G Date without Mauser Hump

Thor · 06-15-2004, 10:17 PM

Bill Munis once said, he never saw a G Date with a hump, or something to that effect. That got me looking at pictures of every G date I felt was an original weapon. Well, I got started on one today that was stored poorly with moderate pitting all over one side and barrel and light pitting other places. This one too has NO Mauser Hump. I personally like the heavier straight humpless frame but the hump does make them look Mauserish! I think Bill is right! <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

Doug G. · 06-15-2004, 11:17 PM

Ted, I checked both of my G dates and niether one has the Mauser hump. As a matter of fact I also looked at a 1936 & 1937 S/42, they are also humpless. I really don't understand that the K dates can have humps, but later year guns do not?

Thor · 06-15-2004, 11:34 PM

My K date is humpless and so is the one I am doing for Frank. I think the Ks were an off again, on again experiment with the procedure and they finally decided to put it in place in the 1937/1938 time frame. I never had understood why they milled all that metal off the extended frames, why not just leave them a bit thicker?
Oh well, that is history and it is interesting!
The other thing about the Ks is those set back front sights? Even those were not consistent.
There was a thread on the Jan Still forum that had pictures of several variations of front sight setback blocks. They must have done a bunch of playing around getting all the machinery up to speed in 1934! I have seen humps on some K dates that have come through my shop.

Dwight Gruber · 06-16-2004, 12:51 AM

Thor,

You made me check some old pictures, G date #4411 (which I no longer own) does not have a hump.

For that matter neither does my 1936 S/42, but my byf 41 and 42 both have it. Go figure.

--Dwight

Thor · 06-16-2004, 01:02 AM

This is a Subvariation 1 in the "d" block. 45xxd. Marked with Eagle over 211 and the S|92 acceptance stamps with the normal Army test proof.

06-15-2004, 10:17 PM	#1
Thor User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Rio Rancho, New Mexico Posts: 4,583 Thanks: 958 Thanked 970 Times in 276 Posts	G Date without Mauser Hump Bill Munis once said, he never saw a G Date with a hump, or something to that effect. That got me looking at pictures of every G date I felt was an original weapon. Well, I got started on one today that was stored poorly with moderate pitting all over one side and barrel and light pitting other places. This one too has NO Mauser Hump. I personally like the heavier straight humpless frame but the hump does make them look Mauserish! I think Bill is right! <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" /> __________________ Thor's Luger Clinic http://members.rennlist.com/lugerman/ Ted Green (Thor Yaller Boots) 725 Western Hills Dr SE, Rio Rancho, NM 87124 915-526-8925 Email thor340@aol.com ----------------------------------- John3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

06-15-2004, 11:17 PM	#2
Doug G. User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 713 Thanks: 1 Thanked 53 Times in 17 Posts	Ted, I checked both of my G dates and niether one has the Mauser hump. As a matter of fact I also looked at a 1936 & 1937 S/42, they are also humpless. I really don't understand that the K dates can have humps, but later year guns do not? __________________ Suppose you were an idiot.....and suppose you were a member of Congress.....But I repeat myself" ~~ Mark Twain

06-15-2004, 11:34 PM	#3
Thor User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Rio Rancho, New Mexico Posts: 4,583 Thanks: 958 Thanked 970 Times in 276 Posts	My K date is humpless and so is the one I am doing for Frank. I think the Ks were an off again, on again experiment with the procedure and they finally decided to put it in place in the 1937/1938 time frame. I never had understood why they milled all that metal off the extended frames, why not just leave them a bit thicker? Oh well, that is history and it is interesting! The other thing about the Ks is those set back front sights? Even those were not consistent. There was a thread on the Jan Still forum that had pictures of several variations of front sight setback blocks. They must have done a bunch of playing around getting all the machinery up to speed in 1934! I have seen humps on some K dates that have come through my shop. __________________ Thor's Luger Clinic http://members.rennlist.com/lugerman/ Ted Green (Thor Yaller Boots) 725 Western Hills Dr SE, Rio Rancho, NM 87124 915-526-8925 Email thor340@aol.com ----------------------------------- John3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

06-16-2004, 01:02 AM	#5
Thor User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Rio Rancho, New Mexico Posts: 4,583 Thanks: 958 Thanked 970 Times in 276 Posts	This is a Subvariation 1 in the "d" block. 45xxd. Marked with Eagle over 211 and the S\|92 acceptance stamps with the normal Army test proof. __________________ Thor's Luger Clinic http://members.rennlist.com/lugerman/ Ted Green (Thor Yaller Boots) 725 Western Hills Dr SE, Rio Rancho, NM 87124 915-526-8925 Email thor340@aol.com ----------------------------------- John3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

06-16-2004, 12:51 AM	#4
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,890 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,282 Times in 424 Posts	Thor, You made me check some old pictures, G date #4411 (which I no longer own) does not have a hump. For that matter neither does my 1936 S/42, but my byf 41 and 42 both have it. Go figure. --Dwight