Artillery Rear Sight

[Arizona Slim]

One of my Artillery Luger's had an incorrect rear sight so I purchased an NOS (New Old Stock) (not fine tune) sight from a reputable dealer and had it installed by a forum member who also confirmed that it was an NOS sight, but after having it installed I noticed that it does not fit down into the notch in the receiver, at it's lowest point there is a gap of almost 1.5mm, or about 1/16". The barrel extension is a 1914 with a 1920 property stamp. My question is "weren't all artillery's and both types of rear sights made to the same specs so that they would be interchangeable?" I know that a certain amount of hand fitting is necessary to get everything to fit together properly but this has me stumped, anyone have any ideas?

[DavidJayUden]

Photos and a description of just why/where it is binding would help. But, yes, in a perfect world they should interchange.
dju

[Arizona Slim]

Photos and a description of just why/where it is binding would help. But, yes, in a perfect world they should interchange.
dju

Thanks for the reply David but to say that my computer skills are lacking would be giving me more credit then I deserve, however I am working on them. . So if I can figure out how to post pictures I certainly will. Also, the sight bar will slide forward and back with no problem so I don't think it is binding anywhere.

[Norme]

Hi Lonnie, I'm not sure I understand what your issue is. There is supposed to be a small clearance (see photo). Regards, Norm

[Arizona Slim]

[

Hi Norm, the rear sight on my other artillery's fits the same as yours, with a slight elevation, but on this one it is about three times as high. Probably of no consequence but I would like to correct this if possible. I might add that I know just enough about working on Luger's as to be dangerous.. I can replace many parts but I can also just as easily screw something up. Thanks.

[Norme]

Hi Jerry, If this Artillery is really a DWM 1914 (quite rare, by the way), it's possible that the ramp profile, and slide, differ from later models. I don't know if anyone has done a study of this, I've looked at the front sight, and that is different from later guns. Regards, Norm

[George Anderson]

If the pistol is an Erfurt, it is likely that a DWM sight might not fit. Also post war "NOS" might not fit.

[Arizona Slim]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Norm, I won this pistol at auction in Feb. 1964 and paid $56., at that time Luger's weren't as sought after as they are today and being the dummy I am I had it re blued (professionally) and took it out and shot about six rounds through it without having it checked first. To make a long story short the receiver developed a cracked and it sat in my safe for the next 40 years until I decided to see if I could find another barrel extension, which I did, a 1914/1920 Erfurt. The Pistol itself was a matching numbers 1917 DWM, except for the rear sight.

[Arizona Slim]

If the pistol is an Erfurt, it is likely that a DWM sight might not fit. Also post war "NOS" might not fit.

Hi Jerry, there may be something to what you say about the post war NOS sight, although the barrel extension is definitely and Erfurt according to Benders "World of Luger's" page 289, Receiver Proofs #71, the barrel is the original DWM barrel. Thanks for your suggestion.

[mastermo]

Hi,
The small clearance or gap I believe could be for allowance for fine tuning. And the non-adjustable is just that where it is the closest to zero.
On my Arty my adjustment at 25 yds. is at the lowest line-up mark. But for other distances the middle line works better. I could be wrong but it sure looks like that to me,
M

[Arizona Slim]

(The small clearance or gap I believe could be for allowance for fine tuning. And the non-adjustable is just that where it is the closest to zero)

Thanks Manuel, that is a possibility I didn't think about.

Lon

[mastermo]

You're welcome,