[Guest]

I'm a neophyte to Lugers and the geneaolgy thereof. As I understand, Simpson produced Lugers only in the post-WW1 period. During WW1 they produced GEW98 rifles. They were ejected out of the business in the 1930s..as they were a Jewish company. Krieghof took them over. Was it a buy-out?..Was it an absolute take-over organized by the NSDAP? Why are Simpson Lugers so exclusive and priced higher? What Simpsons I've seen advertised are listed as having marginal bores at the best. Were they that well used? They command a high price. Jim

 

[Jan C Still]

Jim
In 1934, after the Nazies came to power, the Simson Firm was expropriated (nationalized) and the equipment made available to Krieghgoff. It has been suggested that the equipment used by Erfurt and Simson was worn out and it was only used as a pattern by Krieghoff to make new Luger manufacturing equipment. Simson manufactured approximatley 12,000 Lugers from 1925 to 1934 under contract to the Reichswehr.(Weimar Lugers page 34-36 and 68-75) The price commanded for Simson Lugers is determined by their rarity. See the section Simson Lugers 1920-1933, go down to the post "War School Lugers" dated 10/23/2003 for photographe and additional information.
Jan

 

[Heinz]

Jan, Why would the Erfurt/Simpson equipment be worn out and the DWM/BKIW/Mauser still be in workable condition? I have seen this suggestion before (and I realize you are just reporting it)but it has never seemed to have any basis other than that Krieghoff produced a better fitted and finished product. The superior fit and finish could well be explained by lower production volumes and more time to attend to the niceties. Are there any actuall reports of scrapping the Erfurt machine tools?

 

[Jan C Still]

Heinz
I do not know of any documentation that the Erfurt/Simson Luger manufacturing equipment wore out and had to be replaced. However, it is possible that after producing over a half million lugers some of the equipment wore out and had to be replaced.

By 1930 DWM had produced over 1 million Lugers and one would think that a portion of the equipment had to be repaired or replaced.

However, replacement depends on maintance and a number of other factors that simply are not known. The comment concerning replacement is reduced to speculation.
Jan

 

[Jan C Still]

Apparently there was a little more to the statement above than my post indicated. Some of the information below is from the son of Mr. Krieghoff. Gibson states on page 15 :
“Krieghoff either acquired the old Erfurt Luger tooling from Simson or had access to it for the purpose of patterning new tooling. The latter is most likely since Krieghoff insists that the Luger tooling was made at the Suhl Plant. Furthermore, the old tooling was by this time well worn and quite possibly not adaptable to current machining procedures.”

“The cost of tooling for a limited run of Lugers could hardly have been a profitable peoposition for H. Krieghoff Waffenfabrik. Krieghoff states that the luger contract was sought solely as a means of gaining an entry into the military business with a hope of larger contracts.”

“...actually acquired ths Simson ex Erfurt tooling, it is almost certain that it was not used in the production of Krieghoff Lugers. The machining characteristics ... are completely different on the Lugers produced by the two manufacturers.”
Jan

 

[Heinz]

Jan, thank you. I must repect Mr. Gibson's expertise on this topic.