1939 Luger

07-31-2001, 10:08 PM

Just picked up an interesting rig. a very nice cdg hardshell, an excellent 122 code mag with an eagle 37 proof on the aluminum base, a 655 proofed type 2, and a 1939 42 code in the mid "q" block. According to Still's data, 42 code production started in the r block. Does anyone else have one in the q block? The gun is all matched but has been refinished at some time which kicks the value to a shooter. Just wanted to know if anyone else has seen one this early.

JV

Rob · 07-31-2001, 10:22 PM

yes i have a S/42 Q check below for stats or email me and i will foward. mine does not have orginal mags ans an intereseted in see pictures of your mags. email me rob

07-31-2001, 10:40 PM

Mine is not an s42 but a 42 which Still has earliest production for the code change in the r block. I also have an S42 1939 in the early o block.

bill m · 07-31-2001, 10:41 PM

Hi,

Have 1939 code 42 -- 4205 Q -- I have seen others, but most are the S/42 variation. Interesting fact about these is that the S/42's will have the mid eagle test proof, while the code 42's will have the late eagle test proof. Interesting in that 4201Q might be a S/42, and 4202Q a 42 code, but the test eagles will be different. Explain that to me?

Also, the proper magazines for the Q block gun would be a blue rolled, aluminium based magazine with the Straight Eagle 63 on the base. The 122's did not show up until really late 1939 or early 1940, and the 655 bases did not show up until late 1939.

07-31-2001, 10:57 PM

mine is in the 5900 range of the q block late test proof.

I realize the mags arenot proper to the gun, they just came with it. I have many 122 code mags, but this is the first one that I've seen with the eagle 37 on the base also. As I understand it it was probably the first part of 122 production( serial 6583a)Proper for a 42 1940.

07-31-2001, 11:04 PM

My best expaination on the test proofs would go something like the type of test proof used stayed with the type of code used regardless of serial number. New code new test proof? I don't know... It would have been neat to have been there and see full scale Luger production Mauser.

bill m · 07-31-2001, 11:28 PM

Hi,

That is correct for the E/37 magazine, early 1940 code 42's. Another interesting thing about the E/37 on the base is that there are two variations -- one with the E/37 on the top of the base, and the other has the E/37 on the right side of the base. These magazines with the E/37 on the base's are a nice variation and are seldom seen.

07-31-2001, 11:32 PM

The eagle 37 proof on mine is slightly right of center with the serial # below it.. Thanks for the info.

JV

08-01-2001, 12:32 AM

Since you two seem pretty much up the 1939 Lugers, let me ask your opinion on this one: I have a 1939 S/42, u block. I got it from the vet about 30 years ago. It has the mid type proof on the breech block and late type on the receiver. It is maybe 85-90% finish, all very even and well matched. The parts match in number and style (except the mag). Could this be an "out of sequence" production, a very late (fluke) S/42 1939, or could two Germans cleaning Lugers of different year dates but same last two digits have mixed up toggles (early in the game as the somewhat worn finish is very consistant and the US vet said he never fired it)?

bill m · 08-01-2001, 01:08 AM

Hi,

This is only a guess, but I would say that some parts were switched, and this is not a fluke or out of sequence gun. I feel the U suffix block is well beyond any transition period -- Q, R, S, T, and U -- at least 30,000 guns -- and any transition gun would have taken place in the Q or R blocks. I just don't think it is correct to have a mix of these test proofs, as that would indicate to me that the gun was not assembled, accepted, or tested at the same time. Just my thoughts.

07-31-2001, 10:08 PM	#1
JJV Guest Posts: n/a	1939 Luger Just picked up an interesting rig. a very nice cdg hardshell, an excellent 122 code mag with an eagle 37 proof on the aluminum base, a 655 proofed type 2, and a 1939 42 code in the mid "q" block. According to Still's data, 42 code production started in the r block. Does anyone else have one in the q block? The gun is all matched but has been refinished at some time which kicks the value to a shooter. Just wanted to know if anyone else has seen one this early. JV

07-31-2001, 10:22 PM	#2
Rob User Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: michigan Posts: 28 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: 1939 Luger yes i have a S/42 Q check below for stats or email me and i will foward. mine does not have orginal mags ans an intereseted in see pictures of your mags. email me rob

07-31-2001, 10:40 PM	#3
JJV Guest Posts: n/a	Re: 1939 Luger Mine is not an s42 but a 42 which Still has earliest production for the code change in the r block. I also have an S42 1939 in the early o block.

07-31-2001, 10:41 PM	#4
bill m User Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 385 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: 1939 Luger Hi, Have 1939 code 42 -- 4205 Q -- I have seen others, but most are the S/42 variation. Interesting fact about these is that the S/42's will have the mid eagle test proof, while the code 42's will have the late eagle test proof. Interesting in that 4201Q might be a S/42, and 4202Q a 42 code, but the test eagles will be different. Explain that to me? Also, the proper magazines for the Q block gun would be a blue rolled, aluminium based magazine with the Straight Eagle 63 on the base. The 122's did not show up until really late 1939 or early 1940, and the 655 bases did not show up until late 1939.

07-31-2001, 10:57 PM	#5
JJV Guest Posts: n/a	Re: 1939 Luger mine is in the 5900 range of the q block late test proof. I realize the mags arenot proper to the gun, they just came with it. I have many 122 code mags, but this is the first one that I've seen with the eagle 37 on the base also. As I understand it it was probably the first part of 122 production( serial 6583a)Proper for a 42 1940.

07-31-2001, 11:04 PM	#6
JJV Guest Posts: n/a	Re: 1939 Luger My best expaination on the test proofs would go something like the type of test proof used stayed with the type of code used regardless of serial number. New code new test proof? I don't know... It would have been neat to have been there and see full scale Luger production Mauser.

07-31-2001, 11:28 PM	#7
bill m User Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 385 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: 1939 Luger Hi, That is correct for the E/37 magazine, early 1940 code 42's. Another interesting thing about the E/37 on the base is that there are two variations -- one with the E/37 on the top of the base, and the other has the E/37 on the right side of the base. These magazines with the E/37 on the base's are a nice variation and are seldom seen.

07-31-2001, 11:32 PM	#8
JJV Guest Posts: n/a	Re: 1939 Luger The eagle 37 proof on mine is slightly right of center with the serial # below it.. Thanks for the info. JV

08-01-2001, 12:32 AM	#9
BCC Guest Posts: n/a	1939 Luger oddball? Since you two seem pretty much up the 1939 Lugers, let me ask your opinion on this one: I have a 1939 S/42, u block. I got it from the vet about 30 years ago. It has the mid type proof on the breech block and late type on the receiver. It is maybe 85-90% finish, all very even and well matched. The parts match in number and style (except the mag). Could this be an "out of sequence" production, a very late (fluke) S/42 1939, or could two Germans cleaning Lugers of different year dates but same last two digits have mixed up toggles (early in the game as the somewhat worn finish is very consistant and the US vet said he never fired it)?

08-01-2001, 01:08 AM	#10
bill m User Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 385 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: 1939 Luger oddball? Hi, This is only a guess, but I would say that some parts were switched, and this is not a fluke or out of sequence gun. I feel the U suffix block is well beyond any transition period -- Q, R, S, T, and U -- at least 30,000 guns -- and any transition gun would have taken place in the Q or R blocks. I just don't think it is correct to have a mix of these test proofs, as that would indicate to me that the gun was not assembled, accepted, or tested at the same time. Just my thoughts.