The K�¼ Luger and its origins

[John Sabato]

There have been several discussions on the Lugerforum about this model Luger and its possible origins... None have been conclusive about the "when" and "why" they were marked this way...

One theory that has been offered is that they were made up of leftover Mauser made parts by the Krieghoff factory and used to deliver part of an order to the Luftwaffe late in the war...

At one time a letter from Heinrich Krieghoff to Harry Jones, author of the book: "Luger Variations," had been posted which dispelled this otherwise unsubstantiated theory... but the image of the letter was lost due to an incident in which a number of our archived photographs were lost sometime during the last year... I have recovered the image of this letter and have placed it permanently in the Member Gallery for those who wish to read it.

Since the letter was authored by Heinrich Krieghoff himself, I would say that it provides about all evidence that is known to exist about this questions... If anyone has or knows of any other documentation regarding the origin and use of K�¼ marked Lugers... Many Luger enthusiasts would love to see it. Please feel free to post it here on the forum where we can all benefit from the information.

My thanks to Mike Jones for providing the letter for permanent display here on the forum.

Click here to go to the Member Gallery album that displays the image of this letter.

http://gallery.rennlist.com/lugergallery/HKletterKu

[Lugerdoc]

John, Based on HK's letter of 1964, are we to ASSUME that Mauser made all of the KU PO8s? I suppose that that's possible, but why would Mauser be using KH E/2 inspected parts, that I've found on a couple of these, with matching KH placed serial numbers? Possible later KH repairs for the LW, I suppose. But because Mauser was getting out of PO8 production at this time, I feel that it is more logical, that KH or a third unknown assembler did this work. After all KH did have more than one facility going during WW2. I'd really like to hear from some of the German experts that may be listening in. Perhaps, there may already be some articles published in DWJ on this subject that I'm not aware of. Thanks, TH

[Frank]

John, Tom, I have seen several of these little beauties and all have had the Eagle-2 Acceptance Stamps. Could be possible that Mauser made them and Krieghoff did a final inspection. BYW, as I recall they were all byf 41.

[trigger643]

The few Ku's I've owned (Few, i.e. 4, which is hardly a difinitave sampling), all appeared Mauser makes and Tom and I had a good discussion on this during our visit in June. I had to agree with him that they were HK assembled guns using Mauser condemned parts. Wouldn't it be an interesting discovery, in light of this letter, to find this 3rd party that possibly assembled these weapons not only from Mauser rejected parts, but from HK rejected parts as well? If only Albert Speer were still alive, we could ask him...

[Lugerdoc]

Frank, See Gibson page 138 and you will find 1940 code 42 and 41 code 42s in addition to 41BYF KUs. Admittedly Mauser made parts, but in addition to the Final LW late E/2 acceptance marking, talking about early dwe/2 INSPECTOR'S marking on the interior of some parts. One example that I recorded was KU3365 that has a dwe/2 and #65 stamped on the inside of the side plate "leg". How about you present KU owners checking the inside of some of your parts for dwe/2 (KH made) parts. Some parts such as the safety lever, mag release, firing pin, etc. must be removed to see the proof. Thanks, TH

[Frank]

Tom, thanks for the info. I was aware there were KÃ?? varieties other than the byf 41, but the dwe/2 marking is new information for me.

[John Sabato]

Lugerdoc, in answer to your question above... I would have to say NO to your stated assumption because Herr Krieghoff is pretty emphatic about his statement that...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Never have we reworked u guns or assembled pitols (Sic) from Mauser-Made parts and never have we transferred Mauser-assembled Lugers to the Luftwaffeâ?¦ </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">While the known Ku guns may have been made with Mauser parts (rejected or otherwise), based on the Krieghoff letter, I am inclined to believe that they were assembled at Mauser... not the Krieghoff plant...

[Bernard]

I have always been intrigued by the Ku P08s.

The few I have had the opportunity to examine were all very well made and assembled and were the equal of a 42 or byf piece. The Ku ones never struck me as a bunch of rejected components put together by some (non-Luger) third party.

Just an observation. On the other hand, can I buy them cheaper if they are rejects?

[Navy]

All,
I addressed Herr Speer's comments to me about small arms production many months ago (Possibly old forum?). In any event, I am satisfied that these pistols were assembled by KZ inmates under SS contractor supervision. There appears to be no other logical explanation. FWIW, I have owned two P-08 holsters (Still have 1) that are maker marked to KZ saddlers.
Tom A.

[Bernard]

I love this!

How boring it would be if we all agreed on all points and there were no more unknowns!

Cheers. I hear a beer calling my name.

[Pete Ebbink]

In Robert Marvin's booklet of luger proofs on page 85, Mr. Marvin postulated that what appeared to be Krieghoff proofs on the Ku pistols were not exactly such and might have been a proof for another service (i.e. coastal flying service...).

Would anyone that does have a Ku take detailed, close-up photos of these proofs; so folks could see if they are real HK proofs or not...

Mr. Marvin speculated that Ku pistols were Mauser-made...he then states that HK may been invovled in the production of these Mauser-made guns...(but the Jone's letter would seem to settle that issue...).

So maybe Mauser made the Ku's for another service and used a "similar" proof to HK proofs...(?????).

Regards,

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

[Navy]

All,
The number of Ku marked pistols is so far out of proportion with the small number of personnel assigned to this very small and obscure arm of the German military as to make this theory almost comical.
Remember Occam's razor.
Tom A.

[Lugerdoc]

I think that Jim Keenan may have found the answer to who made the KU lugers. See my and his comments below in the section "What are these proofmarks?" TH

[Lugerdoc]

KU mystery solution? How about some feed back from the membership on my new theory, that the KUs were assembled by the LZA (Luftwaffe repair depots). Th

[Jim Keenan]

I am not going to go beyond saying that the HZA/LZA did rebuild small arms. They certainly would have had to have spare parts and it seems likely that those parts had already been inspected and approved, as parts, whether they were to go into production pistols or to be sent to the field for repair/rebuild.

I have not checked the chronology, but if a producer ceased production and had leftover parts (almost always the case - parts production outruns weapon production), those parts would surely not have been discarded. Some at least may well have gone to the depots or field units for use as spare parts.

If this helps or creates a new theory, fine, but I consider the Ku story to be still obscure.

Jim

[Lugerdoc]

Jim, Do you have a reference as to where the LZAs were located? Any in a city or region begining with Ku? Another possibility, since the "ku" appears as both a prefix and a suffix on the PO8 barrel extention, depending on the placement of the serial number on the barrel extention, is that "ku" could be a manufacter's code, like ac or byf on P38s. I know that on newly manufactured lugers this would normally appear on the mid toggle link, but these pistols were "manufactured" using previously marked Mauser spare parts, and rather than go to the trouble of remarking the toggle, just placing a manufacture's code on the receiver, could indicate who assembled them. Does anyone know of any other weapons showing a "ku" code, particularly for the Luftwaffe? TH

[Jim Keenan]

Hi, Lugerdoc,

Several months ago I made a list of the Heereszeugamt (HZA) locations I could find, but didn't try to track LZA's, which were apparently always co-located on Luftwaffe bases.

FWIW, the HZA's I have (certainly not a complete list) were Kassel, Vienna, Ingolstadt, Stettin, Dachau, Spandau, and Naumburg. (There is one other on my list, but I can't read my own writing.)

I can suggest going to Google, and entering "luftzeugamt" and "LZA" and see what comes up. "Heereszeugamt" gave me a lot of stuff, mostly about HZA property being released for development (same problems as here with surplus government property), but at least providing the town names and sometimes a map; there is also some info on what each of the depots did.

(The initials are seen in German with the "Z" both capitalized and in lower case, but the search engine doesn't care.)

Jim

[Jim Keenan]

I did do a quickie search and found several LZA's but none begin with Ku or would seem appropriate for use of Ku as an abbreviation. FWIW, I found Kolleda, Niedergorsdorf, Rotenburg/Wumme, Juterburg/Waldlager, Delitzch and Erding.

Jim

[nahpatronen]

Lugerdoc has said we should check the parts on our K�¼'s.
I have done this on 4119 K�¼ 41 byf
Take down lever inside: S/42
Side plate outside: a small 42
Left side of the receiver: a small 42
E/2 on barrel, receiver and the bolt too.
Are these small 42-markings normal on Mauser production ?
Nahpatronen

[Lugerdoc]

NP, The Mauser codes that you quote above, were only applied to spare parts, not seen on standard Mauser military production PO8s, unless they were later replacement parts. This supports my theory that the Ku's were assembled from Mauser & KH spare parts somewhere other than the Mauser factory. Thanks, Tom