Luger 1918

[Dwight Gruber]

Don's comments motivated me to go back to my source material and reassess the information. It became necessary to substantially revise my original post, which will be seen above. I apologise for any misunderstanding resulting from my original mis-information.

--Dwight

[DonVoigt]

Dwight,
one more point:
"If this was, indeed, a post-war assembly intended for a U.S. GI, it would assuredly not have any sort of German proofs as there was no government to proof them."

Why?
There was just as much "government" to cause the proofs to be applied to the pistol we see in the OP, whether for the domestic market or other sales. Black or grey market sales to GIs would have been "domestic" sales for all intents and purposes.

Perhaps use of proof and the proof stamp was so ingrained in the industry, that even in relative anarchy, assembled pistols continued to be proofed, and received the stamp- whether or not it was mandated by any government or authority(occupation) at the time?

[Nomadr]

Just a quick thought. And maybe a little out there. But towards the end of the war many arms were recycled and made up from spare parts and put back into service for the Volkssturm. I believe they were scrounging up any thing they could get their hands on.

Bob

[Dwight Gruber]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

...one more point:
"If this was, indeed, a post-war assembly intended for a U.S. GI, it would assuredly not have any sort of German proofs as there was no government to proof them."

Why?

There was just as much "government" to cause the proofs to be applied to the pistol we see in the OP, whether for the domestic market or other sales. Black or grey market sales to GIs would have been "domestic" sales for all intents and purposes.

Perhaps use of proof and the proof stamp was so ingrained in the industry, that even in relative anarchy, assembled pistols continued to be proofed, and received the stamp- whether or not it was mandated by any government or authority(occupation) at the time?

At the risk of beating this topic to death--it seems pretty clear to me.

Plans for the eventual surrender of Germany and its enforcement were conceived and drawn up over the signatures of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin during the Crimea Conference of the Allies in February of 1945. These plans included the establishment of an Allied Control Council and Coordinating Committee [for] Germany. This Committee was similar to the IMKK established after WWI, except that it would wield plenipotentiary control over the entire German government. This exemplifies the difference between armistice (WWI) and surrender (WWII).

A declaration on June 5, 1945, over the signatures of Generals Eisenhower, Zhukov, Montgomery, and de Lattre de Tassigny, declared the German government void and subject to Allied control and administration.

The Control Council and Coordinating Committee began operation at the end of August, 1945.

On January 7, 1946, the Committee published its Order Number 2, ordering the confiscation of arms and ammunition: “The term ‘arms and ammunition’ shall include: firearms of any kind, including sporting guns; ammunition of all types; explosive material; and side-arms of all types.” On Dec. 20, 1946, the Committee enacted Law Number 43, prohibiting the manufacture, import, export, and storage of War Materials. The minutely detailed listing of war materials included sporting weapons and ammunition for sporting weapons (it also included bayonets, swords, daggers, and lances).

Contravention of these edicts was a serious crime. The prescribed punishments were extremely severe, up to and including death.

The conclusion I draw from this is that the existence or operation of any civil proofing establishment after Gerrmany’s surrender was simply moot. Speculation about firearm trophys obtained by individual soldiers between the military capture of any given arms manufacturer and the implementing of the Committee’s edicts remains just that, absent the testimony of any individuals involved.

This has been an enlightening exercise. Facsimile reproduction of the collected Control Council proceedings is available via the Library of Congress website https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_...ents-home.html. It makes for interesting reading (well, at least I was interested…).

Regarding the pistol which started this whole conversation, I find Bob's suggestion of a Volkssturm connection very intriguing.

--Dwight

[DonVoigt]

Thanks Dwight,
I knew it was clear to you- just not to me.

Thanks for the additional well researched information.

My conclusion from the same information is that there was a short,
less than 6 months, period of time in which pistol construction could have continued in a grey market manner.

That is to say between the surrender and passage of this elucidating law in Jan. 1946.

I'm sorry you feel this is beating a dead horse, but it is not as
clear cut to me as it is to you.

One thing for sure, we will likely not learn with any certainty
when and by whom this pistol was created.

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by Dwight Gruber

This has been an enlightening exercise...I find Bob's suggestion of a Volkssturm connection very intriguing.

--Dwight

Quite fascinating, actually.

I was hoping Mauser 712 would chime in...

[John Sabato]

Discussions such as this are what makes this forum simply the finest gun discussion board on the Internet.

Gentlemen... thanks to each and every one of you for your contribution to an enlightening and educational discussion...

[Anatolij]

Yesterday I've tried their gun butts, I'm amazed went wide, gun very great, more ergonomic, wen Walter P38 are two very different guns. I am very happy with your purchase.
Thank you very much to everyone who wrote a story about weapons