Which 1940 Krieghoff

[drbuster]

I recently acquired a 1940 dated HK, serial #11191. In Gibson's book, two "versions" of the 1940 are listed, on pages 172-73 and pages 174-75. The "commoner" version (estimated 1000 made)is in the serial range 10,000-11,000, the later "rarer" version, is in the serial range 11,000-12,000. The toggle marking is of the C2 type, the left arrow of the anchor touches the H. It has late LWaA1st proofs on the receiver. It has only the six pointed star on the right side of the frame, no numbers. It had an extruded type matching clip. No markings are in the forward or rear frame wells. Is this example from the earlier version of 1000 or the later version of 100. Any thoughts from the HK officiandos?

[John D.]

Hi Dr. Fisher (Herb )...!

I'm sorry - I ment to ask/post this yesterday.. Is the star on the frame - or the cannon? As well, does the right of the cannon have proofs - if so, what type? A picture would be just terrific, if you get the chance..!

Let me know, OK???

[drbuster]

John D., Thanks for responding. The star is 6 pointed, on the right side of the frame (page 101 of Gibson, second picture). By the cannon, I presume you mean the barrel--no proofs on the right side. Hope this helps, for a start.

[Dwight Gruber]

Doc,

What is the witness mark on this gun like?

--Dwight

[John D.]

Based on the serial number and the description - my guess is that it is the later, rarer type - but I can't be sure until you pull the locking bolt and take a look for some small diget stamps or I can see the versions of the proofs/digets and their placements. As well - do you know which version of the extractor you have? But.....

As well, as you probably know - there are actually 4 variations of the "1940" (yours would be in the #3 as I define that variation below). Gibson broadly defines "2" - but there are actually 4.
- 1) early through mid production using the previous (pre-40 military stampings and the LWaA Stage II and previous versions of S 1 stamps) (about 650 of the original "1000" in the larger production);
- 2) late main production in the serial block of 10,000-11,000, using the star you note
- 3) late production found in the 11,000 - 11,290 range (which also shares common aspects to the Series I P-Code commercial, as the early P-Codes were pulled from this range) and the later LWaA S1 marks you noted (if you are sure they are "late"!); and
- 4) late production in the serial range of 11,250+ (less then 12,000), which has a C3 toggle and more common proofs to the later HK production overall.

However - all that being said - I'd really like a photo of the right side - including rails and receiver, so I can take a look at the versions of the proofs (and maybe a shot of the toggle - so I can confirm for you it's a C2, rather then a C3 - also found in that range )..!

Also - I'll confirm these tonite and post back anything I find from Gibson (I wrote the above off the top of my head - and my books/notes are at home... I really should keep a copy of all that stuff here, too..!!!)

Best to you,

- John

[John D.]

</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 Dwight Gruber:
<strong>Doc,

What is the witness mark on this gun like?

--Dwight</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Which reminds me - I still need to compile my notes for you!!!

[drbuster]

Wow, John D., Thanks again for responding. Informing me of FOUR variations of the 1940 blew me away! I guess books are outdated before they are published. I have never posted photos on the forum before but I'm going to get my digital camera out and give it a go tomorrow, or certainly this weekend when I have more time.

[John D.]

I look forward to your pictures - take your time, and let me know if you have any difficulties posting them, OK?

Also - here are two thoughts for you.....

Books are not outdated. My hat is off to Costanzo, Gibson, Datig - and numerous others who "DARED" to author books based on their research and unique efforts. They are milestones - and give all of us a reference point we can all agree to - or choose to disagree. Are they always 100% complete? No. Are they always 100% accurate? No. But that does not diminish their individual efforts in the least. For that - I'm saddened that Sam, Randall and others will never publish an addendum or updates to their incredible undertakings, given the personal attacks they have taken. In short - they simply dared to make a difference - and they have. Will there be more books published? Certainly - each building upon further research and information. To that point.....

Ask any Luger collector what they "think they know", and they will be pleased to tell you. However - ask them to do the "research" THEMSELVES, and what aspects are UNIQUE based on THEIR individual efforts - and most are mute.

My point is - is that this Luger collecting "thing" still has many mysteries to unravel and many secrets to be discovered. To those who do the research THEMSELVES - rather then simply parrot previous collectors who dared to write a book or post a few times in the NAPCA newsletter and mimic those posts - rather, those who actually do the research themselves will be the successful collectors who have both insight and knowledge. They may never write a book or post to NAPCA, but that does not diminish their efforts or research one least bit.

In short - those who build on their own research from the foundations provided by Costanzo, Datig and in this case Mr. Gibson. Those will be the collectors of note "tomorrow".

Just my opinion.

[drbuster]

John D., extremely well said. I agree that these books are indeed benchmarks from which we learn, discuss, amplify. Criticisms should be constructive. I will post photos. If I have trouble I will e-mail them to you directly as attachments, if you are willing.

[drbuster]

John D., I've been studying this 1940 piece closer. The extractor is Type A. The receiver proofs are somewhat puzzling. If you open Gibson's book to page 94, the receiver proofs on my 1940 have the middle proof in the photo on the extreme left, the late LWaA1st II,late in the middle, and the small eagle/2 on the right, like the photo on page 94. Furthermore, the are no numbers or markings of any kind in the well, where Gibson's book says up to three small numbers are. The area is milled and blued consistant with the rest of the frame. What do you make of all this short of photos?

[Ron Wood]

John D.
I applaud your comments on the works of these early Luger writers. It chaps my hide a bit when modern writers take excessive delight in pointing out errors in these seminal publications. It is perfectly OK to set the record straight in light of more recent research, and my hat is off to anyone today who can accomplish that without belittling the work of pioneers. Costanzo, Datig, Jones, Kenyon and Gibson were turning out the best information available at a time when few people could spell Luger correctly. Sure there are errors, quite a few of them, but those errors are insignificant compared to the vast body of knowledge they did get right. As you pointed out, it gave us the foundation upon which to base scolarship today. You can see a lot farther when you are standing on someone else's sholders.

[John D.]

Hi Herb and Ron....

My thanks for your comments. Maybe, since we have this thing called the "Internet" and "instant communications", it influences the way "research" is conducted.? I'm still an old fashioned guy, I guess - and do my own research on subjects that interest me. I frankly applaud any author who commits their time, research and efforts to permanent books - as they are out there for all to see - well, *forever*. Take Datig, Gibson, Still, Costanzo, et al. - and it's a pretty short list given the past century of collecting - and compared to the number of collectors (tens of thousands or more?). But those authors and researchers have "let it all hang out" - and have earned a special place in the collecting world by virtue of what they have personally accomplished.

OK - off my soapbox..... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Doc - I believe you have a variation #3, as described above. Your comments would reinforce that, if I think you are referring to the photos in Gibson's book that I have in my mind (I'll check tonite when I get home).

For that, you would have one of the rarer types - of that later allotment that, as I recall, Mr. Gibson notes as "100". I think it may be slightly more then that 100 estimation, based on the observed serial numbers....

[drbuster]

Thanks again, John D. I await your further comments when you get home. I'm in the process of taking photos. I will probably have to post them directly to you via e-mail as I have a technical problem with my Forum connection that I haven't been able to clear up. My e-mail is: drbuster39@msn.com.

[John D.]

Hey Herb...!!!

Please post photos - as I did just check the Gibson reference... Yes, based on your posts and observations and serial number - I'm as convinced as I can be that you have the later production without photos... AND!!!!

Sorry for the delayed reply - but I got out of the office after 10 PM last evening, and... Well - you know <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Best to you!!!

[John D.]

Hi Doc...!

Could you also take a look at the witness marks for Dwight? I'm still compiling data for him, but your 1940 would add to his HK research.....

Thanks in advance!

John D.

[drbuster]

Thanks for your kind comments, John D. I will probably send pics in a few days to Pete Ebbink, who will post them for me while I still try to rectify my "technical difficulties". And please pardon my ignorance, but what are the witness marks that Dwight wants? Let me know and I'll let Dwight know. Dwight Gruber is a great Luger expert and very humble with his wealth of knowledge. I will do all I can to help him out.

[John D.]

I'll echo your comments about Dwight - read this thread about how I feel about folks that undertake their own research, and Mr. Gruber's efforts in this area are unparalleled.

OK - remove the receiver from the frame, and on the underside you may see the witness mark - which is a stamped "groove" that aligns the barrel with the receiver. Dwight's research can be read here:

http://www.lugerforum.com/WitnessMarkConclusions.htm

which John S. just updated on the site for all of us.

My Best to you Doc - always,

- John

[drbuster]

Oh THAT witness mark!!! After all that learned posting by Dwight on witness marks, I didn't associate it with my 1940. I was looking for something more esoteric. Well, I took off the receiver and the witness marks are there and are aligned perfectly. Hope this helps Dwight.

[Pete Ebbink]

Hello Doc,

When you get your photos taken, be sure an capture a good close-up for Dwight's on-going study. I will post your photos as soon as you send them to me...

Make sure you have a nice strong highball before you grap your camera...it helps steady the hand so close-ups stay in focus... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Regards,

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

[Edward Tinker]

and to add to Pete's 12 cents, , the magic I have seen is good lighting, lots of it.

So good lighting and a steady hand or better, a small tri-pod.

Oh, and good lighting.

Ed