Jan C. Still Lugerforums banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
This is a combination LP.08 and unit mark question. To be more explicit, a weapon number question. I have a 1917 LP.08 unit marked to the 164th Infantry Regiment, Company #1, weapon #1. The 164th was part of the 20th Infantry Div. and later joined the 111th Infantry Div.(circa 1916).
Obviously, Lugers must have been issued to the Regiment in the early part of the war, and were unit marked. Were 4" Lugers numbered separately from the LP.08s? Is this the first LP.08 issued to the company? Or were a specified number issued and the numbers reused as they were replaced due to loss or damage? Example: Luger weapon #1 is lost, captured, damaged,etc. Would the newly issued replacement weapon then be stamped weapon #1?

Any ideas? Ron
 

Attachments

·
Platinum Bullet member
Joined
·
6,233 Posts
I believe all weapons were numbered according to numbers available and without regard to type of weapon. I would suggest that your LP08 "164.R.1.1." may have replaced a KAR88 or a Reichsrevolver that had the same property number.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Geo, That's plausable. I was just curious about it. I would think that as a weapon was replaced with another, it would be stamped with the weapon number that it replaced. It makes more sense, to me at least that, that would be the course to follow. I saw a referrence to a pistol in Görtz that made me think about it. Don't remember what the hell it was now.

Thanks, Ron
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,402 Posts
GENERALLY, LUGERS/PISTOLS HAVE THEIR OWN CONSECUTIVELY WEAPONS NUMBER RANGES
Berlin, 28 January,1909, “Small Arms Marking Instructions” (Gortz, Bryans page 14)
“4. Each type of small arms is to be marked with numbers running consecutively within its type.”

If one scans through the weapons numbers found on bayonets, rifles, and Lugers, it is apparent that the weapons numbers run much higher on bayonets, the weapons numbers on rifles are lower than on bayonets and those on Lugers are lower than on rifles. (Noll, page 67-142) .

In general, the above suggests that Lugers are most often not in the same consecutive weapons number sequence as rifles and bayonets and that the rules and regulation number “4" above is complied with..

1917 LP08 WEAPONS NUMBER SEQUENCE
Ron
The weapons numbers of 1917 dated LP08's run low (70 percent bear a weapon number lower than14, medium at 8). I would suggest that some regimental armorers did not keep track of weapons numbers after the practice of applying unit markings mostly stopped in 1914 and ceased according to orders dated 2 November 1916 and 30 Dec 1916. When the influx of 1917 dated LP08's started to come in to the regimental armories, some of the armorers started marking weapons in a sequence that started at number 1. Note: most regimental armorers did not unit stamp Lugers after 1914/1916. 164 JR marked Lugers recorded in the Still Noll data base are as follows:
* 1917 LP08, s/n 5675e : 164.R.1.1.) - (164 Infanterie-Regiment, Kompagnie 1, Waffe Nr. 1.or 2?)(updated 02-23-05)
* 1917 DWM, s/n unk : 164.R.2.22. - (164 Infanterie-Regiment, Kompagnie 2, Waffe Nr. 22)
* 1917 DWM, s/n 4133l : 164.R.8.5 - (164 Infanterie-Regiment, Kompagnie 8, Waffe Nr. 5)
* 1912 ERFURT, s/n 8125a : 164.R.M.G.45. - (164 Infanterie-Regiment, Maschinengewehr-Kompagnie, Waffe Nr. 45)
What is the sn of your 1917 LP08?

In general, the Still Noll data base indicates that infantry regiment machine gun weapons numbers run higher than infantry regiment weapons numbers and infantry regiment weapons numbers run higher that cavalry weapons numbers (Still Noll data base).
Jan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Jan,
This indicates that weapon types were assigned their own weapon number sequence. So this could be the first LP.08 issued to the Regiment? Or the first to be numbered in the sequence.

Referrence to pg 14 in Görtz is what I remembered seeing, but could'nt find it again. Thanks very much for the indepth information. This more than answers my question. The ser# 5675e.

Thanks again, Ron

Jan, BTW the LP.08 you have listed is the one I am talking about. When I first posted it a year or so ago. That's the way I discribed it. "# 1 or 2?". Notice the odd foot on #1 in the photo. It is a #1,however.

Also, on Pg 126 in Noll's there is a "Seitengewehr M1884/98nA" reportedly marked "164.R.1.2." This would have probably been marked much earlier than the LP.08. Possibly pre-war?

Ron
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,402 Posts
Ron
You said:
"So this could be the first LP.08 issued to the Regiment? Or the first to be numbered in the sequence"
Yours would certainally be the first numbered in the sequence as its numbered "1". Would speculate that it is may be the first LP08 issued to the regiment. Remember that LP08 production greatly increased in 1917 to comply with the directive dated August 11, 1917 that ordered each infantry company on the Western Front to be armed with 10 LP08 for attack purposes.

You said:
"Also, on Pg 126 in Noll's there is a "Seitengewehr M1884/98nA" reportedly marked "164.R.1.2." This would have probably been marked much earlier than the LP.08. Possibly pre-war?"

I cannot answer your question (know almost nothing about rifles & bayonets), but your comment raises a question that I have: Are there bayonets and rifles all matched with the same unit stamps including weapons number? Was the exact same weapons number applied to an issued rifle and its bayonet?
Jan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,993 Posts
The (Truppenstempel) unit marks were stuck by the Waffenmeister (weapon master). I wouldn´t think that the LP08 with this unit mark was the first LP08 of the whole regiment. The unit stamps were fiscal stamps and should help the men to identify their guns. This stamp identify the LP08 as the first of the 1. company of the Infantry regiment 164.

I´m looking for one of Pistos threads. That´s the reason that I post on some older threads.
 
1 - 9 of 9 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