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.