[RyanE]

This is from an otherwise correct Mauser Luger from earlier production:

As I've said, 715g is also another fantasy creation. The WaA acceptance and FP indicates this was a complete, accepted, and perfectly ordinary military g block pistol. These were not old parts just sitting on the shelf. There is simply no way a fully HWA accepted and military proof tested receiver gets a E/N toggle. That isn't how things worked at Mauser or anywhere else.

 

[Vlim]

You appear to have preciously little knowledge on what Mauser did. Your assumptions are questionable to say the least.

There would have been plenty of partially or fully marked parts and guns left over from earlier contract runs, including rejected ones, in different forms of completeness. And Mauser wasted nothing. Since Mauser owned them, they did whatever they liked with them. The only requirements, by law, were to have a reliable, proofed pistol.

 

[RyanE]

You appear to have preciously little knowledge on what Mauser did. Your assumptions are questionable to say the least.

There would have been plenty of partially or fully marked parts and guns left over from earlier contract runs, including rejected ones, in different forms of completeness. And Mauser wasted nothing. Since Mauser owned them, they did whatever they liked with them. The only requirements, by law, were to have a reliable, proofed pistol.

Since I don't seem to know all that much, could you explain to me how a completed and fully accepted military g block byf42 ended up with a "matching" E/N proofed commercial toggle? What happened to the original matching, proof tested byf toggle? Why isn't the receiver and barrel commercially proofed like the toggle?

My explanation is very simple (and correct): post war replacement. Some dealer decided to improve his profit margin and dropped a "matching" toggle from a Banner into it. Simple as that. Yours seems to be more convoluted and involves a lot of story-telling and excuses.

 

[Vlim]

Toggle: damaged/rejected, removed and tossed away.
The rest: no need to pay for proofing as it is already proofed.
The new toggle: must be proofed by law.

Not a lot of story telling needed. Just basic logic.

 

[RyanE]

Toggle: damaged/rejected, removed and tossed away.
The rest: no need to pay for proofing as it is already proofed.
The new toggle: must be proofed by law.

Not a lot of story telling needed. Just basic logic.

So the breech block fails the proof test, but they don't try to replace it? They fail the whole gun, but mark the barrel and receiver a pass before scrapping it? Does that make any sense? On the wartime commercial reworks I have seen (mostly old WW1 era military stuff) the E/N is usually on all of the pressure parts even those already proof tested. But maybe Mauser didn't feel the need to do so. This is all much more complicated than my very simple and far more likely explanation!

Question: suppose I have two 1942 Mausers, one military and one commercial. The last two digits of both guns are matching, so I swap the toggles over. How is the resulting fake "super rare military Banner" any different from 715g? Is there some way to distinguish one of these supposed "reject builds" from my new creation?

The answer is of course not. But we will continue to make excuses for bad guns, I guess.

 

[Jason S L]

So the breech block fails the proof test, but they don't try to replace it? They fail the whole gun, but mark the barrel and receiver a pass before scrapping it? Does that make any sense? On the wartime commercial reworks I have seen (mostly old WW1 era military stuff) the E/N is usually on all of the pressure parts even those already proof tested. But maybe Mauser didn't feel the need to do so. This is all much more complicated than my very simple and far more likely explanation!

Question: suppose I have two 1942 Mausers, one military and one commercial. The last two digits of both guns are matching, so I swap the toggles over. How is the resulting fake "super rare military Banner" any different from 715g? Is there some way to distinguish one of these supposed "reject builds" from my new creation?

The answer is of course not. But we will continue to make excuses for bad guns, I guess.

At least my “fantasy “ has Banner serial number 😆

 

[Vlim]

During peak production it would have been easier to remove a pistol from the flow than to fix it.

Commercial proofing costs money, so the less reproofing of parts needed, the better.

There are too many of these pistols around to attribute them to dealer toggle swaps. Besides. Wouldn't a dealer use a more appropriate toggle to swap out, creating a more legit military pistol instead of a military-commercial mongrel?

And, having known and worked with Joop for many years, I trust his judgement a bit more than yours. I'm always prepared to look at well documented evidence. But I am not prepared to accept your 'fakes everywhere' opinion without proper evidence.

 

[RyanE]

During peak production it would have been easier to remove a pistol from the flow than to fix it.

No, I don't think so. Mauser had repair departments whose sole purpose was to fix parts/guns that didn't pass inspection. In 1940, only about 60% of rifles passed their initial test firing, the rest were returned for various repairs (poorly fit stocks were a common problem). By 1944, when production was at its peak, only about 34% passed. Fixing and analyzing the failures was important since Mauser engineers needed to know if a process somewhere was fouled up or a subcontractor was sending bad parts or bad raw materials. It would be interesting to see the failure rates for pistols, which were probably quite a bit lower, but I assure you they at least tried to fix stuff that failed.

Believe whatever you want, but this is the work of a dealer or collector swapping parts. Its a lazy sort of fakery compared to the more concerted effort to defraud on Jason's example.

 

[Jason S L]

I am still confused by my gun , it’s excellent work

 

[johnboy]

I am still confused by my gun , it’s excellent work

If Ralph can make an entire '45 HK from scratch a little police banner would be pretty easy. Mhassoun just posted his (Lugerman) 45acp up. Look at the finish on that gun. There's nothing stopping someone that can do quality bluing from assembling any "variant" they want to out of donor guns. Number it, add eagle L, add Banner link, strip it and toss it in the hot salt vat. 25 or 30 years later people swear the finish is original.

 

[Jason S L]

If Ralph can make an entire '45 HK from scratch a little police banner would be pretty easy. Mhassoun just posted his (Lugerman) 45acp up. Look at the finish on that gun. There's nothing stopping someone that can do quality bluing from assembling any "variant" they want to out of donor guns. Number it, add eagle L, add Banner link, strip it and toss it in the hot salt vat. 25 or 30 years later people swear the finish is original.

I’m not convinced my gun isn’t real ….. how is that 😉

 

[johnboy]

I’m not convinced my gun isn’t real ….. how is that 😉

It's like the more you look at it the more you overlook it's flaws. Maybe you even convince yourself it's OK. You know it's not right in your heart but you love it anyhow and justify it's condition.

Like being involved with a beautiful woman that's crazy & mean. Your friends are like "she's messed up" and you're like "yeah, but just look at her"

 

[Vlim]

Oh, well. Some people see fakes everywhere.
This is going around in circles, as usual.

We have an old proverb here about trust issues. I think some in this thread qualify for that proverb without problems.

Waste of my time.

 

[Jason S L]

Oh, well. Some people see fakes everywhere.
This is going around in circles, as usual.

We have an old proverb here about trust issues. I think some in this thread qualify for that proverb without problems.

Waste of my time.

Thank you Gerben for all the time you took to analyze the gun and educate . I am starting to look at the commercial or police assembly line with interest. Appreciate it

 

[03man]

OK call me nuts, but I think I figured it out. This is an expert job. I haven’t completely figured out how they did it ,but it’s sort of incredible. What I think we have here is a byf 42 that was expertly manipulated into a banner ,to deceive. I believe I figured out the upper receiver and the frame, but unfortunately I can’t figure out the barrel completely. Something wasn’t sitting right with me so I investigated probably further, than I should’ve😆.The first thing that was really bothering me was the breech block. It is Army accepted ( firing proof , typing 5:30am 😆) . How is it possible that we could have a commercial toggle with an army accepted breech block they don’t mix together. So then I was trying to think maybe someone changed out the Middle toggle to make it more acceptable. But in the end you wouldn’t have a commercial toggle with a military breech block it would have a byf toggle. The second thing that bothered me was the eight on the upper receiver. I believe this gun was originally 6254. The first thing that clued me into this was the serial number of 63 stamped on the inside of the side plate. This indicates that the first two digits of the serial number should be 62. If you look at the serial number on the upper receiver the eight is very deep. I believe this number was recessed and then reset. The second thing that I had issue with was the number on the frame. If you hold it at certain angles you can almost see the number six under the eight. This is next level work. I can’t quite figure out how they redid the barrel but I believe I can see you some manipulation under the eight. I can provide photographic evidence to all of this ,but I believe this was an expert level attempt to make a banner

I agree the "8"s are just not correct; all appear to be re-stamped or over stamped or some combination.
No way to know when or why, but since 3 of the 8s are involved, it is a real stretch of credulity to belive it happened in 1942. JMHO.

A measurement of the thickness of the center link compared with known originals might add information to the discussion.

 

[Jason S L]

I agree the "8"s are just not correct; all appear to be re-stamped or over stamped or some combination.
No way to know when or why, but since 3 of the 8s are involved, it is a real stretch of credulity to belive it happened in 1942. JMHO.

A measurement of the thickness of the center link compared with known originals might add information to the discussion.

It’s a real mystery, the toggle is definitely bad, but I really I’m having a hard time detecting any signs of bluing touchup. I certainly can measure the toggle, but I plan on replacing it with a mismatch authentic banner for personal satisfaction

 

[mrerick]

Since I don't seem to know all that much, could you explain to me how a completed and fully accepted military g block byf42 ended up with a "matching" E/N proofed commercial toggle? What happened to the original matching, proof tested byf toggle? Why isn't the receiver and barrel commercially proofed like the toggle?

My explanation is very simple (and correct): post war replacement. Some dealer decided to improve his profit margin and dropped a "matching" toggle from a Banner into it. Simple as that. Yours seems to be more convoluted and involves a lot of story-telling and excuses.

I didn't know that E/N proof marks were ever put on Mauser center toggles... when did that start? There were Mauser Banners... Concealment codes... Internal production marks... "WR" internal inspection marks.... serial number suffix digits... Clearly the breech block and likely complete toggle train was "E/N" proofed, but that would only indicate that the entire toggle train was assembled into a pistol that was otherwise military accepted. WR marks are also present.

I simply do not know how the parts were mated into a military contract accepted pistol. My assumption initially was that it was done post war, or at the end of the war for sale to a GI by workers left at the Mauser factory. The uniform nature of the workmanship pointed to factory work, and Joop's opinion confirmed the existence of a number of these pistols.

Did they enter the military contract stream. It's certainly possible, and I doubt many would have complained at the point these were needed and acquired. We're now the only ones who would care about this.

 

[johnboy]

It’s a real mystery, the toggle is definitely bad, but I really I’m having a hard time detecting any signs of bluing touchup. I certainly can measure the toggle, but I plan on replacing it with a mismatch authentic banner for personal satisfaction

You won't be happy............leave it as is.

 

[Jason S L]

You won't be happy............leave it as is.

I think it’s an excellent gun to play with and make it how I wish 😉

 

[RyanE]

I didn't know that E/N proof marks were ever put on Mauser center toggles... when did that start?

German proof law required all of the pressure bearing parts to be tested with a proof load and marked. This included the breech block, so every Mauser commercial will have the Crown/U or the later E/N on the block. Pistols were proof tested once complete, so that toggle was originally part of a commercial pistol.

Also mea culpa on 5308i, Mauser did use that square-ish font for a time in 1936.