[Speedratchet]

Hello everyone , picked this G date luger up today. All matching besides mag and grips are repro I think? Any opinions and comments welcome as I am primarily a Japanese colllector, and not firmiliar with these pre wwii Lugers. 5161a block. Strange marking on left hand side where p.08 is sometimes found any help would be appreciated gentleman.


jeff

 

[Left Hand Thunder]

I have a G date luger much the same as yours. My piece is completely blank where you show an unusual mark on the left side of your frame. All numbers on mine match except on the magazine, as on your G date. The original holster that came with my piece is stamped with the same number as the serial number on the pistol. I believe that is unusual. I only wish the aluminum bottom mag. had the same serial number stamp. Hang on to your G date it can only get more valuable as time passes.

 

[Doug G]

That is not a mark, rather a mar, or damage to the gun. I have 2 G dates in the D block.

 

[Speedratchet]

I was assuming it was a mar on the finish like you suggest Doug , I just wanted to rule anything out. Is everything text book standard g date?

 

[Edward T]

That is not a mark, rather a mar, or damage to the gun. I have 2 G dates in the D block.

Doug is correct...displaced metal from damage..."G"- dates will not have any kind of stamp/mark/proof in this area...

Edward

 

[Doug G]

Someone will be along to correct me, but I recall 4 proof mark variations on G Date guns. I believe the B90 is early. Other than that your gun looks good to me.

 

[Edward T]

There are six sub - variations...

Edward

 

[Speedratchet]

What do we say on the grips ? Repro?

 

[Tim Hawkins]

Grips are repo.
Tim H.

 

[Doug G]

Grips are repo.
Tim H.

What makes you call them repro's? I can't make out whatever that ink mark inside is, but the aging looks good and the fit near the safety lever is very good. Maybe Nills?

 

[Tim Hawkins]

Because I have seen repos in the past that display the small holes in the back of the grip where the blanks were held in a jig. That's what they appear to be on the back. Hopefully I'm wrong, as the grips appear otherwise to be orig. Seeing the checkered side would help.
Tim H.

 

[Tim Hawkins]

The checkered part I can see appears sanded. Maybe an old recheckering job?
Tim H.

 

[Doug G]

The checkered part I can see appears sanded. Maybe an old recheckering job?
Tim H.

Ok, I see where you are coming from. They are good repros then if so. Does kinda look like a touchup checker job by someone who knows what they are doing. The sharpness of the diamonds does not match the wear on the gun.

 

[Edward T]

Because I have seen repos in the past that display the small holes in the back of the grip where the blanks were held in a jig. That's what they appear to be on the back. Hopefully I'm wrong, as the grips appear otherwise to be orig. Seeing the checkered side would help.
Tim H.

I believe these are reproductions also...I had a pair like this before...fine pitch checkering, the same as originals...but, there are the manufacturing holes in the back side of the panels...dead giveaway...On the upside, they do look nicely made...my reproductions were manufactured in Italy, as I remember...

Hey Tim...if you see Chris Harmon, tell him Ed T. says hey...one of these days, I'll head back to N. Carolina to see him...love N. Carolina...would like to retire down there...😎👍

Edward

 

[Tim Hawkins]

I'll see Chris soon and tell him. Glad you enjoy N.C.!
Tim H.

 

[Delafrontera]

I noticed that the firing pin is not fluted but marked with the correct "61" - should it be fluted? Is it possible that Mauser used earlier small parts and marked them for current production when this G date was assembled? I am a new gun collector and am just trying to understand the arena of small parts - any guidance/thoughts most appreciated!