Yet another Newbie with... - Page 3

Magic Jar · 05-28-2011, 11:50 PM

Thanks Ron. I'm replying from my phone. I'll do better tomorrow.

James

On Edit: Well 'tomorrow' has crept up in a not-so-petty pace, and I've spent the morning reading more of the threads on this Forum. There's a lot to be digested in a short time.

Thanks again, Ron, for that clarification. It reminded me that I had failed to ask a question about it before.

About the 'strawing', I am under the impression that strawing was replaced by bluing and other processes around 1937 ±. Is the reason for the comments from Bill (above) et al about this gun of mine missing that strawing owing to the fact that the numbers, identifying marks, etc. would indicate the main parts of this gun at least started off prior to that date?

I'm grateful for the patience of those who have taken the time to read this thread and educate me. I don't think I'm dumb, just ignorant about Lugers and I'm enjoying going back to school, so to speak.

I realize that I haven't posted a photo of the holster yet. The camera needs 'film' (bat. needs charging).

James

Magic Jar · 05-30-2011, 06:41 PM

Here are a couple of photos of the holster that came with the gun.

Notice the scuff mark above the closing strap. I can't tell if this is rub damage from transport/packing or if someone tried to remove something. There was no tool with the holster. I'll get one for it. The strap that assists in removing the gun from the holster is complete, not damaged.

Also, I failed to mention in the description of the gun above that an '80' is stamped on the underneath side of the "take-down" lever.

Once again, I apologize for the poor photos. I'd like to blame the camera, but I imagine it's my inability to focus it properly. Probably something simple like the diopter being out of focus. Then, again, maybe it's just old wornout eyes.

In the spirit of looking for that 'mentor' that Aaron mentioned, I live in south-central Idaho, not far from Twin Falls. Is there a forum member in my vicinity?

James

P.S. In case you wonder about the "Alaska" labeling at the bottom, I just returned from a trip up there and didn't take the time when removing the pix from the camera to change the label.

lugerholsterrepair · 05-30-2011, 07:39 PM

James, Decent original WW2 type holster.

Norme · 05-30-2011, 09:47 PM

Hi James, Your holster looks to have a couple of issues. I believe that it was dyed black at some point and that the right hand belt loop is a replacement. Nevertheless R. Ehrhardt, Poessneck holsters are very well made and collectible. Regards, Norm

Magic Jar · 05-30-2011, 10:28 PM

Jerry and Norme, thank you both for your responses.

Norme, I had the same thought owing to the fact that I entered the U.S. Army during the transition from the "brown boot" to the "black boot" times. At Language School (late '59) we were in between and many of us pvts simply polished our brown shoes black. If we weren't diligent about the effort (and many of us were much less than diligent) we'd end up with sort of a cordovan look. At Friday inspections we always wore our geniune black shoes.

In any event I looked at this holster and had flashbacks of ALS in the '59 - '60 time. Given that I compared this holster with a brown leather holster (American) made in 1918 and saw that parts of it had turned a really dark shade.

You may be correct about the right loop being a replacement. My photos are seriously less than good, and in actuality the right loop is a bit lighter in color and also the stitching is a bit suspect.

In spite of those issues, I'm glad the holster looks to be an original. I just noticed that I didn't take a photo of the maker's stamping and an emblem that is there. I'll give it another go. Maybe you can enlarge enough to make out the items.

James

On edit: Ummmm. I'm not sure why the photo doesn' want to enlarge. I used the same procedure ("Manage Attachments", reduced size, etc.) as before.

Magic Jar · 06-17-2011, 05:28 PM

I've disassembled the gun several times. All parts appear to be fine, but I haven't submitted it for a first-hand inspection by a gunsmith. Should I do this before test-firing?

I just ordered a couple of boxes of Winchester .30Luger (7.65mm, 93 gr, F.M.C., according to the catalog).

Any cautionary notes before I test-fire?

Thanks again for all the help.

James

05-28-2011, 11:50 PM	#41
Magic Jar User Join Date: May 2011 Location: Snake River Plain Posts: 29 Thanks: 14 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Thanks Ron. I'm replying from my phone. I'll do better tomorrow. James On Edit: Well 'tomorrow' has crept up in a not-so-petty pace, and I've spent the morning reading more of the threads on this Forum. There's a lot to be digested in a short time. Thanks again, Ron, for that clarification. It reminded me that I had failed to ask a question about it before. About the 'strawing', I am under the impression that strawing was replaced by bluing and other processes around 1937 ±. Is the reason for the comments from Bill (above) et al about this gun of mine missing that strawing owing to the fact that the numbers, identifying marks, etc. would indicate the main parts of this gun at least started off prior to that date? I'm grateful for the patience of those who have taken the time to read this thread and educate me. I don't think I'm dumb, just ignorant about Lugers and I'm enjoying going back to school, so to speak. I realize that I haven't posted a photo of the holster yet. The camera needs 'film' (bat. needs charging). James Last edited by Magic Jar; 05-29-2011 at 01:35 PM.

05-30-2011, 06:41 PM	#42
Magic Jar User Join Date: May 2011 Location: Snake River Plain Posts: 29 Thanks: 14 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Here are a couple of photos of the holster that came with the gun. Notice the scuff mark above the closing strap. I can't tell if this is rub damage from transport/packing or if someone tried to remove something. There was no tool with the holster. I'll get one for it. The strap that assists in removing the gun from the holster is complete, not damaged. Also, I failed to mention in the description of the gun above that an '80' is stamped on the underneath side of the "take-down" lever. Once again, I apologize for the poor photos. I'd like to blame the camera, but I imagine it's my inability to focus it properly. Probably something simple like the diopter being out of focus. Then, again, maybe it's just old wornout eyes. In the spirit of looking for that 'mentor' that Aaron mentioned, I live in south-central Idaho, not far from Twin Falls. Is there a forum member in my vicinity? James P.S. In case you wonder about the "Alaska" labeling at the bottom, I just returned from a trip up there and didn't take the time when removing the pix from the camera to change the label. Attached Thumbnails Last edited by Magic Jar; 05-30-2011 at 06:45 PM. Reason: P.S.

05-30-2011, 07:39 PM	#43
lugerholsterrepair Moderator Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Arizona/Colorado Posts: 7,761 Thanks: 4,863 Thanked 3,101 Times in 1,427 Posts	James, Decent original WW2 type holster. __________________ Jerry Burney 11491 S. Guadalupe Drive Yuma AZ 85367-6182 lugerholsterrepair@earthlink.net 928 342-7583 (CO & AZ) Year Round 719 207-3331 (cell) "For those who Fight For It, Life has a flavor the protected will never know."

05-30-2011, 10:28 PM	#45
Magic Jar User Join Date: May 2011 Location: Snake River Plain Posts: 29 Thanks: 14 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Jerry and Norme, thank you both for your responses. Norme, I had the same thought owing to the fact that I entered the U.S. Army during the transition from the "brown boot" to the "black boot" times. At Language School (late '59) we were in between and many of us pvts simply polished our brown shoes black. If we weren't diligent about the effort (and many of us were much less than diligent) we'd end up with sort of a cordovan look. At Friday inspections we always wore our geniune black shoes. In any event I looked at this holster and had flashbacks of ALS in the '59 - '60 time. Given that I compared this holster with a brown leather holster (American) made in 1918 and saw that parts of it had turned a really dark shade. You may be correct about the right loop being a replacement. My photos are seriously less than good, and in actuality the right loop is a bit lighter in color and also the stitching is a bit suspect. In spite of those issues, I'm glad the holster looks to be an original. I just noticed that I didn't take a photo of the maker's stamping and an emblem that is there. I'll give it another go. Maybe you can enlarge enough to make out the items. James On edit: Ummmm. I'm not sure why the photo doesn' want to enlarge. I used the same procedure ("Manage Attachments", reduced size, etc.) as before. Attached Images Last edited by Magic Jar; 05-30-2011 at 10:31 PM. Reason: Add info

05-30-2011, 09:47 PM	#44
Norme Always A Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,414 Thanks: 224 Thanked 2,591 Times in 930 Posts	Hi James, Your holster looks to have a couple of issues. I believe that it was dyed black at some point and that the right hand belt loop is a replacement. Nevertheless R. Ehrhardt, Poessneck holsters are very well made and collectible. Regards, Norm

06-17-2011, 05:28 PM	#46
Magic Jar User Join Date: May 2011 Location: Snake River Plain Posts: 29 Thanks: 14 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	I've disassembled the gun several times. All parts appear to be fine, but I haven't submitted it for a first-hand inspection by a gunsmith. Should I do this before test-firing? I just ordered a couple of boxes of Winchester .30Luger (7.65mm, 93 gr, F.M.C., according to the catalog). Any cautionary notes before I test-fire? Thanks again for all the help. James