Jan C. Still Lugerforums banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Hi Jared,

First – my thanks for your additional pictures.

These confirm my original comments in the original thread. When I posted to that, I looked carefully at where the chamber date should have appeared, and I don’t believe that this receiver ever had a chamber date. To my eye (albeit “old”), I saw no evidence that the top of he receiver had a “flat” or the edges were “rounded”.

The tell-tale signs would be look carefully at the cut-out for the breechblock (the forward area), and there is no evidence of “flattening”. As well – from the side profile – the mating of the forward area of the receiver to the barrel flange curvature is correct without a “flat” or a disruption in the curvature.

Finally – on the left side of the receiver, to check for yourself to see if the serial number has been removed – remove the receiver/barrel from the frame and lay it on a piece of glass, left side down. The flat should show no sign of metal removal from the forward area, which from the pictures in the earlier post, and this post – certainly seem to be the case. Therefore, again – it appears this receiver is not original to this production variation.

As further evidence – in these pictures, the bottom of the receiver “rails” are not polished – which, as you know – a final polishing to the frame/rails is an HK hallmark. This receiver shows none of those attributes.

Now, about these pictures and thread specifically…

Certainly an excellent photo of the 4 Point star.!

The “E” imperfection. Actually – is fine. Looking at serial numbered ranges from Mid-“1936” through early 1940, it appears that on some frames, that area almost looks like a deformation, as the metal has “risen” or has a slight “high spot”. It’s noted on more than a few examples (including several in my collection). It appears from the die itself being struck causing a slight “high-spot”, rather then an “manufacturing imperfection” – which again, can be seen on other HK examples.

However, the imperfection along the safety riser, I have not seen – if that is what you are referring to? Is that an “indent” from a machine, or a flaw in the metal? As a side note – the GESICHERT stamp is correct in both type and placement.

Barrel. In your post below you mention ”…. irregularities in the barrel machining almost like the guy operating the lathe was not paying attention….” Again – I believe that would have occurred after this Luger saw service and when refit to the “new” receiver. If that were the case that it occurred during HK production, it would not have passed through as many stages in the proofing/gauging as it did, and certainly not be fitted to this receiver.

Therefore, I still believe my first impression/reply was correct in my original post...

I hope this helps.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
912 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
John,
The inperfections in the barrel machining are in the "roundness" of the barrel itself. There is one area just behind the muzzle swell and one area where it is serial numbered. These imperfctions go completely around the circumference of the barrel and look like the cutter was lifted slightly in these two area when the barrel was being turned giving the appearance of a shalow ring around the barrel. Very strange. Never sen anything like it on a Mauser or DWM.
Also wanted to add that on the right side of the reciever you can just barely make out the lower portion of one eagle 2 proofs. All you can make out with the loupe is the lower portion of the wings and parts of the 2. So I do believe these marks were removed, but expertly. Serial number area on the left side is tougher to determine. All I can say is that there probably was one there. Whoever did the scrubbing sure knew what they were doing. I agree that there may have never been a date. The contour of the top of the reciever appears as it should. Why would these marks be removed? Makes no sense to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Hi Jared,

It appears that you have the same problem with this as I am having - sort of like trying to fit a "square peg" into a round hole. Sure - it might fit - but only of we shave some corners (well, a LOT of corners!). By that - the right side of the receiver should not have any E/2 marks, if it were for commercial. Second - regardless, the barrel/frame/small parts are Military - and the receiver is not. Third, if Military - the receiver is incorrect by stamps/chamber date/no serial number..? Fourth, the serial number is Military. Fifth - well - you get the idea.. Please re-read my earlier posts....

Anyway - I guess I've seen many HKs over the last 25+ years - and seen many "counterfeits" during that same time. Many were rather well done - and others were obvious. Heck, one "side framed inscribed" was "almost perfect" except someone forgot SUHL wasn't spelled with an "A".??

Yours is rather, again - a simple replacement of a receiver rather then what would appear as an attempted faked or boosted HK. So, enjoy it for what it is.

Also - I noticed that you are looking for another HK from an earlier post in either a Late S or an early 1936 (I presume you mean a "36" by that?). If you find one - please post back any pre-purchase details, photos or questions, and we'd be thrilled to assist you with what to look for in those variations, OK?

My Best to you,

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
912 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
John, Thank you for your insight. My first impression of the Luger is confirmed by your input. I figured it was most likely a replaced reciever, hopefully period but I guess we'll never know. The price was right and the parts are probably worth as much as I paid but it is a bit too nice and interesting to part out.
Regards,
Jared V.
 
1 - 5 of 5 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