Mauser 1940 42 Code

[Steve D]

Can I ask for opinions from the WWII era experts about a Mauser 42 Code?

I have owned the pistol for some time now and originally bought it because I was attracted to the brown grips even though at the time I did not believe them to be original to the gun. I was later pleasantly surprised to learn that, according to Hallock and Van de Kant, some of the 1940 42 Code pistols did get surplus Kreighoff grips. These grips appear to be Kreighoff. Whether they are original is a matter of speculation.

Unfortunately, the pistol has other "issues" and those are what interest me. The facts are these:

1. n suffix code, indicating one of the last 42 Codes
manufactured. All matching parts.
2. Appropriate 655 inspections and proofs.
2. Rear toggle pin not numbered.
3. Barrel exhibits no witness mark. (Although if one looks
carefully, the mark on the receiver appears to end just
before the barrel).
4. Witness mark on front sight shows that the sight has been
moved very slightly.
4. Matching Code 37 fxo magazines which were manufactured
6 months to a year after the pistol.

I should preface my questions with the fact that I hold no aspirations that this example is a stellar collector. I like it because the finish is pretty with minimal wear in the expected areas, and a hint of that mysterious Mauser plum color in the receiver. And those brown grips make it look really cool!

My questions are these:

Is this PO8 a cobbled together example that someone has tried to disguise as a collector based on a replacement barrel, carefully faked magazines, etc., OR could it be an original example that was rotated through an arsenal refirb and came back with new magazines, factory sighted in new barrel (remember sight has been moved), new grips and rear toggle pin?

If fakers went to all the effort to re-number the magazines (doing a terrific job) and barrel, why wouldn't they touch up the witness mark and number the toggle pin to make the charade complete? These are inconsistencies that a war-time factory re-build would not care about.

Thanks in advance for opinions from those who have looked at a lot more Mauser pistols than I have. It is what it is and I like it either way, but I am intrigued by its history.

[pitsword]

Very nice, great photo's also.

[alanint]

Can't comment on the holster, but the rig looks genuine to me.....

[tharpo]

It is my opinion that the "n" suffix in 1940 would be too early for fxo magazines. 122 stamped magazine were being used at that time. Also, the "n" stamps in your picture do not look correct to me. Is that first picture from Phoenix Investment Arms?

[alanint]

A photo of the "N" below the serial number on the front of the frame would be helpful in further clarifying this.

[Norme]

The n could be an h. Here are photos of my 1940 42 #8881h. I'm sorry they're not too clear, but they're what I have on file. Regards, Norm

[Steve D]

The photos are all mine - am an amateur photographer.

I agree, the magazines are about a year later than the pistol and should be 122 code. I do not believe the n-suffix on the magazines is the same font as the weapon frame. The thing that is perplexing is that there is no indication that I can see that the original numbers were ground off of the magazines prior to bogus numbers applied. If the magazines were re-marked, the faker did a great job. It is for this reason that I wondered if Mauser could have received the pistol a year or so after manufacture and marked two new magazines to match before sending it back in the field? Is this something that Mauser has been documented as having done? Steve D.

[Steve D]

I had not considered that the "n" might be an "h". Very interesting as Hallock and Van de Kant document brown grips in the "g" to "k" range, but not in the "n" suffix. Thanks, Norm for the insight.