Luger which bears them, but misaligned witness marks can not by themselves tell us anything about the originality or authenticity of the barrel/receiver combination (I will add here that -no- witness marks may in fact tell us something). Under these circumstances it is up to the finish, signs of aging, and details of machining and marking to reveal the barrel/receiver's authenticity.

Faced with a Luger other than a Krieghoff or 1970s Mauser with no witness marks, I would have to look elsewhere to make the determination of both a replaced barrel and receiver.

--Dwight

Sorry if this is long-winded and pedantic, I am feeling a need to be particularly clear.

[Pete Ebbink]

Thanks, Dwight, for your thoughtful reply to my last inquiry...!

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

[Heinz]

Dwight,
1) I believe that photographs 03 and 05 in your early posting are clearly made by a single strike of a single tool. No 2 and 10 also appear to fall in this category. My 1915 DWM Police reissue and 1918 Military both have perfect witness mark alignment, the 1918 at a slight angle to the vertical strongly they were made by one strike with one tool.

2) Clearly some barrels show the use of seperate tools in marking, although you demonstration clearly indicates that when the barrel flange and reciever are of slightly different diameters the effects of one strike with one tool across an uneven surface may result in a strange lookins strike, much deeper at one end than another. Photos 01 and 06 are surely different tools and seperate strikes. O9 and 11 may be different strikes and different tools or due to diameter variations between barrel and reciever, especially 09.
3) Barrels that failed proof and barrels that failed shooting in sighting may explain some two tool, or two strike witness marks. Another hypothesis is that some minor alignment shift may occur if the barrel is twisted to improve the center of mpact on shooting in. I BELIEVE this can be done when using V notch sights and V blade. This hypothesis is not critical to the argument.
4) Later Nazi Era production Lugers and Weimar rebarrels may or may not have witness marks indicating that the marking was clearly NOT a necessary step in assembly.
5) Ludwig Leowe was the premier German manufacturer of precision equipment and precision in the first 15 years of the 20th century. Borchardt, Mauser and DWM production stand as witness to this. (Bad Pun)

Therefor I would conclude that
A) the witness mark is not necessary as an assembly aid. If efficiency in production is the goal it can be completely skipped. A draw mark is not necessary in Luger assembly and no reason for its use has been presented. It is not "more efficient" to apply a mark that is not needed.
B) The witness mark, and the proof marks and other inspection marks are put on early Luger per instructions as part of the inspection-proofing-firing in process as evidenced by Imperial instructions.
Pistols were rejected for failing proof or failing shooting in accuracy. Instructions indicate the manufacturer had the right to rework these pistols. This repair is a POTENTIAL source of misaligned marks, overstamping, and marks with two tools and two strikes.
C) Weimar and Nazi inspection-proofing-firing proceedures are not as well documented as the Imperial marking instructions and your examples show at some times witness marking was not done.

Therefor I believe we may take it as true that some Early Lugers were witness marked as specified in the 1910 regulations.

[JR.]

Hello Dwight & Heinz! Here is a little bit of information that I once received from John V. martz, whom has probably replaced as many Luger barrels as anyone... he told me, in an informal conversation that he primarily lines up the extractor slot in the barrel with the releif provided for it in the receiver... in this application, the witness marks mean nothing...of course, the assembly must exhibit the correct torque during assembly... but by and large, I came away with the idea that barrel assembler's from that era, must have had a considerable amount of acquired skill to do it fast and correctly! till....later....GT

[Dwight Gruber]

Heinz,

A very cogent commentary, and some useful conclusions which advance the topic. The Ludwig Loewe reminder is very interesting. For the record, I've brought the illustration and description downscreen for the comparison.



Example 01--Vickers. Suspicious.
Example 02--KOL. Definite rebarrel.
Example 03--1900 American Eagle. Perfect witness mark, single strike, single instrument, shows no misalignment even under high magnification. Reblue.
Example 04--S/42 1936. Not perfectly aligned, all other evidence points to the barrel being original.
Example 05--Erfurt LP-08. Perfect witness mark, single strike, single instrument. Apparent mislignment is artifact of lighting and steel surface, under high magnification the bottom of the strike is aligned.
Example 06--Modern rebarrel. Presented for contrast.
Example 07--1917 Navy. Two strikes, misaligned by less than 1/4 line width. All other evidence points to the barrel being original.
Example 08--1929 Police. No barrel mark.
Example 09--byf 42. Nickel-plated, barrel apparently removed and reinstalled.
Example 10--1917 LP-08. Two strikes, aligned, all evidence is barrel is original.
Example 11--1918 LP-08. Rebarrel--barrel is period/authentic LP-08 barrel, but is not matched to receiver.

GT,

Another useful practical perspective, thanks.

I ran into another comment by Gibson, p.94 (if I can be forgiven momentarily for the secondary source). He notes that headspace problems which might have been noted during inspection of the barrel/receiver/breechblock assembly could not be rectified by facing the receiver or barrel flange (in the case of excessive headspace); or by adding a spacer (in the case of too little headspace); because of inherent design features of the Luger. Presumably he means here that these changes would offset the front sight and the extractor groove.

--Dwight

[physoft]

I think all the opinions expressed here are valid and it's usually best to encourage an open discussion. Sometimes it is difficult to express a differing opinion without being critical of another. My take away from all of this is as follows. Witness marks that align perfectly are no problem, marks that don't align may or may not be a problem. My entry into this Luger world is a DWM 1923 Commercial rework. I am primarily interested in shooting rather than a collectible. I just purchased a full upper: barrel, barrel extension, toggle, BB and firing pin, etc. assembly which has a misaligned witness mark. Judging from what I have read here, I could have a problem or maybe not...I will let you guys know when I get to shoot it.....

[G.T.]

Hi physoft, it is still an unanswered enigma as to the marks and their original purpose? There are several threads on this subject and even one most recent, to where I just corrected a miss-aligned barrel to receiver, and even with the marks aligned, or as nearly so as possible, it still didn't mean that all else was perfectly square and indexed properly???... I'd like to know more, but am at the end of my skill sets to discern any thing different then has already been discussed?... Best to you, til...lat'r....GT

[cirelaw]

Luger History ages like a fine wine!! Thank All Of You! Eric