A Learning Experience... - Page 3

ViggoG · 03-02-2003, 11:56 PM

Wes & Ron,
I would respectfully suggest that High precision mass production is not a Post WW-2 concept.
Nor is it a German or American doing, The Swiss have for many years prior to the First Borshardt Pistol, Manufactured Gears, Cams, Springs, and Precision Screws that were so small as to be almost lost to un aided visual inspection.
And there was no try and fit procedure.
There was a family home community business co-op process whereby one family made gears, another springs, another Watch Faces, another Jewel Bearing Assemblies and others assembled the various parts and calibrated the product.
No doubt The Fine German Gunsmith Machinests took heed of these production practices and were perfectly capable of many things that have been forgotten by all but those who still remain that have used the machinery of that era, and recognised that we cannot say that it was done this way or that way with any confidence.
What we must recognise is that the Head space had to be reamed and set and Extractor and loading ramp cuts were needed before the "locking up" of the "Barrel - Fork Assembly" was completed.
So at this late date, we can just guess how they accomplished this and the many other facets of the production process.
ViggoG

Big Norm · 03-03-2003, 03:29 AM

Very interesting discussion. I have always believed that the witness mark on the barrel and the frame were stamped with one blow. After reading all the intellectual comments, I just had to check the witness marks on my Krieghoffs and I found a little kicker. My 1936 and my P-code had a witness mark on the frame only (nothing on the barrel of either). My 1937 and my 1943 did not have witness marks at all. So mhy would there be a witness mark on the frame side only? If it makes a difference, the rejection star on my P-code is on the receiver.
Big Norm

Dwight Gruber · 03-03-2003, 05:11 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by wes:
Back to the salesman's pitch:
Before we believe stories of manufacture told by dealers to rationalize for the anomalies in the pistols they sell, we should ask for proof. If a man must have the pistol for sale or lose his firstborn, I am sure that purchase can be subject to documentation of the salesman's pitch.
All the above speculation is mere obfuscation.<hr /></blockquote>Wes,

A useful reminder and caution about the original topic. I'm not sure that 'obfuscation' isn't a little bit harsh, sometimes one needs to closely examine the trees in order to determine the nature of the forest.

Pursuant to that thought, I have started a specifically witness mark topic in the General Discussion forum.

--Dwight

John Sabato · 03-03-2003, 08:38 AM

We always depend on Wes to point out the Lugerforums obfuscation index when we exceed the quota for the Day!

Thanks for your vigilance Wes...

(Yeah! I know you hate those little smilies!)

regards,

-John S

Navy · 03-03-2003, 01:14 PM

A relevent point: I did NOT purchase the piece from Bob Simpson. I merely asked his opinion as a premiere Luger dealer and expert. No sales pitch as no sale was contemplated.

And, FWIW, I don't think we are any closer to identifying the purpose of the markings, be they "witness" or "Index" marks.

Tom A.

John Sabato · 03-03-2003, 02:21 PM

Just another input for what it's worth. 30+ years ago when I was a young soldier apprenticing to a master gunsmith (for FREE just to learn what he knew!) we used to place such index marks on new barrel installations (we never worked on a Luger barrel unfortunately) so that once a barrel was headspaced, if it ever became necessary to remove the barrel either for finishing or repairs, it would be a simple matter to restore the headspace without a guage by simply aligning the index (witness) marks...

we would make these marks in discreet locations and as small as possible so as not to detract from the owner's perception of the gun's value...

This methodology of course could have absolutely no relationship to why Lugers have these marks, but my inclination would be that it was for the same reasons.

wterrell · 03-03-2003, 07:49 PM

The position of the thread on the shaft (start thread), and the position of the thread in the receiver (start thread) is timed in relation to the shoulder of the barrel (with reference to the front sight mount) and the face of the receiver by means of a worm gear and half-nut, this operation most usually being performed on a lathe. Once this relationship is established (in relation to the relative length of the threading bar and the position of the threading tool for the barrel), mass production may begin, and there is no "hunt & peck" headspacing. It is not a hand operation or "try & fit". I agree with Viggo and apologize if I, previously, have not made myself understood on this matter.

The production of the Luger (if my reading recall is correct) was 1500 different operations. If the authors knew this, then they knew the sequence of operations, or they were giving a WAG.

If Mr. Simpson stated a sequence of operations, then he can easily give the reference.

Dwight,
I have never associated obfuscation with any harsh meaning. I was afraid that the original question was being lost, that we were clouding the issue with facts. Nothing more.

Dwight Gruber · 03-03-2003, 09:44 PM

Datig, in his revised/enlarged edition (p.305), relates information provided to him by August Weiss, the head of pistol production at Mauser/Oberndorf. He reports that in 1939 it required 642 machine operations (taking a total time of 78 minutes) and 136 hand operations (requiring 1 hr. 12 minutes), for a total of 778 different operations and 2 1/2 hours to produce a military Luger of normal specifications.

--Dwight

wterrell · 03-03-2003, 10:27 PM

Dwight,
This is not the most impeccable reference that can be had, but I believe that it is the one that glommed onto my mind:

The Luger Book, by Walter, 1991 edition, p.48
quote--
"At the end of March 1927, the Waffenamt had informed the Inspekteur der Infanterie, Waffenprufwesen, that 'about 1,180 operations were required in the manufacture of the Pistole 08, 156 of which were required on the grip alone'.............Datig records that 778 operations were required (642 machine, 136 hand), each gun taking 12 hours to make, but his criteria probably differed from those of the Waffenamt. Both claims agree that the P.08 was inordinately complicated."
-- end quote

ViggoG · 03-04-2003, 12:44 AM

Dwight & Wes,
I feel that each of the statements were most likely correct.
Much progress was made, between 1927 & 1939, in mass production techniques and many tooling operations were probably combined to simplify the number of tool changes and set ups.
The two of which probably consumed as much as 60% of the handeling and machining on each part.
Also this period saw the introduction of High Speed Tool Steel and the phasing out of the High Carbon Tool Steel at an increase of 300% in cutting speeds. Along with the introduction of Roller Bearing Equipped Machines. With Direct Gear Drive Replacing the overhead line shaft.
This latter allowed the more efficient placement of individual machines and mixing of types to create a more efficient production system.
Hence the drastic reduction in overall time of production per part.
I am grateful that I was entering into the machine tool industry at about this latter time and was given the opportunity to develope my skills on machines of each era greatly improving my skills on all types of machines.
I was also fortunate to have been in research and carried my assignment through the entire machining process using any and all types of machines over time. (In most shop environments the machinests were assigned to a single machine or type thereof becoming single machine oriented specialists).
I was one lucky guy all around.
Viggo

03-03-2003, 05:11 AM	#43
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,889 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,281 Times in 423 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by wes: <strong>Back to the salesman's pitch: Before we believe stories of manufacture told by dealers to rationalize for the anomalies in the pistols they sell, we should ask for proof. If a man must have the pistol for sale or lose his firstborn, I am sure that purchase can be subject to documentation of the salesman's pitch. All the above speculation is mere obfuscation.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Wes, A useful reminder and caution about the original topic. I'm not sure that 'obfuscation' isn't a little bit harsh, sometimes one needs to closely examine the trees in order to determine the nature of the forest. Pursuant to that thought, I have started a specifically witness mark topic in the General Discussion forum. --Dwight

03-03-2003, 08:38 AM	#44
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,150 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,096 Posts	We always depend on Wes to point out the Lugerforums obfuscation index when we exceed the quota for the Day! Thanks for your vigilance Wes... (Yeah! I know you hate those little smilies!) regards, -John S __________________ regards, -John S "...We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created EQUAL *and are endowed by their Creator* with certain UNALIENABLE* rights, and among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness..."*

03-03-2003, 02:21 PM	#46
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,150 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,096 Posts	Just another input for what it's worth. 30+ years ago when I was a young soldier apprenticing to a master gunsmith (for FREE just to learn what he knew!) we used to place such index marks on new barrel installations (we never worked on a Luger barrel unfortunately) so that once a barrel was headspaced, if it ever became necessary to remove the barrel either for finishing or repairs, it would be a simple matter to restore the headspace without a guage by simply aligning the index (witness) marks... we would make these marks in discreet locations and as small as possible so as not to detract from the owner's perception of the gun's value... This methodology of course could have absolutely no relationship to why Lugers have these marks, but my inclination would be that it was for the same reasons. __________________ regards, -John S "...We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created EQUAL *and are endowed by their Creator* with certain UNALIENABLE* rights, and among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness..."*

03-03-2003, 07:49 PM	#47
wterrell User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,096 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	The position of the thread on the shaft (start thread), and the position of the thread in the receiver (start thread) is timed in relation to the shoulder of the barrel (with reference to the front sight mount) and the face of the receiver by means of a worm gear and half-nut, this operation most usually being performed on a lathe. Once this relationship is established (in relation to the relative length of the threading bar and the position of the threading tool for the barrel), mass production may begin, and there is no "hunt & peck" headspacing. It is not a hand operation or "try & fit". I agree with Viggo and apologize if I, previously, have not made myself understood on this matter. The production of the Luger (if my reading recall is correct) was 1500 different operations. If the authors knew this, then they knew the sequence of operations, or they were giving a WAG. If Mr. Simpson stated a sequence of operations, then he can easily give the reference. Dwight, I have never associated obfuscation with any harsh meaning. I was afraid that the original question was being lost, that we were clouding the issue with facts. Nothing more. __________________ Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo, wes --------------------

03-03-2003, 10:27 PM	#49
wterrell User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,096 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Dwight, This is not the most impeccable reference that can be had, but I believe that it is the one that glommed onto my mind: The Luger Book, by Walter, 1991 edition, p.48 quote-- "At the end of March 1927, the Waffenamt had informed the Inspekteur der Infanterie, Waffenprufwesen, that 'about 1,180 operations were required in the manufacture of the Pistole 08, 156 of which were required on the grip alone'.............Datig records that 778 operations were required (642 machine, 136 hand), each gun taking 12 hours to make, but his criteria probably differed from those of the Waffenamt. Both claims agree that the P.08 was inordinately complicated." -- end quote __________________ Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo, wes --------------------

03-02-2003, 11:56 PM	#41
ViggoG RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: South Side Virginia Posts: 534 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Wes & Ron, I would respectfully suggest that High precision mass production is not a Post WW-2 concept. Nor is it a German or American doing, The Swiss have for many years prior to the First Borshardt Pistol, Manufactured Gears, Cams, Springs, and Precision Screws that were so small as to be almost lost to un aided visual inspection. And there was no try and fit procedure. There was a family home community business co-op process whereby one family made gears, another springs, another Watch Faces, another Jewel Bearing Assemblies and others assembled the various parts and calibrated the product. No doubt The Fine German Gunsmith Machinests took heed of these production practices and were perfectly capable of many things that have been forgotten by all but those who still remain that have used the machinery of that era, and recognised that we cannot say that it was done this way or that way with any confidence. What we must recognise is that the Head space had to be reamed and set and Extractor and loading ramp cuts were needed before the "locking up" of the "Barrel - Fork Assembly" was completed. So at this late date, we can just guess how they accomplished this and the many other facets of the production process. ViggoG

03-03-2003, 03:29 AM	#42
Big Norm RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,864 Thanks: 1 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	Very interesting discussion. I have always believed that the witness mark on the barrel and the frame were stamped with one blow. After reading all the intellectual comments, I just had to check the witness marks on my Krieghoffs and I found a little kicker. My 1936 and my P-code had a witness mark on the frame only (nothing on the barrel of either). My 1937 and my 1943 did not have witness marks at all. So mhy would there be a witness mark on the frame side only? If it makes a difference, the rejection star on my P-code is on the receiver. Big Norm

03-03-2003, 01:14 PM	#45
Navy RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Dc 'burbs in Virginia Posts: 2,482 Thanks: 0 Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts	A relevent point: I did NOT purchase the piece from Bob Simpson. I merely asked his opinion as a premiere Luger dealer and expert. No sales pitch as no sale was contemplated. And, FWIW, I don't think we are any closer to identifying the purpose of the markings, be they "witness" or "Index" marks. Tom A.

03-03-2003, 09:44 PM	#48
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,889 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,281 Times in 423 Posts	Datig, in his revised/enlarged edition (p.305), relates information provided to him by August Weiss, the head of pistol production at Mauser/Oberndorf. He reports that in 1939 it required 642 machine operations (taking a total time of 78 minutes) and 136 hand operations (requiring 1 hr. 12 minutes), for a total of 778 different operations and 2 1/2 hours to produce a military Luger of normal specifications. --Dwight

03-04-2003, 12:44 AM	#50
ViggoG RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: South Side Virginia Posts: 534 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Dwight & Wes, I feel that each of the statements were most likely correct. Much progress was made, between 1927 & 1939, in mass production techniques and many tooling operations were probably combined to simplify the number of tool changes and set ups. The two of which probably consumed as much as 60% of the handeling and machining on each part. Also this period saw the introduction of High Speed Tool Steel and the phasing out of the High Carbon Tool Steel at an increase of 300% in cutting speeds. Along with the introduction of Roller Bearing Equipped Machines. With Direct Gear Drive Replacing the overhead line shaft. This latter allowed the more efficient placement of individual machines and mixing of types to create a more efficient production system. Hence the drastic reduction in overall time of production per part. I am grateful that I was entering into the machine tool industry at about this latter time and was given the opportunity to develope my skills on machines of each era greatly improving my skills on all types of machines. I was also fortunate to have been in research and carried my assignment through the entire machining process using any and all types of machines over time. (In most shop environments the machinests were assigned to a single machine or type thereof becoming single machine oriented specialists). I was one lucky guy all around. Viggo