New acquisition: 1916 DWM w/sear safety

Zamo · 02-28-2008, 03:23 PM

I have a 1916 DWM in pretty good condition (EXCELLENT w/ some grip strap pitting). I'll post some pictures as soon as I can.
The question I have is that while the ejector was strawed, the trigger, take down, mag release and safety are all blued. The numbers match inside and out, even on these parts, and the inside of the grips, and the rest of the gun strongly appears to have its original finish. I know that in WW2 they switched from straw to blue, but I had never heard that this occured during WW1, so I told the seller it had likely been refinished at some point. It was then that I noticed the Sear Safety, and told the seller it was a police model. He had never even noticed it before.
I know that 1916 was the first year for these safetys, but I admit a lack of knowledge on Police Lugers. Did they have blued triggers and safeties in 1916?
Did Police Lugers have other marks vs. the regular stampings? The only marks this guy has are identical to my 1917 Imperial (Three "Crowned" thingies, and an excited duck).
Were any sear safety pistols produced for the military during this time?
I apologize for all these rudimentary questions, but am at work right now, and unable to consult my books. I'll post some pictures soon.
Once last thing, the upper pistol is in very nice shape, but there is a little pitting on the front grip strap, and down by the magazine well. It does NOT show evidence of having been blued-over, and actually shows worn edges, so it's very old. Does localized pitting like this hurt a pistols value worse than refinishing, or mismatched parts? Over all I am very pleased with the pistol even with the pitting. I wasn't looking for a Police piece, but the price was right regardless.

Zamo · 02-28-2008, 06:13 PM

Here is a link to a hasty webpage I made featuring pictures of this pistol. I have a three day inspection, and, after having made a 20 minute inspection, I'm not sure I'm keeping it. There is a heck of a lot of pitting under the grips. It's really a shame, because it matches everywhere, and I got it at a shooter's price. I'd keep it, because it does look nice, but I already have a good shooter...You guys and your Luger collecting...This is worse than Black Rifle Disease!!!

Click here:
1916 DWM Luger web page

MFC · 02-28-2008, 11:14 PM

Quote:

I know that 1916 was the first year for these safetys

Zamo,
The sear safety was added (reworked for police service) in the Weimar era after WWI, to just about any surplus Luger. Jan Still shows a 1902 Commercial and even a 1906 American Eagle with the sear safety added, on pages 231 and 232 of Weimar Lugers. There are newly manufactured Lugers put into police service, but they were made in the Weimar era.
The small parts should be strawed. Mauser started to blue these parts on S/42's mid 1937.
Mike C.

Zamo · 02-29-2008, 12:10 AM

Thanks for the clarification. What I meant to say was that I know Georg Luger PATENTED the Sear Safety in 1916.
I thought the parts should have been strawed.
I have contacted the seller, and he is willing to take it back as per the standard 3 day inspection period. It's a shame, because overall, it's a pretty nice piece. Just a hair more expensive than I think these factors add up to.

MFC · 02-29-2008, 06:55 PM

Zamo,
Since these parts have been refinished already, it sure wouldn't hurt anything to restraw them. I think it is a heck of a deal if you got it at a shooter price. Nice looking Luger.
Mike C.

Zamo · 03-02-2008, 12:09 AM

That's exactly what I thought, and what I was planning on doing. However, I opted to give it back to the seller. He's putting it back on gunbroker with these pictures. The previous pictures he used were of a lesser quality.
I had given him $800 for it off gunbroker, but when I saw it had some parts reblued, and the corrosion under the grips...I already have a nice shooter, and didn't want to spend that money on another in this condition. I offered to keep it for $150 less, and he declined. It would have been a nice acquisition for that price, but I thought $800 was too much for me, right now.

THEN the wife found out about the whole affair and became quite incensed. I don't think I'll be buying any more toys soon...Unless I find that pristine "Red 9" C96 for the right price...That's next I think.
Oh, and I told her that was a known variable...should I find one.

02-28-2008, 03:23 PM	#1
Zamo User Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 142 Thanks: 4 Thanked 13 Times in 9 Posts	New acquisition: 1916 DWM w/sear safety I have a 1916 DWM in pretty good condition (EXCELLENT w/ some grip strap pitting). I'll post some pictures as soon as I can. The question I have is that while the ejector was strawed, the trigger, take down, mag release and safety are all blued. The numbers match inside and out, even on these parts, and the inside of the grips, and the rest of the gun strongly appears to have its original finish. I know that in WW2 they switched from straw to blue, but I had never heard that this occured during WW1, so I told the seller it had likely been refinished at some point. It was then that I noticed the Sear Safety, and told the seller it was a police model. He had never even noticed it before. I know that 1916 was the first year for these safetys, but I admit a lack of knowledge on Police Lugers. Did they have blued triggers and safeties in 1916? Did Police Lugers have other marks vs. the regular stampings? The only marks this guy has are identical to my 1917 Imperial (Three "Crowned" thingies, and an excited duck). Were any sear safety pistols produced for the military during this time? I apologize for all these rudimentary questions, but am at work right now, and unable to consult my books. I'll post some pictures soon. Once last thing, the upper pistol is in very nice shape, but there is a little pitting on the front grip strap, and down by the magazine well. It does NOT show evidence of having been blued-over, and actually shows worn edges, so it's very old. Does localized pitting like this hurt a pistols value worse than refinishing, or mismatched parts? Over all I am very pleased with the pistol even with the pitting. I wasn't looking for a Police piece, but the price was right regardless.

02-29-2008, 12:10 AM	#4
Zamo User Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 142 Thanks: 4 Thanked 13 Times in 9 Posts	Thanks for the clarification. What I meant to say was that I know Georg Luger PATENTED the Sear Safety in 1916. I thought the parts should have been strawed. I have contacted the seller, and he is willing to take it back as per the standard 3 day inspection period. It's a shame, because overall, it's a pretty nice piece. Just a hair more expensive than I think these factors add up to. __________________ <INSERT WITTY SAYING HERE> My collection: http://home.comcast.net/~gunspotz/guns.htm

02-29-2008, 06:55 PM	#5
MFC User Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Louisiana Posts: 1,237 Thanks: 183 Thanked 281 Times in 162 Posts	Zamo, Since these parts have been refinished already, it sure wouldn't hurt anything to restraw them. I think it is a heck of a deal if you got it at a shooter price. Nice looking Luger. Mike C. __________________ Mike C.

02-28-2008, 06:13 PM	#2
Zamo User Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 142 Thanks: 4 Thanked 13 Times in 9 Posts	Here is a link to a hasty webpage I made featuring pictures of this pistol. I have a three day inspection, and, after having made a 20 minute inspection, I'm not sure I'm keeping it. There is a heck of a lot of pitting under the grips. It's really a shame, because it matches everywhere, and I got it at a shooter's price. I'd keep it, because it does look nice, but I already have a good shooter...You guys and your Luger collecting...This is worse than Black Rifle Disease!!! Click here: 1916 DWM Luger web page

03-02-2008, 12:09 AM	#6
Zamo User Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 142 Thanks: 4 Thanked 13 Times in 9 Posts	That's exactly what I thought, and what I was planning on doing. However, I opted to give it back to the seller. He's putting it back on gunbroker with these pictures. The previous pictures he used were of a lesser quality. I had given him $800 for it off gunbroker, but when I saw it had some parts reblued, and the corrosion under the grips...I already have a nice shooter, and didn't want to spend that money on another in this condition. I offered to keep it for $150 less, and he declined. It would have been a nice acquisition for that price, but I thought $800 was too much for me, right now. THEN the wife found out about the whole affair and became quite incensed. I don't think I'll be buying any more toys soon...Unless I find that pristine "Red 9" C96 for the right price...That's next I think. Oh, and I told her that was a known variable...should I find one.