1915 Luger Unit Marking

stoest · 10-01-2002, 12:34 PM

I have a 1915 DWM Luger that I believe was used by Germany in France. The unit marking is 2.M.G.K.R.J.R.65 with a small 6 following. Serial number is 168 a. Anyone have any ideas on the meaning? Appreciate any help.

Jan C Still · 10-01-2002, 12:51 PM

stoest · 10-01-2002, 01:01 PM

Thank you very much for the information.

Doubs · 10-01-2002, 04:12 PM

Jan, while I agree with your interpretation of the markings, aren't they well outside of the approved sequence? Wouldn't it be more correct if it read: "R.J.R.65.M.G.K.2.6."?

In past correspondence with Rheinhardt Kornmayer, he stated that Imperial markings often deviated from the regulations. It seems to me that the markings on this Luger are not IAW the regs. (I'm at work and don't have my books handy so I may be all wet but I don't think I am.)

Anyway, I'm just curious as to your thoughts on this.

Jan C Still · 10-01-2002, 05:23 PM

Jan C Still · 10-01-2002, 05:25 PM

Doubs · 10-01-2002, 07:29 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Jan C. Still:
<strong><Snip> The substitution of J.R. for R, and R.J.R. for R(script) is officially designated on dog tags, and may be the source of such incorrect designations on Lugers. Jan</strong><hr></blockquote>

Jan, thanks for the reply. I was aware of the script "R" but the dog tags information is something I'd not heard before. I wonder if the unit armorer was also the individual who stamped the individual dog tags? He would certainly have had the equipment for it. Confusing/combining the regulations could easily have happened. (It does all the time in today's military.) That is very interesting indeed.

10-01-2002, 12:34 PM	#1
stoest User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 6 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	1915 Luger Unit Marking I have a 1915 DWM Luger that I believe was used by Germany in France. The unit marking is 2.M.G.K.R.J.R.65 with a small 6 following. Serial number is 168 a. Anyone have any ideas on the meaning? Appreciate any help.

10-01-2002, 12:51 PM	#2
Jan C Still User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Box 240188, Douglas, Alaska, 99824 Posts: 463 Thanks: 0 Thanked 52 Times in 32 Posts

10-01-2002, 01:01 PM	#3
stoest User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 6 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Thank you very much for the information.

10-01-2002, 04:12 PM	#4
Doubs User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Byron, Georgia Posts: 1,670 Thanks: 769 Thanked 1,611 Times in 525 Posts	Jan, while I agree with your interpretation of the markings, aren't they well outside of the approved sequence? Wouldn't it be more correct if it read: "R.J.R.65.M.G.K.2.6."? In past correspondence with Rheinhardt Kornmayer, he stated that Imperial markings often deviated from the regulations. It seems to me that the markings on this Luger are not IAW the regs. (I'm at work and don't have my books handy so I may be all wet but I don't think I am.) Anyway, I'm just curious as to your thoughts on this.

10-01-2002, 05:23 PM	#5
Jan C Still User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Box 240188, Douglas, Alaska, 99824 Posts: 463 Thanks: 0 Thanked 52 Times in 32 Posts

10-01-2002, 05:25 PM	#6
Jan C Still User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Box 240188, Douglas, Alaska, 99824 Posts: 463 Thanks: 0 Thanked 52 Times in 32 Posts

10-01-2002, 07:29 PM	#7
Doubs User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Byron, Georgia Posts: 1,670 Thanks: 769 Thanked 1,611 Times in 525 Posts	[quote]Originally posted by Jan C. Still: <strong><Snip> The substitution of J.R. for R, and R.J.R. for R(script) is officially designated on dog tags, and may be the source of such incorrect designations on Lugers. Jan</strong><hr></blockquote> Jan, thanks for the reply. I was aware of the script "R" but the dog tags information is something I'd not heard before. I wonder if the unit armorer was also the individual who stamped the individual dog tags? He would certainly have had the equipment for it. Confusing/combining the regulations could easily have happened. (It does all the time in today's military.) That is very interesting indeed.