Rear Connecting Pin

[bill m]

The reason that some DWM and Erfurt Lugers have a numbered rear connecting pin, is the fact that they were reworked after 1932, when an order stated that all rear connecting pins be numbered. This does not mean that they were in steady use up until 1932, but that they were reworked after 1932. Original issue Imperial Lugers did not have the rear connecting pin numbered, and none were numbered during the Imperial era, but later, after 1932. I mentioned this in my earlier post.


The above order is why you see almost all double dates and Weimar police guns with the rear connecting pins numbers -- because they were reworked after 1932. When the sear safety was added and the magazine safety, the rear pin was also numbered. Some did elude this marking in the Weimar era, so once in a great while you do see a Weimar reworked gun without a numbered pin.


All Mauser military Lugers have the rear pin numbered. If it is not numbered, then it is an indication that it has been changed or replaced. The same with the Mauser Police Lugers. I am not completely sure about the commercial Mausers as I do not have any of those.


Each manufacture has different standards and rules to go by, so each can be different. Krieghoff is different than DWM, and ect., so you have to deal with each seperately.

[Rick K]

Bill, do you have any comment about my 1916/1920 DWM that I talked about in the Rear "Conncecting" Pin - Again thread? It does have a numbered rear toggle pin. When do you think it might have been stamped? Rick K

[Johnny Peppers]

Rick,

Bear in mind that the 1920 is the Reichswehr property stamp and not the year that the pistol was reworked or really an indication that the pistol was ever reworked. 1920 just happened to be the year that the Reichswehr property stamp was initiated. I believe Jan Still has a picture of a G date with the 1920 Reichswehr property stamp. As bill m stated, the numbered pin would indicate that the pistol was reworked after 1932.

[bill m]

A 1916/1920 double date was originally a 1916 DWM. You did not mention if it was a police gun or not, but I'll presume that it is, (has a sear safety). Anyway, it was not originally issued with a numbered pin. The 1920 date is actually a property stamp showing this gun was the property of the Weimar military or police. The rear pin was not numbered at this time. The rear pin being numbered indicates that your gun was reworked in 1932 or after. That is all it indicates, that it was reworked for the Nazi military or police in 1932 or after. Most of these reworks were for the police and were fitted with a sear safety and a magazine safety. Once in a great while you find a Weimar gun without a numbered pin.

[Rick K]

Thanks Bill and Johnny. What do you think about the fact that it has 4 lazy crown N's on the right side of the gun?

[Kyrie]

Hi Bill,


Most interesting information - and most appreciated!


OTOH, over the years I've seen some exceptions to the rule that original issue Imperial Lugers did not have the rear connecting pin numbered. One exception that comes immediately to mind is a fully provenanced DWM Imperial, 1917 dated, four inch standard military Luger. This specific piece had been issued to career German officer during the Great War, and brought by him to this country when he immigrated here with his family in the early 1920's (1923 if memory serves). The pistol was traceable from that point in time by the specific mention in the last will and testaments of family members as the pistol passed down through generations. I was privileged to examine the pistol and copies of the wills, and this pistol had a numbered rear connecting pin.


As an aside the wills made very interesting reading in and of themselves, and provided windows into the souls of the individuals who executed them. When the original owner bequeathed it to his son, he wrote of his love for his son, his knowledge that his son valued the pistol as a link to the family's long history of military service, and noted that he (the father) had never fired the pistol and hoped his son would do likewise. Subsequent wills contained not only the same bequest, but the same wording regarding use.


At the time I had the privilege of examining the pistol its owner was a retired Colonel of the U. S. Marines, as the family tradition of military service continued.


I'm sorry - I'm getting off track here. Obviously contact with the people involved here has left a lasting impression on me [embarrassed smile]. The point I'd started out to make before my train of thought derailed is there do exist Imperial Lugers with original and numbered rear connecting pins.


Best regards,


Kyrie

[bill m]

Hi Kyrie,

That was very interesting, and I'm sure it came to you like that, but it just doesn't make any since to me. If I'm correct in my thinking here, all the commercial DWM's had a blank pin. This means all the 1900, 1908's, 1914'a, 1920's and 1923's. If all the Imperial DWM's and Erfurts militaries also had blank pins when they left the factory, as I think they did, that means your gun was either sent back for rework or repair at some time, and they numbered the pin to keep track of it, or it was replaced later, with a matching pin, in my opinion. I just do not believe that they ever numbered any pins originally for the Imperial Lugers, and my thoughts are that the pin was originally blank and replaced sometime, for what reason I couldn't guess. Those numbered connecting pins did not become an order until 1932, which is a fact and can be documented. Interesting, and I'm sure there is more to the story of that gun and its pin. Perhaps I am totally wrong on this and they did randomly number some, but it just doesn't seem logical or make since to me that they did. Why would DWM randomly do something different on an assembly line, and wait until 1917 to do it?

[bill m]

Forgot one bit of information. DWM, Simson, and Krieghoff were all reworking and repairing Lugers in the early 1920's if not before. We know that Simson was to do most of the repairs after 1922, and Krieghoff was doing repairs as early as 1921 because of the back frame marked Krieghoff's dated 1921. DWM was also doing repairs. It is very possible that Simson or Krieghoff repaired something on this 1917, like a spring or something, and put in a numbered rear connecting pin at that time. I feel fairly confident that is was not originally issued with the numbered pin in 1917.

Interesting topic and illustrates that some non-factory work and modifications are sometimes "correct". I have a 1917 DWM Police modified Luger with a matching numbered FLUTED firing pin. As most of you know, the fluted pins did not come about until the mid to late 1920's (I don't have any references handy and don't recall the exact date but it was around 1926). The firing pin in my 1917 appears to have been fluted from the original rather than a re-stamped replacement. I do know that the fluting work is slightly different than that found on the Mauser produced pistols. This type of work, IMO, fits into the category like the added hold-opens, relieved sear bars, numbered rear connector pins in so far as they were slight design up-grades that were incorporated on weapons still in service.

[Thor]

On one of Jan Still's closeups in either Weimar Lugers or Imperial (probably that one) he shows a really cool Eagle marking on the end of the rear pin. Thor

[Kyrie]

Hi Bill,


Let me start by saying I understand and respect your views on this subject, even though I don't necessarily agree with them


And a clarification - the pistol described is not mine. My association with was limited to a detailed examination in order to estimate its value for insurance purposes, and so far as I know it is still in the family of the original owner.


All that said, let's remember the pistol in question left Germany long before the 1932 order concerning numbering rear connector pins, and this order cannot be employed to explain the presence of a numbered pin in this specific Luger. Moreover, there is no indication the pistol left the possession of the original owner from the time he acquired it as issue. Certainly the pistol showed no signs of rework or repair that were visible to my eyes, and was complete with issue holster, spare magazine, and tool, and many of the man's original service documents. In short, there is no evidence that the pistol was anything other than as it came from the armory on the day it was issued.


Nor is this the only Great War Luger I've seen with a correctly (used in the sense of matching) numbered connector pin. I chose this one as an example because its provenance was fully known and documented, but there are other similar pistols.


I think there is actually another, and broader, issue lurking in here; the degree to which orders, regulations, and even laws were observed. Given the contrary nature of human beings, I have to say I do not find it surprising we have examples of orders, regulations, and even laws being ignored, disobeyed, or simply misinterpreted. Consider, as another example, the regulation concerning unit marking of equipment during part of the Great War. We have many examples that these regulations were followed precisely. But we also have many examples of these regulations being ignored - appropriately unit marked pistols being in the minority! Certainly here is a case of regulations being ignored. The 'G' date Luger with the '1920' property mark pictured in Still is yet another example (this time of regulation being incorrectly applied) - as the subterfuge of concealing new production intended for military use as a Weimar rework had long been abandoned by 1935. And then we have those few Lugers with a red nine burned into the grip panels - possibly due to confusion over the order that all "big Mauser pistols" (meaning Mauser C96's chambered for the 9x19 Luger) be so marked. I could go on for hours with these exceptions. It is my opinion we have far too many examples of regulations and orders not being followed to give credence to an assertion regulations were always obeyed, or even understood by everyone in the process.


I think that, while we desire there to be some decreed and universally obeyed set of regulations concerning the manufacture and marking of Lugers from the various periods, this desire is going to ultimately frustrated by the general perversity of Man. There will always be someone in the process who felt the rules did not apply to him, or simply didn't get the word, and went about things as he thought best rather than as required by regulation, decree, or even statute.


All just my $0.02 worth, offered entirely FWIW.


Best regards,


Kyrie

[Johnny Peppers]

Pages 29 and 30 of Still's "Imperial Lugers" shows the order for marking the P08. Someone had mentioned the fact that Erfurt and DWM markings were not consistent with each other, and this explains that Erfurt was actually in compliance and DWM, being a private contractor, was not. The rear connecting pin is noticeably absent from the order.

[bill m]

Hi Kyrie,

Lets look at this from a logical viewpoint. Lets say that a few Imperials were issued with a numbered pin, and the majority were blank. Explain this? What makes this 1917, and all the other ones special enough to change an assembly process? What makes them scattered throughout the entire Imperial production, and not in a close group-- I take it that the others you have observed were scattered? You have observed more of these, but I have not found anyone else who has seen one that was not a reworked for the Weimar or Nazi era. If this was a special production feature, why would they be scattered, as the 1913 and 1914's with and without the stock lug are in a relatively close group? You are actually going on "hear-say", that the gun was never messed with. We actually do not know what happened to it from 1917 through 1923, and for that matter after that, other than "hear-say". What makes this an exception to all the rules? Was it a two matching magazine rig?


There is a reason that the pin is numbered. I feel very confident that no Imperials were issued with a numbered pin, so how did this one end up here? Doesn't it seem odd that we are talking about a handful out of over a million Lugers?


You are talking about this Luger having a production requirement before it was a requirement -- which just isn't logical, and then only a randomly selected few. Your other examples were of orders carried out long after the orders were cancelled, which is very logical, as not everyone received them at the same time. This is just the opposite. Sorry Kyrie, but you have not swayed my opinion from someone changing this pin. Later -- bill m

[Kyrie]

Hi Bill,


That's OK, my friend, I'm not out to sway anyone's opinion - I'm just reporting my observations


Regarding whether this makes any sense or not, it really doesn't have to "make sense". The original factory records are lost and we quite truthfully don't what the factories did or did not do. Without that knowledge we have insufficient information to make any reasonable assessment or what "makes sense." We are simply speculating and having a good time doing so.


I'm sure you have been at this as long as I have, and are well aware that much of today's firm knowledge concerning Lugers may well be revealed in the years to come as nothing more than myths that made sense based on limited knowledge and leaps of faith. That's the way Luger collecting has gone for the last hundred years and is likely the way it will go for the next hundred years. It's the nature of the beast :-(


With all that said, I also have to say (with respect and absolutely no offense intended) that I think you are indulging in a bit of circular reasoning here. Specifically;


No Imperial Luger has a numbered pin.


If an Imperial Luger has a numbered pin, it has been messed with.


We know it's been messed with because we know no Imperial Luger has a numbered pin.


I examined the Luger in question, and all the associated documents carefully and in detail. I saw no indication it had been altered in any respect. You may accept that or not, as you please. It's not like there isn't room here for more than one opinion on the subject


Best regards,


Kyrie

[bill m]

Hi Kyrie,

I have to respectfully disagree with you on your statement that "it doesn't have to make sense". There is a reason for it, and it is not just a randomly found thing. You have to make sense out of this sort of thing, or you're going to accept anything and get taken by every faker out there.


Also, I have to respectfully disagree again with you on your statements, "we have insufficient information", and "based on limited knowledge", as we know there was over 1 million Imperials made, and through books, conversations, swapping information, recording information, we have a very good indication of what things are like. You have to have rules and guidelines to go by, and when something is different, you have to question it.


So how do you explain a couple out of a million Imperials having this? I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with it. Later -- bill m