REWORKED LANDJÃ??GEREI LP08s

[Don M]

Some of you may have read earlier posts in which I discussed my conclusion that many Imperial-era P08s with Weimar-era Prussian police markings and/or sear and mag safeties had once been LP08s used by the Prussian Landjägerei from 1920 to 1929 (e.g., http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...t=14515&page=2) . It is contrary to conventional wisdom that a segment of the German police openly used LP08s but the May 1929 order from the Prussian Ministry of Interior for the arming of the Landjägerei with newly manufactured P08s is very clear in also directing that the LP08s then in use be returned to the Berlin Polizeischule für Technik und Verkehr (PTV). I believe they were returned as directed to the PTV in 1929, reworked as P08s, often refinished, and then re-issued to various Prussian police. This resolved two questions that had been nagging at me during the research for my forthcoming book, History Writ in Steel - German Police Markings 1900-1936:

1. What happened to the Landj�¤gerei LP08s that were replaced in 1929 by newly manufactured 29 DWM P08s? There may have been as many as almost 9,000 of them. To my knowledge, no one previously has postulated a reasonable answer to this question.
2. How to explain the existence of many dated Imperial-era police P08s that, if they are marked at all, apparently were not marked by the police before the issue of the 1932 marking order, Regulation 40a? If they were issued to the Schupo in the early 1920s, why werenâ??t they marked in accordance with the 1922 marking order? Some researchers have suggested that these were secretly stockpiled after WWI and later issued to the police.

A key conclusion I had reached in the process of formulating the above theory was that the Prussian Landj�¤gerei had not marked its pistols prior to about 1931-32 as directed by Regulation 40a. This explained the lack of any evidence of police markings from the 1920-29 period on these pistols and led to the realization that they had been in the possession of the Landj�¤gerei during that time.

I recently acquired a P08 that exemplifies many of the characteristics of these reworked and reissued LP08s. I present it here in hopes this will help to identify more of these pistols.

The pistol is a 1918-dated DWM, serial number 4849a, with Imperial-era acceptance stamps on the right side of the receiver and typical military-style numbering of parts. All small parts have matching serial numbers, including the rear toggle axle and the firing pin which does not have â??blow-byâ?� channels. There is a notch at the front of the receiver for an LP08 tangent sight. It has a Schiwy sear safety and is notched and drilled for a Walther magazine safety that has been removed.




The replacement barrel bears a PTV/E proof stamp as well as E/33 and E/45 acceptance stamps which I understand are associated with products manufactured by Simson & Sohn in Suhl. The barrel also has the numeral 4 stamped on the bottom as well as the bore gauge 883. (Oddly, there is no comma in this number.) I believe the 4 indicates the year of manufacture of the barrel by Simson (i.e., 1924) but this is speculation.



There are two matching aluminum-base magazines numbered 1 and 2. Both magazines have had earlier markings very professionally ground off and appear to have been stamped with the same dies. These probably were replacement magazines issued when the reworked pistol was issued.



The grip strap markings on this pistol are atypical of most such reworked LP08s in that there is a canceled earlier mark of the Schupo of Koblenz (S.Kz.E.85.) as well as a later mark in conformance with 1932 Regulation 40a (S.Kz.274.). Most of these pistols have either a single mark in accordance with Regulation 40a or possibly no mark at all. None has evidence of an earlier police marking that was ground off. The markings on my pistol are consistent with the history of the Schupo in Koblenz which was not formed until the withdrawal of French occupation forces on 30 June 1930. The first mark probably was applied in 1930 and then canceled in 1932 when new marking instructions were issued. This will be discussed in more detail in my forthcoming book.



In summary, the reworked Landj�¤gerei LP08s that I have seen have the following characteristics:

o DWM P08s with 1918 or earlier chamber dates, notched receivers and Imperial-era proofs and acceptance stamps.
o Replacement barrels with a PTV/E proof stamp. May have additional stamps indicating manufacture by Simson but the PTV apparently obtained barrels from various sources.
o Grip straps that show no evidence of having been marked by the police in the 1920-1929 time frame. Some bear Schupo or Landj�¤gerei markings conforming to the 1932 marking order, some have Gemeindepolizei markings and others may have no grip strap marking at all.

All of the examples I have identified are DWM P08s raising the question whether the Landj�¤gerei used any Erfurt LP08s. A very interesting 1914 Erfurt with the marking of the Landj�¤gerei of the Aurich district was recently posted on the LugerForum (http://forum.lugerforum.com/showthre...448#post150448 ). This pistol has the receiver notch for a tangent sight and */C and TP stamps on the right side of the receiver in addition to the Imperial-era stamps. The TP stamp was introduced in 1935 for the Berlin police armory which by then was known as the Technische Polizeischule. The */C was used up to this date. Together, they suggest the LP08/P08 rework occurred in 1935, after which the pistol was issued to the Landj�¤gerei of Aurich and marked before the termination of police marking in 1937. Whether or not this pistol had been used earlier by the Landj�¤gerei as an LP08 is open to speculation.

I invite anyone who has or knows of a Luger with the above characteristics to post the details, including photos, in this thread to aid in developing a more complete understanding of these pistols. While it is too late for the results to be recorded in my book, Dwight Gruber and Ed Tinker are writing a book on Police Lugers and should be able to use these data. To get things started, I am listing below the examples from my database. Since I was interested in the grip strap markings, I did not record any unmarked examples but I think I recall seeing reports of them. Note that two of the pistols have an earlier canceled marking. Both of these pistols were issued to Schupo in cities that had been occupied following WWI and did not receive P08s until about 1930. Their initial markings were applied between 1930 and 1932 and then canceled when the 1932 marking order was issued.

1915 DWM; sn 9945; sear safety; marked L.Kz. 1.; Receiver cut for LP08 tangent sight; barrel has E/6 & PTV/E stamps; Imperial-era mark 32.R.A.I.L.M.K.57. canceled

1917 DWM; sn 1894g; sear safety; marked T.72.; Barrel stamped PTV/E

1917 DWM; sn 4973h; sear safety; marked P.Sda.6.; Receiver cut for LP08 tangent sight; replacement barrel stamped E/RC, E/6, PTV/E

1917 DWM; sn 8538h; no sear safety; marked S.Ar.III.302.; Earlier mark ground off; receiver cut for tangent sight & barrel stamped E/6, E/6 & PTV/E

1917 DWM; sn 9270i; sear safety; marked S.Sch.I.967.; 1920 property stamp; mark canceled; receiver cut for LP08 tangent sight; PTV/E & E/6 on barrel

1917 DWM; sn 619k; sear safety; marked T.11.; Barrel stamped E/33 & PTV/E

1918 DWM; sn 1927a; sear safety; marked P.S.14.; PTV/E stamp on barrel

1918 DWM; sn 4849a; sear safety; marked S.Kz.E.85. (canceled) & S.Kz.274.; Receiver cut for LP08 tangent sight & barrel stamped E/33, E/45 & PTV/E

1918 DWM; sn 543b; sear safety; marked L.T. 16.; Receiver cut for LP08 tangent sight; barrel has E/RC, E/6 & PTV/E stamps

1918 DWM; sn 1179b; no sear safety; marked S.K�¶.I.O.5. (canceled) & S.K�¶.I.1423.; 1920 property stamp; receiver notched for LP08 tangent sight; barrel stamped PTV/E

1918 DWM; sn 15xxb; sear safety; marked L.Kz. 2.; Reported as having â??Simsonâ?� and PTV/E stamps on barrel

1918 DWM; sn 6509b; sear safety; marked L.T. 129.; Receiver cut for LP08 tangent sight; barrel has E/RC, E/6 & PTV/E stamps

1918 DWM; sn 1771e; sear safety; marked S.An.336.; Receiver cut for LP08 tangent sight; E/6, E/8 & PTV/E stamps on barrel

[Don M]

I thought I would dust this off and see if there are any contributers out there. I am somewhat surprised that no one on this forum knows of more of these.

[Edward Tinker]

Don, I will look tonight (if I remember) at what I have laying out (had an ATF inspection scheduled tomorrow, but it was cancelled). I have owned several of these, and seen several more.

I think what throws many folks off and myself included is that the receiver cut and imperial markings / date is not a guarantee that it was an artillery.


So, I have a tendacy to overlook these, I simply do not have the inclination of some collectors of looking really, really close at my lugers, a mental failure on my part I know.


Ed

[Ron Smith]

Don,
That's a excellent piece of work. Very well done.

Just wondering, what do you do for a hobby?

Ron

[Don M]

Originally Posted by Edward Tinker

I think what throws many folks off and myself included is that the receiver cut and imperial markings / date is not a guarantee that it was an artillery.

Ed,

I agree that the receiver cut and Imperial-era date & proofs do not necessarily define a former LP08, but if you add the features of the PTV stamp on the barrel and not having had a police marking on the grip strap prior to 1930, you have a strong case. I was hoping that you and Dwight would pursue this topic for your new book on police Lugers.

[Edward Tinker]

ahhh, more stress Don, I see


If I don't get maimed by my wife for ignoring her due to my gun hobby interests, I'll try to add more items to the book.

Maybe we will ask Don Maus for permission for the work he's done and add a sub-chapter, with a bit of Dwightism thrown in


Ed

[Don M]

Ron,

I used to write a book but am finished with that now. I can't afford to increase my gun collection in this economy. I guess I'll go fishing!

[Ron Wood]

I think what throws many folks off and myself included is that the receiver cut and imperial markings / date is not a guarantee that it was an artillery.

It is a DWM receiver...how could it have been anything other than an artillery?