Paolo,
That is a very nice P-08 Commercial, and I believe that it is in some small way a significant piece.
Kenyon's coment about "...a few produced in the 60000 serial range...WITH the holdopen device." (Kenyon, "Lugers At Random", p.116), appears to be a generalization, based perhaps on some observations and reports. What is important to remember is that Kenyon's book dates from 1969. Perhaps thousands of Lugers have come 'out of the woodwork' since then, and more samples can only help fine-tune the preexisting data. Your Luger extends the serial range downward in which Commercial P-08s were produced with holdopen.
And this permits another conclusion. I am very frustrated with the manner in which most authors present their data--the Kenyon comment above is a case in point--and this is the reason I have undertaken my early Commercial serial range survey: more information allows one to make better comparisons and make associations which the bare model-serial# range information does not. In this case, we know from Still ("Imperial Lugers", p.23) that, although the directive requiring holdopen and stock lug was issued in May of 1913, some end-of-production 1912 DWM were produced with holdopen. If we assume that Commercial P-08 were produced concurrently with Military guns (an assumption I would like to test), this places the 55000 serial number range production as early as the end of 1912, and no earlier.
Regarding the sear bar, I suspect that you are correct in your assessment that it is a unit armorer modification. Regarding the rest of your supposition, a WAG speculation suggests that it is much more likely that a directive was issued that all P-08 in service be returned to the unit armory for modification, and the officer, who had purchased this Luger himself as required of him, dutifully did so.
This is a terrific piece, and it is apparent by its condition that whomever owned it did not find much use for it in battle. I thank you very much for the data point for my survey.
Also, you showed me a new thing. I have always presumed, without ever checking, that the added holdopen pin through the frame was necessary because the required interior machining for the holdopen to rotate on was not present in early guns. I never suspected that the pin was always an external application until I saw your revealing photograph. I have since examined other Lugers in my possession and, sure enough, they are pinned through the frame. Once you see it, it begins to become quite apparent. You have a good eye, and my thanks for the new perspective.
--Dwight
IM002122.JPG
IM002123.JPG
IM002124.JPG
IM002126.JPG
IM002130.JPG
IM002143.JPG
IM002134.JPG
IM002140.JPG
IM002144.JPG
IM002122.JPG
