HK 1936 On Auction...

[Pete Ebbink]

http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/Vie...?Item=10689832

...when you go to the detailed photos on the seller's web site, the photo of the magazine base does not seem right...IMHO...

There appears to be a "v" suffix (which I do not think HK used) but the number matches the gun. But the acceptance mark looks more like a Mauser proof...not the typical HK proof (which is usually upside-down in relation to the nubmers)...

Text Added on 7-27-03 : Type A-3 magazine did have the LWaA right-side up, under the serial number,...after reviewing my Gibson book, but I still think this one was a Mauser mag...the Eagle looks like an E/63 to me and not a LWaA.



It also appears that there has been some flat-spots on the aluminum bottom...from filing and re-numbering...(?)

The barrel is also import stamped...which is a shame...



What do others think...?

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

[Navy]

Pete,
Good catch. The mag has been doinked. Still a pretty HK tho.
Tom A.

[lugerholsterrepair]

Funny that the seller does not mention the import stamp in his description...Jerry Burney

[Pete Ebbink]

Interesting this outfit's home page is using photos of the .45 carbine luger...

http://www.phoenixinvestmentarms.com

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

[Ron Wood]

Ralph gave him permission to use the .45 Luger photo for his home page.

[Pete Ebbink]

Thanks for the update, Ron.

Looks like the luger de jour changes every day or so. Today, a Spandau is highlighted...

Nice place to visit and view some non-everyday lugers...

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

[Pete Ebbink]

Couple of other items that caught my attention :

The circumference of the round knob on the take-down lever is strongly beveled. I understand from the R. Gibson book (ref. page 40) that HK take-down lever knobs are usually cut at 90 degrees around the circumference with no bevel or chamfer...





Also, the bevel inside the hole of the toggle knob is slightly beveled, but I understood this should be much more deeply beveled on HK's...(refer to Gibson's book, page 38) maybe the photo just does not show enough detail...

The checkering grooves cut along the radiused circumference of the toggle knob are usually more radiused on HK's as well...



Here are two photos of the similar parts on my S-code HK...for comparison...





Would like to know what others think...?

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

[John D.]

Great eye - Pete..!!! Ummm - I've only spent a few minutes looking at the website of this piece - and you are missing a "biggie" (Hint - left side, look at the sideplate...??? You'll catch it as soon as you see it <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ) And the Importers stamp and mag folks already caught...

As well - try this.... Take your "S" code and "compare" the following - (it's kind'a fun - and if you get all the answers right - I have NO IDEA what you win ....

OK - ready????

- Trigger - note especially the bottom end of the trigger....;
- Take down - forget the bevels for a second (good catch, again) - can you compare the checkering pattern..?? Once that's done - look veryyy closely at the final "polish" pattern. You'll see and edge on yours, next to the knob, is my bet...
- You have the same LWaA2 markings on your "S" - can you compare yours and the one shown in the picture;
- "881" take close look at the "1", and tell me what you see;
- Top of the toggle ears - tell me what appears to be "right" - and what the "red flag" is.
- Extractor - hmmm - take a close look at the side-view in the pictures? Given how they were fit at the factorry - do you think this "1936"s is original or not....???
- Thumb saftey - look at the outline - count the grooves..? I'm open on this one, as the photos are tough given the angle;
- Traces of white in the "Gesichert"? - I mean any traces...??
- "Gesichert" - correct or not, given placement of the "G" and where the "t" intersects the "indent"?
- Machining marks on the frame (left side? Correct or not, given a "1936"...??
- Radius cut-out on the rear sight block - correct HK, or is it DWM..?

I'll take a closer look later.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[Edward Tinker]

Interesting posting Pete, and this guy that answered you, somebody named John D??? Not bad, maybe we should invite him to the forum?

We could teach him bout those LugArs and stuff

[John D.]

Sometimes - you are pretty funny !!!!

Actually - I'm on quite a bit - I just hide and lurk.. Since, I'm stil learning about these Loogars - I don't say too much (err - well - right too much - oh, maybe I mean "write" to much. Well - you know... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Seriously, it will be interesting to see Pete's thoughts are on the above list (and there are a few trick questions!! Don't tell Pete I said this - but he's one of the most avid collectors out there with a real thrist for learning... I'm pretty sure Ron would be as well - but NOW he only is interested in antique LugArs with grip safetys or something (what a shame - heh, heh... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ) and Tom A.? I dunno 'bout Tom - he's consumed by LogArs that went to sea or sumthing...?? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[Roadkill]

http://www.webfitz.com/lyrics/Lyrics/1961/141961.html

rk

[John D.]

Better watch out RK - you know I'll get even...

And - I feel like this every day

"Now they never reopened that worthless pit
They just placed a marble stand in front of it
These few words are written on that stand
At the bottom of this mine lies a hell of man, Big John
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)..."

Heh, heh.......... <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

[Big Norm]

I also see that on the right rail, to the front, just below the last of the three proof marks, there is NOT a proof mark on the gun for sale. The gun for sale also has a two digit number on the side plate. I see the Simpson champhered edges on the take down. I see the large numbering on the magazine. What am I missing?
Big Norm

[John D.]

Really good synopsis - keep going!!!!!.......

OK - I'm going to leave this unanswered for a while. However.....

For the person who posts what this HK most likely is, and â??whyâ?� - I have a Luger commercial wood bottom magazine (in not great shape, but it is original) - that I'll offer as a prize for the best analysis given the photographic evidence on the sellerâ??s website (itâ??s mostly "all there" (it's in the pictures/posts/hints on both the sellerâ??s site and this thread)).

OK â?? to win, you have to post your analysis of what you believe this HK is along with the reasons for your conclusions. Also, please include what you would ask the seller to do/inspect/look at, and why - to verify your analysis based on your empirical evidence?

I'll leave this contest open until Friday night of this week and announce the "winner" this weekend - just to give everyone a chance to participate.. Good luck!

[Pete Ebbink]

Hello John,

Thanks for setting up the "quiz" for us. I am certainly a novice and in no way an HK expert (only having one HK book by R. Gibson and only having held 5 HK pistols in my hands...), but here is my attempt to "pass" the quiz :

1. Side Plate Issue : For a gun numbered # 4685, its side plate should not be serialled with any external numbers. A pistol with # 4685 should follow the "late numbering style" per R. Gibson's book, page 103. The "early numbering style" (for guns up to around serial # 2500 or so), would have the last two digits on the external surface of the side plate and the first two numbers stamped internally, but not this # 4685. Its side plate should only have "85" stamped, internally.

But an exception in Gibson's book on page 163 does show a '36 HK (serial # 4080) with its side plate externally numbered...

2. Rear, Top Of Frame Ears Issue : The front, top of the left "ear" should have the frame ramp dimension its narrowest at this point to be typical HK machining. The frame ramp maintains the same dimensional thickness as the front and back portions of the "ear' were machined. This looks more like a DWM frame. But the "right" thing about the "ear" is how the frame is undercut and radius towards the front of the pistol along its back side as the "ear" meets the lanyard staple...if this frame is truly a DWM, was this metal sanded down to simulate HK characterists ?

But, I think this frame may really be a DWM frame...

3. End of Trigger Issue : This gun looks like its end of the trigger is thin and not as robust as an HK trigger' as shown in R. Gibson's book on page 40. But honestly, I never could clearly tell the difference in what Gibson was trying to show on page 40 with the variuos trigger makers...

4. "881" Number On Barrel Issue : I would have expected to have the "1" show a little horizontal base...as HK "1's" typically do. But then on page 91 of Gibson's book, is shown a very similar "1"...so I do not know...

But the font size of "881" as compared to the smaller font size of "4685" got me thinking. The photos in Gibson's book that show both barrel gauge and full serial number, appear to have both font sizes of the same size.

5. Big Norm's Observation : In high magnification it appears that the LWaA proof may really be missing on the right side frame rail, but it might be there in the holster wear at the front tip of the rail. If not there, the frame may not be HK and again might be DWM (see item # 2, above...).

6. Extractor Fit Issue : I totally agree with John D. I do not think HK would have let this mis-fit out of their factory. See photo enlargements :





7. Rear Sight Radius Cut : Again, I agree with John D. Per Gibosn's book on page 39, the rear toggle link and the rear sight radius cut looks more DWM than HK. HK pattern is a much wider "Japanese fan" shape.



8. HK Logo Issue : Per Gibson's book on page 82-83, this gun appears to have a Die Type C-1 which is consistent with a serial # 4685 gun. Conclusion: The front toggle link is authentically HK.



But the finish of the front toggle link (with its very typical HK polished, blackish finish) does not match the finish of the breechblock or the finish of the rear toggle link. Those two other parts do not look typically KH...See attached photo :



9. Left Frame Machining Marks Issue : I would not expect a 1936 HK to have such severe circular machining marks along the "ear" cut outs. The few HK's I have held and most in the Gibson book in this serial number range have their ear cut-outs very smooth and almost have a bead-blast finish. I think HK used ground-up walnut shells for their polishing/tumbling steps.

But Gibson on page 161 does show a S-code HK (serial # 3950) with very severe circular machining marks...but on the whole, I think an HK of this time frame should be highly polished.

10. Geisichert Issue : Per page 88 in Gibson's books, this pistol should have a Die Tye B; with the "G" partially underneath the safety lever, with the "G" more square-shaped, and with the "G" a bit bigger in size than the other letters. I do not think this frame stamping of Geisichert is HK, but rather DWM...



There are a few cases in Gibson's book on page 153 and 157 where the "T" does run into the indent, but this is not shown often...and since the "G" is equally sized, I would venture a bet the frame is DWM and not HK...

11. One photo on the seller's web site does hint that this frame may be of HK origin.



Where the bottom of the trigger guard transitions and becomes the front grip strap, typical HK has this transition in a very pointed shape. DWM is very half-rounded in shape. See page 32 of Gibson's book. The seller's photo hints at this but cannot be seen with certainty...

This is not to say that one cannot start with a DWM frame and sand/file this trigger guard-to-grip strap transition to end up with the pointed, coned look of an HK...

My Revised Conclusion : I think this luger started out as a DWM frame, had an HK front toggle added, had an original 1936 HK receiver fork, maybe had an HK barrel installed and then had "4685" added later, and had real HK Ritzmann grips installed.

But I would guess the "donor" gun was a DWM Imperial military gun for the frame (# 4685, ns) and then some HK parts were built up (i.e. an HK receiver and an HK front toggle link). Other small parts of this luger might also be true HK parts (not the rear toggle link, not the take down lever, and not the thumb safety lever), but since a close-up, detailed inspection of those parts and their hiddend surfaces would be required to determine this...

Sorry for being so wordy...

p.s.

If I were contemplating a purchase of this gun, I would ask the seller for lots of close-up, high resolution photos (to go along with my points above), I would ask the seller to sign an avidavit attesting to the claim of "all matching and original", insist the seller pays for shipping both ways if gun is not as advertised, and I would ask for a 7-day inspection period, so I could see this gun at home first and also have time to send it to John D. for his assessment... (how's that for major "sucking up", John...?)

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

[Big Norm]

Pete,
nice write-up. My 1937 has a later s.n. (#7617) and I don't have a two digit serial # on the side plate. I don't see a difference in the rabbit ears on the frame. The trigger seems to correspond in thickness to Gibsons pictures. I still have to look at the proof marks. The "881" on all my HK's do not have a base on the "1". The lack of whiting in "GESICHERT" is a problem but the "G" does appear to be the wrong size. There are 6 notches on the thumb safety on all of my Krieghoffs.

But you guys scared the dickens out of me on my 1943 (sn 11610) when you talked about the toggle knobs. They are totally different from the 1936-37.
Noticably flatter with a sharper edge between the top and the side. But then I looked at Jans books pg 279-80 and saw that that one has flat toggle knobs too. I'll sleep better tonight.
Big Norm

[Edward Tinker]

What Pete said, like ditto, and such,

Not much chance of me coming up wif anythung smart after hearing youse guys...

Ed

[drbuster]

Pete, if I get close to buying a Krieghoff, I'm going to have YOU sniff it over! It's kind of scary to imagine that not even the seller of this piece may be aware of these factual details. One must be so careful. Just peruse those photos of the "construction" of the Navy '04 on the Members Gallery.

[Big Norm]

Pete is doing a good job. From his picture on the members gallery, he looks like a young man and, quite possibly, the next generation star of Lugers. We need more young men like him.
Big Norm

[Pete Ebbink]

Guys,

Thanks for the nice words, but I may still be all wrong...we will have to wait until our expert, John D., ends this little contest...

I have been fortunate to be able to buy lots of books, study hard, and travel all over to gun shops, shows, and other collectors to "learn"...

As far as my age...I am not so young...I will be 49 this Sunday...get to dodge the 50 bullet for a bit longer...

Actually, I think the winner should be awarded a nice HK magazine...say in the # 2000's series...not a Commerical variety magazine...(hint, hint, John D...) <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />