Top 10 K�¼ Theories

[Vlim]

Has anyone named their pets 'Luger' and 'Borchardt'? That's usually the first sign

[Strider]

Gerben, I do not know if anyone has named their pets Luger but I do know of someone who has a personalized lisence plate for his vehicle that says Luger. Would that count?

Sid.

[Thor]

"Aw Shucks! There goes the neighborhood!!"

[Vlim]

A fresh update,

I found a source in Hungary who is doing some local investigation. No luck so far, but to him the 'Foreign' translation of "K�¼" did make sense.

What also intrigues me is the appearant lack of normal letter-suffixes on "K�¼" lugers, opening up a theory about "K�¼" simply being a custom letter suffix.

This can also shed some light on the matter, as in 'K' for the month in which the guns were put together and �¼ for �¼berholt (reworked) to set them apart from normal serial numbers. But, this does not explain the luftwaffe markings....It would however put 'production' somewhere in late 1942.

I'm continuing to track down the ilusive mid-1942 delivery contract of German equipment to the Hungarians.

[Malcolm P.]

I have been reading up on Luger history and one thing I have not seen mentioned that might shed some light on the KU/Luftwaffe connection is the possible Stalingrad debacle. In late 1942, the Germans were feeding in combat aircrews on the Southern Russian front if very large numbers trying to keep the Germans trapped in Stalingard supplied. The transport aicrews included large numbers of instructors that I doubt had previously been issued Lugers or any other handguns. I would think it likely that the Luftwaffe was looking everywhere for Lugers to issue. Lugers could have been diverted from a Hungarian or other foreign sale to arm the Luftwaffe transport aircrews. Just a thought.

[trigger643]

How about this for a kink? At a gun show last weekend I saw a G3 sectionalized and reported to be a training device. Serial number? It started with K�¼ (haven't figured out how to apply the : over the u yet)

admin, neither do I, but I copied and pasted it for you

[Johnny C. Kitchens]

To get an Ã?? press Alt+0220
To get an �¼ press Alt+0252

Use the Alt key like a shift key and use the numeric keypad to enter the number. Do not press "+" key in the sequence. You must use the numeric keypad, so be sure it is on. This only works with Microsoft Windows...

[MauserLugers]

Have a byf 41, serial number 1693 ku, that supposedly came directly from the vet. Gun has a g-date barrel on it with w/154 and s/42 on it, with a sharp barrel band. Came in a 1940 dated holster and two matching magazines, both serial numbered to the gun, but interesting one has a black plastic base and one has an aluminum base. In my opinion this is a correct as issued rig. From the barrel and the magazines I would say these were assembled from leftover new parts. -- Bill

[G.T.]

Hi Bill! I have/had run into these black bottom numbered mags in days gone past...very rarely! Maybe one or two in the last twenty years... the number was perfectly pantographed into the plastic, and not stamped, no suffix or +.. was the alum. bottom mag numbered in the same fashion?? I'd be interested to know! Thanks, til...lat'r...GT

[MauserLugers]

Hi GT,
The plastic is pantographed and the aluminum is stamped. No + or suffix on either magazine. -- Bill

[G.T.]

Thanks Bill! Pretty darn interesting stuff! best to you, til....lat'r....GT

[Stevie]

How does the quality of the K�¼ Lugers compare to the later Mauser made guns?

Thanx, Stevie.

[Johnny C. Kitchens]

I see the font being used now doesn't support the proper looking character for the subject of the area the u with the two dots above it has become a b...

[MP38]

I've had this discussion before many time, and we had this discussion before on another forum this past year, and here is the conclusion that we came to that was supported by every known fact we could find. It's not concrete mind you, but it's definately strong asphalt!

These "Ku" lugers were assembled after 1942 with spare, left-over, and replacement parts taken from the closed Mauser production lines in late 1942.
The parts were then sent to a Luftwaffe ordance depot located at Kustrin. The guns were assembled there sometime between 1942-1944, and the only stamp they recieved was the Luftwaffe ordanance "zuegampt" (looks like a stylish "LZA") stamp on them.

The "Ku" stands for the ordanance depot at Kustrin where the weapons were assembled and completed.
Krieghoff had nothing to do with these lugers, and Mauser had nothing to do with them either, except for selling off thier leftover parts to the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe needed pistols and Krieghoff production was practically nothing! So this was thier solution.

Magazines for the "Ku" lugers will also have this same Luftwaffe "zuegampt" on the bases, and mags will be serialized to the gun.
I don't have any concrete info on the holsters for these, but would suspect that the holsters also will have the "LZA" zuegampt on them, and no other markings. I have one P38 holster that is like this, and have obsevered one other one known to me.

Matt

[John D.]

Hi Matt,

Certainly an interesting theory. Which Forum is this being discussed in, as I'd like to read the thread?

Also - a couple of points, comments, and perspectives.

As you mention - Krieghoff had nothing at all to do with the manufacturing of K�¼ Lugers (and was originally documented by Mr. Jones through verification from the post-war Krieghoff company), but I'm not certain it had anything to do with their production capability being "practically nothing". In fact, I'm quite certain that their production capability existed until the Russians took the tooling, machinery, etc. in September of 1945.

As well - "Luftwaffe "zuegampt"" is actually "Luftzuegampt" which loosely translates to "Luftwaffe Supply Center" (of which there were hundreds). I'm not certain there is any documentation for "LZA" as being directly tied to the meaning "LuftwaffeZuegAmpt" (Luftzuegampt) either in use or in practice, or on any Luftwaffe and Luger specific small-arms (with the exception of 1944 when â??lzaâ?� was issued as an ordinance code, but that is lower case â?? and rather then a Acceptance Stamp - and still wasn't used on small arms). In this case - "LZA" might tie into any of the hundreds of Luftwaffe Suppy Centers" (as commonly accepted with "K�¼" Lugers), and is not specific to one. However, it would be an interesting bit of research to undertake to establish the veracity of â??LZAâ?� on the "K�¼" variation and was it "Depot" specific. Further, I don't believe that the "K�¼" holsters will have the "LZA", regardless of any interpretation - but the K�¼ holsters may have either "K�¼" or an LWaA 2.

Also - Luftwaffe ordinance depot located at K�¼strin was, as I understand, a small supply unit, which until late 1944 the full complement was fewer then 20 persons who were responsible for the ammunition ordinance for the Luftwaffe Flak units inside the city. (In January of 1945 - just before the Russians took the small fortified city (February 11 encircled and took on March 5) - there is some debate whether that Luftwaffe depot was strengthened or re-assigned altogether). Anyway -- given the small number of personnel - I'm not certain how so few folks would have been able to assemble, fit, finish, serialize, proof, etc. what is estimated to be somewhere around 5,000 K�¼ Lugers. However - and by contrast - the main Artillery depot at Oder Island (Oderinsel) would have been large enough for such an undertaking; however, they were not attached, I believe, to the K�¼strin Flak/Ordinance Depot, and therefore may sever the connection to "K�¼".

Anyway - certainly an interesting discussion and perspective! Perhaps some of the other folks will comment further..!

John D.

[MP38]

John,

The Luftwaffe zuegampt has been seen on holsters already! I have one!
It is a P38 holster however, and not a Luger holster, but is still a Luftzuegampt!
Also the Luftzuegampt is found on other period firearms with Luftwaffe markings. I'll just use the K98 as an example, because these are most often encountered. The K98 with the "eagle/L" marking on the stock are Luftwaffe rifles correct? Some of these K98s with the "eagle/L" will have a "luftzuegampt" located on the reciever. This denotes that the rifle was re-worked, or repaired by a Luftwaffe ordanance depot.

As for the depot at Kustrin, I'm not sure where you got your information, but I would suggest re-checking it. The information I recieved from Hugh Brock, is that this depot was very large, with machinery and equiptment to overhaul many of the Luftwaffe rifles, pistols, machine guns, and cannons!

The thread was started at- www.wehrmacht-awards.com. It is an old thread under the firearms forum, and is titled, "By request: The Ku luger", and was started by me. I showed a Ku luger on that thread, and also showed the same marking found on my P38 holster, as well as Luftwaffe marked K98s.

As for the Krieghoff production. I said thier produciton was practically nothing, because total production of lugers from Krieghoff in 1942 was about 300! That's nothing! You can't tell me that 300 lugers is enough to meet the Luftwaffes' needs! Krieghoff could never produce enough lugers!

I don't mean to argue with you, as I've been through this topic too many times to count. I feel that my conclusion that we've come up with is 95% justified. I know it's not 100%, but we may never get it 100% correct.
Until I hear a better reason, that makes more sense, I will stick with it. If you analize it, it does actually make sense.

Matt

[John D.]

Hi Matt,

Ummm - I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I have some pragmatic points....

First - I've read that thread:
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...3&page=1&pp=15 previously and I stopped reading it when many folks appeared to be bent on trying to show that Krieghoff was in some way involved. To note, even your own thought process in that thread - the HK 1944 LWaA S/2 (and some P codes) has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on trying to show as the progression of the LZA. I could bore you with over 20 years of personal HK research and minutia - but trust me - there is no correlation. If you can prove there is a direct, repeatable correlation and historical documentation to the contrary â?? then you would be the first HK historian to ever bring that fact forward.

Second, as to holsters. Yes, I have seen your pictures. To this point specificially â?? No, I still have not seen a K�¼ P08 holster with the LZA and as I noted, and once again - I have only have seen verified K�¼ P08 holsters with either a "K�¼" or an LWaA 2.

Third - I note that many believe that Sam Costanzo's book is valuable. It is - however, absolutely wrong with the "K�¼" ("KRIEGHOFF UMBRICHT" sic) annotation and many of Mr. Costanzo's references to HK specific marks/proofs. I do believe I'm in a rather strong position to make that statement.

Fourth - I saw Mr. Brock's comments regards the "LZA" where he and I agree (see my comments above in my previous post) and he states"...The LZA or eagle with ZA inside was used at all Luftwaffe depots.. From our combined perspective - the LZA might have been done anywhere, and does not â?? in any way â?? get tied to K�¼strin specifically. For decades, both "K�¼" collectors and HK collectors have agreed that the LZA shows strong ties specifically to the Luftwaffe, so there is no â??new news thereâ?�, and that aspect has been well debated and discussed..

Fifth - I believe your last post in the thread on the other forum queries "Did the Luftwaffe have a Depot in Kustrin?.. Again, as I noted above - yes they did, but neither the complement nor the facilities could support the manufacture of 5000 Lugers (all conjecture notwithstanding). However, you stated that Mr. Brock said the "depot was very large, with machinery and equiptment to overhaul many of the Luftwaffe rifles, pistols, machine guns, and cannons!". First â?? I did not see Mr. Brockâ??s reply to your inquiry stating those expansive facilities. Second - therefore - shouldn't we see other "K�¼" marked "rifles, pistols, machine guns, and cannons". Unfortunately â?? the fact is - we don't. Not even as re-work marks on whatever they did at that facility. Isn't that somewhat contrary to the thesis of the K�¼strin facility and its size, if it was indeed as pervasive as Mr. Brock/yourself theorize? As we do not see the "K�¼" on other small arms, this discrepancy is difficult to make a leap of faith on - and again, reinforces the size/capability of K�¼strin depot actually within the city of K�¼strin.

Sixth - I'm also pretty certain I've been through this topic as many times as you (probably more times, if it mattered) - not that it makes a bit of difference without conclusive evidence.

Seventh - even after reading your thread and this thread (and threads on the old LugerForum for the past 5+ years) - we still don't have any more evidence then we did when these threads first started up...

In short - "wishing something to be true" doesn't "make it historical" fact. While a terrific exercise to explore all avenues of these K�¼ Lugers - and much needed - pragmatically - we are no further from a conclusive and definitive result then we have been for decades.

Therefore, I'd also challenge your assumption that in regards to these collective theories: "it's definately strong asphalt" - because frankly - there are still no road-signs on "this asphalt highway" written down for anyone to follow and further - I still feel there is no conclusive evidence or reseach other then conjecture.

In conclusion â?? I donâ??t want to throw out any idea or thought process on this variation, and you have obviously given this a lot of thought â?? but without historical proof, all we still have is arm-chair speculation with a heaping dose of â??this has to be right because we canâ??t think of anything else.!!.â?�â?¦

John D.

[MP38]

John,

I totally agree with you! Except for your first part. I never in no way tried to tie the "LZA" marking to Krieghoff at all! In fact, I did just the opposite! (please re-read thread again carefully!!!)I showed that it was not a Krieghoff marking, as many previous books have claimed!

Other than that, I agree with just about everything you said. We have no concrete proof, and probably never will. However, this theory is the only one I have heard that cannot be totally disproven either!

If you don't agree with the theory, then let's just agree to dis-agree and leave it at that.

BTW-you missed the email the Mr. Brock sent to me concerning the depot at Kustrin. That is why you did not see it in the thread. If you would like to contact him about it, by all means feel free to do so.
Matt

[Edward Tinker]

I read the entire Wehrmacht pages, and thought it very interesting.

I don't know if I agree with what y'all came up with, but it is plausible. I haven't heard a theory yet that I just love, but then I don't have a KU to hold my hopes high either!

Ed

[John D.]

Originally posted by Edward Tinker
.....I don't know if I agree with what y'all came up with, but it is plausible....

Well - not to be critical - but, no - it is not plausible.

If one were to do the primary research on the Luftwaffe operation bases and rework centers - one would quickly learn that that K�¼strin was not one. While one can argue the merits of the German logistics during WW2 - K�¼strin could not support a Luftwaffe facility the size/scope as proffered - certainly in theoretical terms to support even a small manufacture/rework of Lugers or any aramaments. In short - it had simply a small Luftwaffe garrison for ordinance support for several Flak units, which are documented. It did however support and became a base for SS and Wehrmacht during the war - reinforced in late 1944 and early 1945.

In fact - K�¼strin was a tiny fortified fortress city which sits on a peninsula with wetlands to the southeast and southwest at the intersection of two major rivers (Oder & Warthe). The primary access to the city was via the bridge system and railway - making a Luftwaffe major repair depot and rework center - umm - logistically nonsensical and ridiculous, as there were no Luftwaffe operational flight bases in K�¼strin at any point in time. Period. If someone has verifiable research that a major Luftwaffe installation was present in K�¼strin, many would appreciate reviewing that information, but to date and to my knowledge - none has been found.

Further - in the German archives (re: German State Archives: Dornburg - Deutsche Dienststelle - WASt/Berlin) and supported by the personal historical published accounts of the history of K�¼strin during the final days - the fact is THE ONLY MENTION of ANY LUFTWAFFE facilities - are when they feel outside of K�¼strin (Sonnenberg district) one week before K�¼strin was was finally conquered after it's 5 week seige by the Russians (February - March 1945). Perhaps I overlooked something on my research of Luftwaffe (Krieghoff) WW2 operations, and if I did - I'd be pleased to accept verified and historically accurate corrections. But frankly - K�¼strin, up until this theory, I've never come across as being "identified" as a major Luftwaffe installation through May 1945.

Again - not to be harsh - BUT, anyone that wants to promote a theory regarding K�¼ Lugers (or any "Luger Theory") is just terrific. But with that goes the caveat: at least do the primary research (No - NOT IN A USA BASED INTERNET FORUM) to see if that "theory" makes any logistical and historical sense. I mean real, factual, achiving searching, painstaking, money consuming, travel time, analytical, base-line, "roll your shirt sleeves up and dig" - research. Unfortunately - in this case - this has not happened and it has not even been started. In short - the only "link" to K�¼ lugers and "K�¼strin" appears to be a "Google" search for German towns beginning with "K�¼" before 1946 (it was changed post-war). If you want to do "Google research" - read this post again.

And no matter how hard we "wish it were true" - it just isn't. And not just in light of this reply. There are too many unanswered questions I posted in my previous replies - which are still open to primary research and analytical closure.

John D.