A Learning Experience... - Page 2

Ron Wood · 02-28-2003, 09:49 PM

That's a logical approach and certainly feasible. But then why strike a witness mark on the barrel? By the method you suggest, the barrel and receiver alignment has already been accomplished by mechanical timing and the witness marks serve no purpose. I am having difficulty understanding why the methodical Germans would apply marks that have no use.

wterrell · 02-28-2003, 09:53 PM

Viggo gave the reason that witness marks are applied in industry. The practice is still used today in very many industries. It is for "witness" that the part, bolt, component, etc. has been moved or removed. It is also used as an aid for reassembly.

Ron Wood · 02-28-2003, 09:59 PM

Wes,
A healthy and worthy debate, so we will have to agree to disagree. Still friends?
Ron

wterrell · 02-28-2003, 10:05 PM

Amigo, compadre, chum, buddy, comrad, kimosabe, 朋友, frater, freund, & pal

Dwight Gruber · 03-01-2003, 12:39 AM

Ron and Wes,

A very interesting discussion which does not ease my mind. Applied to the clear speculations, Occam's Razor would seem to cut closer to the steel torsion memory idea.

The only concrete thing I have to offer at the moment is the witness mark on a 1900AE, to my eyes clearly and unequivocally struck with a single blow of a sharp tool after the barrel and receiver were assembled.

--Dwight

wterrell · 03-01-2003, 09:01 AM

If my understanding is correct, viewing a barrel and receiver oriented as per Dwight's pic, a retreating barrel would have the upper witness mark to the right of the receiver portion of the mark. I do not mean 1/64 of an inch, but rather 1/192 (.005) of an inch as an extreme to the eye. A greater mismatch than 1/128 would indicate removal and reassembly of the barrel to receiver by a skilled gunsmith.

Heinz · 03-01-2003, 09:45 AM

In interesting discussion. Thoughts that come to me are why is this mark hand struck? If it was meant to align two parts during assembly, that is to note the 180 degree opposition to the front sight, why not machine stamp the mark and get it close to perfect. Second, as a former production engineer the concept of removing the barrel to remachine the front sight base seems strange, This machining step could be easily accomplished either before the barrel was mounted or while the barrel was in the reciever. Removing it makes no sense.

Next, the mark serves a purpose to show that the original barrel is in place. The shifting that may appear due to torque and aging, if any, would be unlikely to appear to the naked eye. I have never seen a drift in original muzzle loading barrels of 150 plus years in age even though these are subject to loading torque. Likewise I have never seen crankshaft bolts shift on a small block Chevy when properly nstalled, a high stress high vibration environment.

The witness mark serves to witness that hte barrel has not been disturbed since final assembly. It would be interesting to know if checking this alignment was part of the proofing.

Based on what is known, the misaligned of the witness mark must be considered suspicious. I would ask Tom, how many Lugers with misaligned witness marks have you accepted as "righteous" before?

And, I am very much with Wes in asking if anyone has a documented Luger production flow chart? Also, how are the Weimar and Nazi reworks with known rebarrels witness marked??

just my opnion, if I had any facts I would have used them

Heinz

Dwight Gruber · 03-01-2003, 01:50 PM

Heinz,

The instructions for "Inspection and Acceptance of Pistols 08 and Parts Thereof (1913)" as translated in GÃ?Â¶rtz & Bryans "German Small Arms Markings" make no specific mention of witness marks. It does require inspections throughout the course of manufacture, including two separate magnifier examinations.

In "Factory Examination" it is specified that "all parts and pieces" be examined by "special weapons parts examiners". Only flawless pieces are passed on for further manufacturing or acceptance inspection.

I speculate that, during manufacture and inspection, mis-aligned witness marks would simply be understood as out-of-specification and rejected for further manufacture, likely without official comment.

--Dwight

Ron Wood · 03-01-2003, 03:25 PM

Following up on Heinz's assertion that perceptible shifting due to torque or aging is unlikely, doesn't it seem also unlikely that witness marks would become mis-aligned during manufacture, particularly if they are struck simultaneously after assembly of the barrel and receiver?

wterrell · 03-01-2003, 03:33 PM

The tool spans the seam and both marks are merely one mark created with one stroke.

Regards,
wes

Ron Wood · 03-01-2003, 03:42 PM

That's what I meant by "simultaneously". Sorry for the confusion. Now, how do they become mis-aligned during production?

ToggleTop · 03-01-2003, 08:20 PM

Hello,
Just another opinion.
It would make sense to me that the witness marks would only be applied after the barrel had been installed in the receiver. I could even accept that the mark on the receiver could be present at the time of the barrel installation and once the barrel was in the final mateing position, the witness mark would be struck.

Heinz · 03-01-2003, 08:20 PM

Ron, If we accept the premise that the mark was struck before the barrel was removed for machining the front sight, the mis-alignment would occur then. I think this highly unlikely because it just does not seem to make production sense. How would the sight be marked for vertical? By another mark on the top where the sight was to be machined? Why then witness mark the bottom until re-assembly? The witness marks on my two P08s do not appear to be well enough centered to serve as a mark for aligning the sight machining. They appear to be struck freehand.

ToggleTop · 03-01-2003, 08:30 PM

Hello,
Just as a matter of interest and this ain't no lie. I have a Mauser-Steyr luger barrel I obtained directly from the vet that brought it back. The barrel is proofed Eagle/623. It is in mint condtion. The barrel is blued and I assume ready for installation by an armourer. There is no witness mark on the barrel as it was intended as a replacement. I would assume it would have been witnessed at the time it was installed by the armourer. You know what happens when you assume something though!

Kind Regards,

Pete Ebbink · 03-01-2003, 08:41 PM

And then there is the fact that most of the contract HK lugers did not get barrel/receiver witness marks at all, until the later 1944 or 45 guns (per John D's earlier post in the HK section...).

Apparently the HK assembly folks had no need for such witness/index marks at all...(?)

Regards,

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

Ron Wood · 03-01-2003, 10:15 PM

Heinz,
If you re-read my original post, I stated "When the barrel is machined, the front sight block is broached from the forward barrel band and then a mark is struck on the rear flange exactly 180Ã?Âº from the vertical mid-line of the sight block (or exactly perpendicular to the horizontal plane of the sight block if you want to look at it that way)". I was trying to indicate that the mark was struck as a reference after the front site block was machined, not before.

MG · 03-02-2003, 02:05 AM

Hello All,
I was just thinking that maybe we are looking at this the wrong way. Suppose that the witness mark is not for the realignment of the barrel to
receiver but is a proof "manufacturing mark" to show that the barrel and receiver have passed a tolerance stage in production and can go to the next step before the gun is finished. (IE. head space,fitting, etc.) If the mark is for product control than I can see that the mark can be hand struck. (I still think is isÃ?Â*odd to hand mark).
If the witness mark is for removing the barrel for more work to be done, why not put the gun in a cradle and use a machine to make the mark as hand marking can make errors? It was said that blank barrels have no mark and that most of the contract HK lugers did not have the marks also.
Can it be the contract HK just did not do this to save time? or maybe they had new machines that made the adjustments and the step was dropped as a cost cutting procedure.(we do this all the time where I work).

I will admit that I know very little about gun manufacturing, but to mount the barrel,remove the barrel, finish out milling on barrel, remount barrel again would be cost prohibitive in a mass production firearm. In a custom made gun or special order this might not be to bad, but still very unproductive in manpower and time.

Just me thinking out loud...

wterrell · 03-02-2003, 11:14 AM

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.

JohnF · 03-02-2003, 12:24 PM

I have nothing to add to the above debate - truth be told, I'm not even sure of what a witness mark is - but I'm delighted to have followed this interesting discussion. I never thought that I'd see the word, "obfuscation" in use on the internet, let alone in this context. ;-)

Heinz · 03-02-2003, 07:11 PM

Ron, Thank you for correcting my error. And, if I understand correctly, you would then hold the opinion that the witness mark was struck after final installation?

02-28-2003, 09:49 PM	#21
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 6,986 Thanks: 1,065 Thanked 5,088 Times in 1,674 Posts	That's a logical approach and certainly feasible. But then why strike a witness mark on the barrel? By the method you suggest, the barrel and receiver alignment has already been accomplished by mechanical timing and the witness marks serve no purpose. I am having difficulty understanding why the methodical Germans would apply marks that have no use. __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

02-28-2003, 09:53 PM	#22
wterrell User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,096 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Viggo gave the reason that witness marks are applied in industry. The practice is still used today in very many industries. It is for "witness" that the part, bolt, component, etc. has been moved or removed. It is also used as an aid for reassembly. __________________ Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo, wes --------------------

02-28-2003, 09:59 PM	#23
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 6,986 Thanks: 1,065 Thanked 5,088 Times in 1,674 Posts	Wes, A healthy and worthy debate, so we will have to agree to disagree. Still friends? Ron __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

02-28-2003, 10:05 PM	#24
wterrell User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,096 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Amigo, compadre, chum, buddy, comrad, kimosabe, 朋友, frater, freund, & pal __________________ Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo, wes --------------------

03-01-2003, 09:01 AM	#26
wterrell User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,096 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	If my understanding is correct, viewing a barrel and receiver oriented as per Dwight's pic, a retreating barrel would have the upper witness mark to the right of the receiver portion of the mark. I do not mean 1/64 of an inch, but rather 1/192 (.005) of an inch as an extreme to the eye. A greater mismatch than 1/128 would indicate removal and reassembly of the barrel to receiver by a skilled gunsmith. __________________ Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo, wes --------------------

03-01-2003, 12:39 AM	#25
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,889 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,281 Times in 423 Posts	Ron and Wes, A very interesting discussion which does not ease my mind. Applied to the clear speculations, Occam's Razor would seem to cut closer to the steel torsion memory idea. The only concrete thing I have to offer at the moment is the witness mark on a 1900AE, to my eyes clearly and unequivocally struck with a single blow of a sharp tool after the barrel and receiver were assembled. --Dwight

03-01-2003, 09:45 AM	#27
Heinz User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Greenville SC Posts: 1,004 Thanks: 377 Thanked 410 Times in 180 Posts	In interesting discussion. Thoughts that come to me are why is this mark hand struck? If it was meant to align two parts during assembly, that is to note the 180 degree opposition to the front sight, why not machine stamp the mark and get it close to perfect. Second, as a former production engineer the concept of removing the barrel to remachine the front sight base seems strange, This machining step could be easily accomplished either before the barrel was mounted or while the barrel was in the reciever. Removing it makes no sense. Next, the mark serves a purpose to show that the original barrel is in place. The shifting that may appear due to torque and aging, if any, would be unlikely to appear to the naked eye. I have never seen a drift in original muzzle loading barrels of 150 plus years in age even though these are subject to loading torque. Likewise I have never seen crankshaft bolts shift on a small block Chevy when properly nstalled, a high stress high vibration environment. The witness mark serves to witness that hte barrel has not been disturbed since final assembly. It would be interesting to know if checking this alignment was part of the proofing. Based on what is known, the misaligned of the witness mark must be considered suspicious. I would ask Tom, how many Lugers with misaligned witness marks have you accepted as "righteous" before? And, I am very much with Wes in asking if anyone has a documented Luger production flow chart? Also, how are the Weimar and Nazi reworks with known rebarrels witness marked?? just my opnion, if I had any facts I would have used them Heinz

03-01-2003, 01:50 PM	#28
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,889 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,281 Times in 423 Posts	Heinz, The instructions for "Inspection and Acceptance of Pistols 08 and Parts Thereof (1913)" as translated in GÃ?Â¶rtz & Bryans "German Small Arms Markings" make no specific mention of witness marks. It does require inspections throughout the course of manufacture, including two separate magnifier examinations. In "Factory Examination" it is specified that "all parts and pieces" be examined by "special weapons parts examiners". Only flawless pieces are passed on for further manufacturing or acceptance inspection. I speculate that, during manufacture and inspection, mis-aligned witness marks would simply be understood as out-of-specification and rejected for further manufacture, likely without official comment. --Dwight

03-01-2003, 03:25 PM	#29
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 6,986 Thanks: 1,065 Thanked 5,088 Times in 1,674 Posts	Following up on Heinz's assertion that perceptible shifting due to torque or aging is unlikely, doesn't it seem also unlikely that witness marks would become mis-aligned during manufacture, particularly if they are struck simultaneously after assembly of the barrel and receiver? __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

03-01-2003, 03:33 PM	#30
wterrell User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,096 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	The tool spans the seam and both marks are merely one mark created with one stroke. Regards, wes __________________ Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo, wes --------------------

03-01-2003, 03:42 PM	#31
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 6,986 Thanks: 1,065 Thanked 5,088 Times in 1,674 Posts	That's what I meant by "simultaneously". Sorry for the confusion. Now, how do they become mis-aligned during production? __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

03-01-2003, 08:20 PM	#32
ToggleTop User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: TN Posts: 297 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Hello, Just another opinion. It would make sense to me that the witness marks would only be applied after the barrel had been installed in the receiver. I could even accept that the mark on the receiver could be present at the time of the barrel installation and once the barrel was in the final mateing position, the witness mark would be struck. __________________ *********************** ToggleTop************* JustHappenToLoveLugers *************************

03-01-2003, 08:30 PM	#34
ToggleTop User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: TN Posts: 297 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Hello, Just as a matter of interest and this ain't no lie. I have a Mauser-Steyr luger barrel I obtained directly from the vet that brought it back. The barrel is proofed Eagle/623. It is in mint condtion. The barrel is blued and I assume ready for installation by an armourer. There is no witness mark on the barrel as it was intended as a replacement. I would assume it would have been witnessed at the time it was installed by the armourer. You know what happens when you assume something though! Kind Regards, __________________ *********************** ToggleTop************* JustHappenToLoveLugers *************************

03-01-2003, 08:41 PM	#35
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	And then there is the fact that most of the contract HK lugers did not get barrel/receiver witness marks at all, until the later 1944 or 45 guns (per John D's earlier post in the HK section...). Apparently the HK assembly folks had no need for such witness/index marks at all...(?) Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

03-01-2003, 10:15 PM	#36
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 6,986 Thanks: 1,065 Thanked 5,088 Times in 1,674 Posts	Heinz, If you re-read my original post, I stated "When the barrel is machined, the front sight block is broached from the forward barrel band and then a mark is struck on the rear flange exactly 180Ã?Âº from the vertical mid-line of the sight block (or exactly perpendicular to the horizontal plane of the sight block if you want to look at it that way)". I was trying to indicate that the mark was struck as a reference after the front site block was machined, not before. __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

03-02-2003, 02:05 AM	#37
MG User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 93 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Hello All, I was just thinking that maybe we are looking at this the wrong way. Suppose that the witness mark is not for the realignment of the barrel to receiver but is a proof "manufacturing mark" to show that the barrel and receiver have passed a tolerance stage in production and can go to the next step before the gun is finished. (IE. head space,fitting, etc.) If the mark is for product control than I can see that the mark can be hand struck. (I still think is isÃ?Â*odd to hand mark). If the witness mark is for removing the barrel for more work to be done, why not put the gun in a cradle and use a machine to make the mark as hand marking can make errors? It was said that blank barrels have no mark and that most of the contract HK lugers did not have the marks also. Can it be the contract HK just did not do this to save time? or maybe they had new machines that made the adjustments and the step was dropped as a cost cutting procedure.(we do this all the time where I work). I will admit that I know very little about gun manufacturing, but to mount the barrel,remove the barrel, finish out milling on barrel, remount barrel again would be cost prohibitive in a mass production firearm. In a custom made gun or special order this might not be to bad, but still very unproductive in manpower and time. Just me thinking out loud... __________________ MG "Si vis pacem, para bellum" 'If you want peace,prepare for war'

03-02-2003, 11:14 AM	#38
wterrell User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,096 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	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. __________________ Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo, wes --------------------

03-02-2003, 12:24 PM	#39
JohnF User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: UK Posts: 167 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	I have nothing to add to the above debate - truth be told, I'm not even sure of what a witness mark is - but I'm delighted to have followed this interesting discussion. I never thought that I'd see the word, "obfuscation" in use on the internet, let alone in this context. ;-)

03-02-2003, 07:11 PM	#40
Heinz User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Greenville SC Posts: 1,004 Thanks: 377 Thanked 410 Times in 180 Posts	Ron, Thank you for correcting my error. And, if I understand correctly, you would then hold the opinion that the witness mark was struck after final installation?