[RockinWR]

Members,
* Outside of the obvious re-blue, what else seems amiss with this "G" date?
http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=5665629
* Enjoy.

 

[Vlim]

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 .

 

[Vlim]

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 .

 

[Frank]

Vlim has it right, except the year had to be 1938 or higher. No 1937 I-Blocks were made.

 

[Frank]

Vlim has it right, except the year had to be 1938 or higher. No 1937 I-Blocks were made.

 

[Thor]

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.

 

[Thor]

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.

 

[keoki7]

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.

 

[keoki7]

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.

 

[RockinWR]

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.

 

[RockinWR]

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.

 

[Frank]

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!!

 

[Frank]

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!!

 

[Vlim]

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.

 

[Vlim]

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.

 

[Frank]

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!!!

 

[Frank]

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!!!