Jan C. Still Lugerforums banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,955 Posts
Hi,

Apart from the fact they used the stocklug to drive in some nails, the frame is a 1937+ Mauser frame with the 'hump', not present on a G-date (normally :).
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,955 Posts
Hi,

Apart from the fact they used the stocklug to drive in some nails, the frame is a 1937+ Mauser frame with the 'hump', not present on a G-date (normally :).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
The SN suffix looks too tall to be an "e" so it appears to be an "l" (small L). Jan's production charts in THIRD REICH LUGERS show the G date ending in the "f" block.
G looks too open on the left side, should be solid. The acceptance markings looks like a combination of two different noted acceptance combinations. That might not be a big deal as Jan talks about different combinations in his book. Serial numbers on frame look very spread out to me but that might be just because there are only 3 digits to the SN.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
The SN suffix looks too tall to be an "e" so it appears to be an "l" (small L). Jan's production charts in THIRD REICH LUGERS show the G date ending in the "f" block.
G looks too open on the left side, should be solid. The acceptance markings looks like a combination of two different noted acceptance combinations. That might not be a big deal as Jan talks about different combinations in his book. Serial numbers on frame look very spread out to me but that might be just because there are only 3 digits to the SN.
 

·
Platinum Bullet member
Joined
·
6,230 Posts
Bob, thanks for posting this. It's the kind of question that benefits all of us in that it forces one to think outside the box. As an Imperial collector I might have jumped on such a gun as an opportunity only to find myself taken. I often forget about the hump.
 

·
Platinum Bullet member
Joined
·
6,230 Posts
Bob, thanks for posting this. It's the kind of question that benefits all of us in that it forces one to think outside the box. As an Imperial collector I might have jumped on such a gun as an opportunity only to find myself taken. I often forget about the hump.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Members,
* Aaaawwwww, you guys are too good !!
* As a learning experience, George & Ed have it right. As we prowl the shows, every example has a lesson for us to learn from....even (maybe especially) the not so righteous. Keeps the grey matter hitting on all cylinders, if you will.
* Vlim, Frank, & Thor have nailed the disconnect. Whether an "i" or a small "L" block, the frame is too late for the "G" date receiver. Personally, I think this frame is an "i" block from a 1938 or 1940 gun.
* Frank: Thought of you when I saw this receiver. Can't enlarge the pic of the acceptance stamps; but, by size & form, it appears to be an e/211 & a S92. Inference would make the receiver a "d" block G date receiver. One more S/N, and a low one, for the dE/211 range. Actually, Don H. has "G" date receiver S/N 614d recorded as a dE/211, S/92(having 2 MMags).
* Thor introduces an often overlooked observation concerning the aspect form of the receiver's "G". A "tall", narrow G was used on the Kreighoff receivers. The "wider", rounded G was characteristic of the Mauser receiver stamp. This does appear to be a Mauser "G".
* Correct me if I'm wrong; but, didn't Mauser, Army contract, barrel S/N's include the letter block in 1935??
* Suppose more could be squeezed from this example if it were to be seen in person. Think the inside of the sideplate might be revealing.
* Anyway, to borrow a line from my buddy Don, it pays to know what was right when.
* Hope you all enjoyed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Members,
* Aaaawwwww, you guys are too good !!
* As a learning experience, George & Ed have it right. As we prowl the shows, every example has a lesson for us to learn from....even (maybe especially) the not so righteous. Keeps the grey matter hitting on all cylinders, if you will.
* Vlim, Frank, & Thor have nailed the disconnect. Whether an "i" or a small "L" block, the frame is too late for the "G" date receiver. Personally, I think this frame is an "i" block from a 1938 or 1940 gun.
* Frank: Thought of you when I saw this receiver. Can't enlarge the pic of the acceptance stamps; but, by size & form, it appears to be an e/211 & a S92. Inference would make the receiver a "d" block G date receiver. One more S/N, and a low one, for the dE/211 range. Actually, Don H. has "G" date receiver S/N 614d recorded as a dE/211, S/92(having 2 MMags).
* Thor introduces an often overlooked observation concerning the aspect form of the receiver's "G". A "tall", narrow G was used on the Kreighoff receivers. The "wider", rounded G was characteristic of the Mauser receiver stamp. This does appear to be a Mauser "G".
* Correct me if I'm wrong; but, didn't Mauser, Army contract, barrel S/N's include the letter block in 1935??
* Suppose more could be squeezed from this example if it were to be seen in person. Think the inside of the sideplate might be revealing.
* Anyway, to borrow a line from my buddy Don, it pays to know what was right when.
* Hope you all enjoyed.
 

·
Copper Bullet Member
Joined
·
977 Posts
Bob, I can't recall seeing any Mauser barrels with the suffix stamped on it. I have a bunch of K & G-Dates and none have the suffix barrel stamp!!

BTW, I played with the photo of the serial number and I'm reasonably sure it's an "i". Who ever assembled this Frankenluger got lucky to find a frame with the same number as the receiver. They weren't as lucky with the small parts!!
 

·
Copper Bullet Member
Joined
·
977 Posts
Bob, I can't recall seeing any Mauser barrels with the suffix stamped on it. I have a bunch of K & G-Dates and none have the suffix barrel stamp!!

BTW, I played with the photo of the serial number and I'm reasonably sure it's an "i". Who ever assembled this Frankenluger got lucky to find a frame with the same number as the receiver. They weren't as lucky with the small parts!!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,955 Posts
Frank,

I think the receiver/barrel have been force-matched to the frame. Halo effect around the receiver-side numbers and buffmarks on the barrel, where the exact diameter numbering is partially erased.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,955 Posts
Frank,

I think the receiver/barrel have been force-matched to the frame. Halo effect around the receiver-side numbers and buffmarks on the barrel, where the exact diameter numbering is partially erased.
 

·
Copper Bullet Member
Joined
·
977 Posts
Vlim, I thought so to, but I couldn't get a clear enough photo enhancement to tell for sure!!

Bob, it looks like a DE/63 & S92 to me!! Either way it still should be a D-Block!!!!!!!

Someone went to a bunch of trouble on this one!! I hope it sells for a shooter price!!!
 

·
Copper Bullet Member
Joined
·
977 Posts
Vlim, I thought so to, but I couldn't get a clear enough photo enhancement to tell for sure!!

Bob, it looks like a DE/63 & S92 to me!! Either way it still should be a D-Block!!!!!!!

Someone went to a bunch of trouble on this one!! I hope it sells for a shooter price!!!
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top