Mauser 42 Kriegsmarine Marked Luger - Page 2

Frank · 01-12-2003, 01:13 PM

John, Yup, it's a "Z"!! There is absolutely no doubt. One gets use to looking at these little devils and it gets easier!! Trust me. The only ones that are tough for me are the "g" and "q".

Your magazine should be an SE/655 acceptance mark!

The original issue magazine should have been stamped with the serial number and a "Z", an SE/655 and a N3894. Without the N3894 stamp, the magazine would only be an approximation!!

Hope you get Lucky!!

RockinWR · 01-12-2003, 01:14 PM

John F.
* Yep. "z" block which fits & adds to the data.
* A little trivia: </font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">(1) 1939, "42" code, #5080z is listed as Kriegsmarine #N3960 bearing sE/63, sE/63, sE/S. Came w/two, Type 2(folded S/Mtl, blue, Al. base) mags bearing sE/63.
(2) 1939, "42" code, #5421z is listed as a standard Army bearing sE/655, sE/655, sE/S. Came w/ two, Type 2(folded S/Mtl, blue, Al. base) mags bearing sE/655.
(3) 1940, "42" code, #5714z is listed as a standard Army bearing sE/655, sE/655, sE/S. Came w/two, matching, Type 2(folded S/Mtl, blue, Al. base) mags bearing sE/655.
(4) Also, have record of Type 2 mag. only, S/N 3121z bearing KMI #N3849 and sE/655 acceptance.
(5) Finally, have record of Type 2 mag. only, S/N 5074z bearing KMI #N3968 and sE/655.</font></li>

<font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">* Looks like your S/N 5666z bearing KMI #N3894 fit right into the pattern. As you probably know, the KMI #'s were not sequential to the S/N of the article to which they were applied.
* Please note this example was one of the last code "42"'s made in 1939. Late December, I'd guess, if it progressed normally during its build. Jan Still's, in his book Third Reich Lugers", estimates 8250z to be the end of the 1939-42's. This piece would be contemporary with the transition period to 1940-42 marked P.08's.
* Looks like the proper matching mag was a Type 2, sE/655 accepted mag with KMI markings as well.
Enjoy, <img border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" title="" src="graemlins/bigok.gif" />
Bob

Hugh · 01-12-2003, 06:46 PM

Here is the picture of the three sizes of SE 63 acceptance stamps on mag bottoms. <img border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" title="" src="graemlins/bigok.gif" />

Frank · 01-12-2003, 11:18 PM

Tanks Hugh!! A pitcher is wurth a hunnert wurds!! <img border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" title="" src="graemlins/bigok.gif" />

JohnF · 01-13-2003, 09:02 AM

Many thanks Hugh. That makes things much clearer.

Edward Tinker · 01-13-2003, 12:16 PM

That was great Hugh, I copied your picture and plan on using it in the FAQ.

Any other like items that are easy for some of you whiz bang guys to show us?

Frank · 01-13-2003, 01:34 PM

Ed, the small "63" is suitable for late 1936, 1937 and some 1938 and some 1939 S/42 Lugers. The medium and large "63" is proper for 1939 Code 42 Lugers, probably up to about the mid W-Block.

The SE/83 is proper for the rest of the 1938 and 1939 S/42 Lugers, but I am unsure exactly where the cross overs are!

Silvereagle29 · 01-29-2003, 11:19 PM

According to the people in Germany the 1939-42 K-Marine Lugers were assembled in the
y and z blocks with just a very few in the - r - and later suffix blocks. Your serial number and property number fit in the area of the other - z - block K-Marine pistols. I would think a SE-655 magazine would be correct. One thought on searching for acceptance marks on 1939-42 pistols might be this. If the pistol is prior to the mid - w - block, chances are its a SE-63 SE-63 with a larger than normal 63's under the stick eagle's. 1939-42 Lugers had a neat acceptance mark transition. Early - w - block pistols were SE-63 SE-63 (large 63's) Mid - w - was SE-63 SE-655 and late - w - was SE-655 SE-655. After the - w - block the SE-655 seemed to be normal for the pistol But, not all inclusive as far as magazine acceptance is concerned. Do you plan to keep this Navy Luger. I agree with the collector who said the fxo magazines came much later than your pistol, the rolled tin blue body with a SE-655 acceptance mark would be more correct. Just for the thought. There are no recorded 122 code magazines reported before the ns block of the 1940-42 pistols.
Don

01-12-2003, 01:14 PM	#22
RockinWR User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: D/FW, Tx Posts: 278 Thanks: 109 Thanked 30 Times in 15 Posts	John F. * Yep. "z" block which fits & adds to the data. * A little trivia: </font> <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">(1) 1939, "42" code, #5080z is listed as Kriegsmarine #N3960 bearing sE/63, sE/63, sE/S. Came w/two, Type 2(folded S/Mtl, blue, Al. base) mags bearing sE/63. (2) 1939, "42" code, #5421z is listed as a standard Army bearing sE/655, sE/655, sE/S. Came w/ two, Type 2(folded S/Mtl, blue, Al. base) mags bearing sE/655. (3) 1940, "42" code, #5714z is listed as a standard Army bearing sE/655, sE/655, sE/S. Came w/two, matching, Type 2(folded S/Mtl, blue, Al. base) mags bearing sE/655. (4) Also, have record of Type 2 mag. only, S/N 3121z bearing KMI #N3849 and sE/655 acceptance. (5) Finally, have record of Type 2 mag. only, S/N 5074z bearing KMI #N3968 and sE/655.</font></li> <font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">* Looks like your S/N 5666z bearing KMI #N3894 fit right into the pattern. As you probably know, the KMI #'s were not sequential to the S/N of the article to which they were applied. * Please note this example was one of the last code "42"'s made in 1939. Late December, I'd guess, if it progressed normally during its build. Jan Still's, in his book Third Reich Lugers", estimates 8250z to be the end of the 1939-42's. This piece would be contemporary with the transition period to 1940-42 marked P.08's. * Looks like the proper matching mag was a Type 2, sE/655 accepted mag with KMI markings as well. Enjoy, <img border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" title="" src="graemlins/bigok.gif" /> Bob

01-12-2003, 06:46 PM	#23
Hugh RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Southeast Texas Swamp Posts: 2,460 Thanks: 2 Thanked 165 Times in 64 Posts	Here is the picture of the three sizes of SE 63 acceptance stamps on mag bottoms. <img border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" title="" src="graemlins/bigok.gif" /> __________________ *TRUMP FOR PREZ IN '20!*

01-13-2003, 12:16 PM	#26
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,912 Thanks: 1,989 Thanked 4,502 Times in 2,077 Posts	That was great Hugh, I copied your picture and plan on using it in the FAQ. Any other like items that are easy for some of you whiz bang guys to show us? __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV

01-12-2003, 01:13 PM	#21
Frank RIP Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hot & Dry PHX, AZ Posts: 2,078 Thanks: 24 Thanked 163 Times in 87 Posts	John, Yup, it's a "Z"!! There is absolutely no doubt. One gets use to looking at these little devils and it gets easier!! Trust me. The only ones that are tough for me are the "g" and "q". Your magazine should be an SE/655 acceptance mark! The original issue magazine should have been stamped with the serial number and a "Z", an SE/655 and a N3894. Without the N3894 stamp, the magazine would only be an approximation!! Hope you get Lucky!!

01-12-2003, 11:18 PM	#24
Frank RIP Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hot & Dry PHX, AZ Posts: 2,078 Thanks: 24 Thanked 163 Times in 87 Posts	Tanks Hugh!! A pitcher is wurth a hunnert wurds!! <img border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" title="" src="graemlins/bigok.gif" />

01-13-2003, 09:02 AM	#25
JohnF User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: UK Posts: 167 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Many thanks Hugh. That makes things much clearer.

01-13-2003, 01:34 PM	#27
Frank RIP Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hot & Dry PHX, AZ Posts: 2,078 Thanks: 24 Thanked 163 Times in 87 Posts	Ed, the small "63" is suitable for late 1936, 1937 and some 1938 and some 1939 S/42 Lugers. The medium and large "63" is proper for 1939 Code 42 Lugers, probably up to about the mid W-Block. The SE/83 is proper for the rest of the 1938 and 1939 S/42 Lugers, but I am unsure exactly where the cross overs are!

01-29-2003, 11:19 PM	#28
Silvereagle29 User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Washington State Posts: 105 Thanks: 0 Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts	According to the people in Germany the 1939-42 K-Marine Lugers were assembled in the y and z blocks with just a very few in the - r - and later suffix blocks. Your serial number and property number fit in the area of the other - z - block K-Marine pistols. I would think a SE-655 magazine would be correct. One thought on searching for acceptance marks on 1939-42 pistols might be this. If the pistol is prior to the mid - w - block, chances are its a SE-63 SE-63 with a larger than normal 63's under the stick eagle's. 1939-42 Lugers had a neat acceptance mark transition. Early - w - block pistols were SE-63 SE-63 (large 63's) Mid - w - was SE-63 SE-655 and late - w - was SE-655 SE-655. After the - w - block the SE-655 seemed to be normal for the pistol But, not all inclusive as far as magazine acceptance is concerned. Do you plan to keep this Navy Luger. I agree with the collector who said the fxo magazines came much later than your pistol, the rolled tin blue body with a SE-655 acceptance mark would be more correct. Just for the thought. There are no recorded 122 code magazines reported before the ns block of the 1940-42 pistols. Don