1917 DWM Arty question - Page 2

George Anderson · 12-16-2012, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wayne8661

Inside the sight it has a 652 on the site frame it says 65

652 is on the sight base. You need to be looking forward of there into the void at the top of the barrel.

wayne8661 · 12-16-2012, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Anderson

652 is on the sight base. You need to be looking forward of there into the void at the top of the barrel.

You mean up towards the pin on the tangent sight?

George Anderson · 12-16-2012, 11:07 PM

No, down inside the sight base frame at the top of the barrel.

wayne8661 · 12-16-2012, 11:13 PM

George the only number I see are 652 inside the sight frame and a 65 on the corner of the site frame maybbe i am looking on the wrong spot but this is what I see

wayne8661 · 12-17-2012, 12:40 PM

Any other input from anyone?

wayne8661 · 12-22-2012, 08:49 AM

So should this weapon be considered a shooter or not?

DavidJayUden · 12-22-2012, 10:50 AM

W:
We'll need to wait a verdict from the professors, however IMHO there are some situations that can not be explained with 100% certainty. Possibly if one of our scholars had it in front of them with a good light they could give a definitive answer, but I doubt it.
To me it seems like sometimes there is a grey area in between collector Lugers and simple shooters. This game is not always so black and white. At least not to us newer collectors.
If that were my gun I would consider it a collector item and cherish it as such. If you go to sell it I'd tell prospective buyers about the uncertainty over the missing suffix, discount the price a bit and move on. But to define that gun as a shooter seems to not due it justice.
Hell, I've got more new parts than that gun does and I'm only half its age...
dju

wlyon · 12-22-2012, 01:28 PM

I agree with David. Even Germans made mistakes. Not sure why we think they were perfect in gun manufacture. At least we seem to expect them to be. If I owned it it would be a collectible and treated as such. Bill

wayne8661 · 12-22-2012, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidJayUden

W:
We'll need to wait a verdict from the professors, however IMHO there are some situations that can not be explained with 100% certainty. Possibly if one of our scholars had it in front of them with a good light they could give a definitive answer, but I doubt it.
To me it seems like sometimes there is a grey area in between collector Lugers and simple shooters. This game is not always so black and white. At least not to us newer collectors.
If that were my gun I would consider it a collector item and cherish it as such. If you go to sell it I'd tell prospective buyers about the uncertainty over the missing suffix, discount the price a bit and move on. But to define that gun as a shooter seems to not due it justice.
Hell, I've got more new parts than that gun does and I'm only half its age...
dju

David just to whip up some discussion as you said What do you make of the scratches under the barrel and what are your opinions of the witness mark. I am just trying to get as many opinions on these areas to help educate myself.

W

DavidJayUden · 12-22-2012, 03:18 PM

I'm not seeing any issues with the witness mark.
The scratches on the right side of the barrel that run parallel to the bore all seem like random scratches.
The circular rings around the base of the barrel could suggest slipage in a barrel vice. It's something I'd about have to see in the flesh, and even then it may remain uncertain. It looks to me like if it was rebarreled, it was done a very long time ago, possibly even war-time. Some photos of the left side show the barrel to be in better blue than the rest, while the close-up photos of the right side seem to show even finish throughout.
Bottom line is I dunno.
It's not a fake created for deception and profit, but what has happened along the way is uncertain.
dju

alanint · 12-22-2012, 04:06 PM

Yet the back sight base serials don't correspond, as per George Anderson's message.

I still see cause for concern.

George Anderson · 12-22-2012, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanint

Yet the back sight base serials don't correspond, as per George Anderson's message.

I still see cause for concern.

I don't find the number on the sight base to be a problem. What I was after is the series of two or three numbers on top of the barrel normally seen inside the void in the sight base. These were numbers, one or two of which should correspond with the barrel serial number. It is believed that these were placed on the barrel prior to fitting it to the receiver. Only after this fitting was complete and the barrel installed would the blued and finished barrel be numbered on the bottum. These "working numbers" are sometimes very difficult to see.

Generally, I have no problem with the artillery in question.

DavidJayUden · 12-22-2012, 05:27 PM

Wayne:
The professor has spoken.
dju

wayne8661 · 12-22-2012, 05:47 PM

Whew!!!! Looks like I just have an enigma but a proper period enigma.

Thanks Everyone

Lugerdoc · 12-27-2012, 12:07 PM

Wayne et al, THe numbered stamped by Erfurt when they made these barrels (only fully readable when the rear sight is removed) has NO relationship to the later applied serial numbers. The rear sight should have the last two digit of the serial on the base, appeture (rear) and elevator piece. TH

SIGP2101 · 12-27-2012, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lugerdoc

The rear sight should have the last two digit of the serial on the base, appeture (rear) and elevator piece. TH

Which is the case, there is #27 stamped on all of these parts. I do not understand, can someone explain what is this enigma all about - except missing suffix?

cirelaw · 12-27-2012, 02:24 PM

Great Pics, Ansel Adams would be proud!

George Anderson · 12-27-2012, 03:53 PM

May I suggest that you look at this thread on Jan Still's forum. http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...-numbers-codes

wayne8661 · 12-27-2012, 04:57 PM

I cant seem to get the link to work.

George Anderson · 12-27-2012, 05:09 PM

Neither can I but then I am a "child in the wilderness" when it comes to computers. Try signing on to luger.gunboards.com then doing an advanced search by member using paolo as the member name. Search posts started by user then go to topic "Artillery Lugers" under 1900-1918 Imperial Lugers.

12-22-2012, 01:28 PM	#28
wlyon Lifer 2X Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: May 2005 Location: Somewhere in Montana Posts: 2,614 Thanks: 3,140 Thanked 2,519 Times in 939 Posts	I agree with David. Even Germans made mistakes. Not sure why we think they were perfect in gun manufacture. At least we seem to expect them to be. If I owned it it would be a collectible and treated as such. Bill __________________ Bill Lyon

12-27-2012, 12:07 PM	#35
Lugerdoc Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: POB 398 St.Charles,MO. 63302 Posts: 5,089 Thanks: 6 Thanked 736 Times in 483 Posts	Wayne et al, THe numbered stamped by Erfurt when they made these barrels (only fully readable when the rear sight is removed) has NO relationship to the later applied serial numbers. The rear sight should have the last two digit of the serial on the base, appeture (rear) and elevator piece. TH __________________ Tom Heller POB 398 ST.Charles, MO. 63302 Tel 636-447-3006 lugerdoc@charter.net

12-16-2012, 11:07 PM	#23
George Anderson Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: VA Posts: 3,592 Thanks: 1,769 Thanked 2,527 Times in 786 Posts	No, down inside the sight base frame at the top of the barrel.

12-16-2012, 11:13 PM	#24
wayne8661 User Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Kennett Square Pennsylvania Posts: 591 Thanks: 15 Thanked 334 Times in 104 Posts	George the only number I see are 652 inside the sight frame and a 65 on the corner of the site frame maybbe i am looking on the wrong spot but this is what I see

12-17-2012, 12:40 PM	#25
wayne8661 User Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Kennett Square Pennsylvania Posts: 591 Thanks: 15 Thanked 334 Times in 104 Posts	Any other input from anyone?

12-22-2012, 08:49 AM	#26
wayne8661 User Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Kennett Square Pennsylvania Posts: 591 Thanks: 15 Thanked 334 Times in 104 Posts	So should this weapon be considered a shooter or not?

12-22-2012, 10:50 AM	#27
DavidJayUden Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,047 Thanks: 578 Thanked 1,414 Times in 887 Posts	W: We'll need to wait a verdict from the professors, however IMHO there are some situations that can not be explained with 100% certainty. Possibly if one of our scholars had it in front of them with a good light they could give a definitive answer, but I doubt it. To me it seems like sometimes there is a grey area in between collector Lugers and simple shooters. This game is not always so black and white. At least not to us newer collectors. If that were my gun I would consider it a collector item and cherish it as such. If you go to sell it I'd tell prospective buyers about the uncertainty over the missing suffix, discount the price a bit and move on. But to define that gun as a shooter seems to not due it justice. Hell, I've got more new parts than that gun does and I'm only half its age... dju

12-22-2012, 03:18 PM	#30
DavidJayUden Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,047 Thanks: 578 Thanked 1,414 Times in 887 Posts	I'm not seeing any issues with the witness mark. The scratches on the right side of the barrel that run parallel to the bore all seem like random scratches. The circular rings around the base of the barrel could suggest slipage in a barrel vice. It's something I'd about have to see in the flesh, and even then it may remain uncertain. It looks to me like if it was rebarreled, it was done a very long time ago, possibly even war-time. Some photos of the left side show the barrel to be in better blue than the rest, while the close-up photos of the right side seem to show even finish throughout. Bottom line is I dunno. It's not a fake created for deception and profit, but what has happened along the way is uncertain. dju

12-22-2012, 04:06 PM	#31
alanint User Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Marco Island, Florida Posts: 4,867 Thanks: 1,685 Thanked 1,916 Times in 1,192 Posts	Yet the back sight base serials don't correspond, as per George Anderson's message. I still see cause for concern.

12-22-2012, 05:27 PM	#33
DavidJayUden Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,047 Thanks: 578 Thanked 1,414 Times in 887 Posts	Wayne: The professor has spoken. dju

12-22-2012, 05:47 PM	#34
wayne8661 User Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Kennett Square Pennsylvania Posts: 591 Thanks: 15 Thanked 334 Times in 104 Posts	Whew!!!! Looks like I just have an enigma but a proper period enigma. Thanks Everyone

12-27-2012, 02:24 PM	#37
cirelaw Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PORT ST LUCIE, FLORIDA Posts: 12,216 Thanks: 6,209 Thanked 4,133 Times in 2,173 Posts	Great Pics, Ansel Adams would be proud!

12-27-2012, 03:53 PM	#38
George Anderson Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: VA Posts: 3,592 Thanks: 1,769 Thanked 2,527 Times in 786 Posts	May I suggest that you look at this thread on Jan Still's forum. http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...-numbers-codes

12-27-2012, 04:57 PM	#39
wayne8661 User Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Kennett Square Pennsylvania Posts: 591 Thanks: 15 Thanked 334 Times in 104 Posts	I cant seem to get the link to work.

12-27-2012, 05:09 PM	#40
George Anderson Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: VA Posts: 3,592 Thanks: 1,769 Thanked 2,527 Times in 786 Posts	Neither can I but then I am a "child in the wilderness" when it comes to computers. Try signing on to luger.gunboards.com then doing an advanced search by member using paolo as the member name. Search posts started by user then go to topic "Artillery Lugers" under 1900-1918 Imperial Lugers.