1945 HK Lugers...Real Or Not...?

[Pete Ebbink]

Okay, I hope I do not start a bon-fire with this, but here goes :

I have heard a similar story from two sources, independent from each other, about the fact that the 1945-dated HK lugers might be "post-Kreighoff" production.

The story goes that some old timer in Ohio passed away in the late 1950's or early 960's and when they went into his workshop, they found lots of stamps/dies that indicated that he might have been "fabricating" some/most of the 1945-dated HK's. As the story goes, no intact guns were found however...

Questions I have :

1. Have others heard this story ? Does the story have credibility ?

2. What "donor" gun is thought to have been used, if one believes this story ? Or are these thought to have been guns assembled from left over parts, again assuming the story is true ?

3. R. Gibson, on page 186 of The Krighoff Parabellum, does state in reference to the 1945's that "...The marking traits on these pistols are totally different than on any other Krieghoff production..." and "...The machining on these examples is peculiar to this production...". Can anyone expand on what Mr. Gibson might have been stating ?

4. Does anyone know that name of the Ohio gentleman, in question ? (I am assuming there is no threat of a lawsuit here...from surviving family members.) I would just like to know, for an historical perspective...

Regards,

Pete... <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

[MauserLugers]

Yes, I have heard this from at least 5 different very credible collectors!

[John Sabato]

this sounds like a subject that John D. should be able to comment on... if he can squeeze in a minute from his busy schedule... how about it John D. A Krieghoff question doesn't come along all that often... <img src="graemlins/xyxwave.gif" border="0" alt="[bigbye]" />

[Orv Reichert]

There really were some HK 1945 dates!

In early 1946, I was a 17 years old living in Pocatello Id. And, even then, I was an absolute gun nut!

I bought, from a local second hand store, a Luger....

I knew it was Navy as it had an Anchor on the toggle. I also knew it had been captured in 1945 as some idiot had 'hand stamped' 1945 over the chamber.

I soon traded it for a 30-30 Winchester as I could not obtain any ammo for a 9mm. [.30 Mauser and Luger was available]

It took me many years to find out what I had owned.

Orv Reichert

Men occasionally stumble on the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.--Sir Winston Churchill

[John D.]

I agree with Orv - and for another reason altogether [img]smile.gif[/img]

I would think that the existence of legitimate "1945" chamber dated Kriegs might be supported through the existence of perhaps a G.I. assembled "1945" from HK parts (after the factory was "liberated" (post war Krieg)).

If there were such a GI parts gun (which there is [img]smile.gif[/img] ) - with a "1945" chamber date, it would indicate that the factory had indeed, at some point had/made/offered/produced (take your pick [img]smile.gif[/img] ) "1945" chamber dated HK Lugers during wartime production runs.

Again, with a bona-fide 1945 HK parts gun - there are only two explanations that might come to mind to explain its existence:

1) Whoever "fabricated" the alleged "fakes" (all 1945 HK Lugers) flew over to Germany after the factory was liberated - and before the "GI" parts gun was assembled by the unsuspecting GI - by stamping the cannon chamber "1945", then secretly put it back into the parts bin - thus allowing this forged 1945 HK "parts gun" to be put into circulation to corroborate his future 1945 fakes; [img]eek.gif[/img] <img src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" border="0" alt="[hiha]" /> OR

2) Or there were/are chamber dated 1945 Krieghoffs/cannons/parts at the factory at the time it was occupied - and this 1945 parts gun was assembled just like other post-war "parts" HK Lugers using a menagerie of various parts. This would indicate that HK, did indeed, provide 1945 chamber dated Lugers for the military.

Personally - I would think that the second hypothesis is more plausible. Also - if all the 1945 HK Chamber dated Lugers are faked - why would the forger spend his time "faking" a "parts gun" worth next to nothing - if using that same "1945" cannon - he could fake a "genuine" 1945 HK worth thousands of dollars??? In addition, the "parts gun" also includes several other "HK" properly marked smaller pieces - that together, could have been used by the forger to produced a "1945" fake - again, worth much more.

Hmmmmm.............

So, yes - I agree that there are indeed, legitimate 1945 HK Lugers. I also believe that some, but not all - are faked.

[John D.]

[quote]Originally posted by Wm. Pete Ebbink:
<strong> ....R. Gibson, on page 186 of The Krighoff Parabellum, does state in reference to the 1945's that "...The marking traits.. &lt;snip&gt;</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry Pete - I almost missed this one...

Actually, the differences are found in what Gibson refers to as "Late" 1944 production and 1945 production (above serial number 13,000). For example 1944 Chamber date HK number 13,0XX (sorry - this one isn't mine, so I can't give the full number) shares similiar traits to the 1945 production (to note: extractor lettering, LWaA 1 Acceptance stamp, saftey, grip sub-variations, toggle die, etc., etc., etc.) where there is commonality between the late 1944 and 1945 production - and dissimiliar to any previous HK production. However, I believe that all of these serial numbers are in the 13,000/13,100 serial blocks (a few 1944 and 1945 production).

Of interest though, in this thread - those that will dispute that there are 1945 HKs, will also have to refute that there are late production 1944 HKs that share similiar and unique traits to the 1945 HK production, which also share the same serial blocks.

One of Gibson's theories is that these may have been manufactured outside the SUHL facility - but I'm not aware that his theory has either been proved or disproved...

I'll try to post references (page #'s) in Gibson's book when I get home later tonite and have a chance to find the relevant areas....

Oh - and the person who had the "1945" dies discovered on his premisis, passed away some time ago (I don't believe they found certain proof stamps that would indicate he was responsible for many of the unique machining marks Gibson alludes to in late production, so draw your own conclusions [img]smile.gif[/img] )- but he also had a "marketing" partner...

Hope this helps!

[Pete Ebbink]

Hello John and Orv !

Thanks for the good informative discussions...

I also did wonder about the spacing between the four numbers of the chamber dated 1945's. The spacing seems to be set wider apart than on all of the previous year HK's as shown in Gibson's book.

Are the 1945's roll-stamped with a jig that just had the numbers set wider apart or are all of the 1945's hand stamped ?

Regards,

Pete... <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

[John D.]

Hi Pete,

Interesting question....

The 1945 die settings are similar to the 1940, 1943, and late 1944 chamber dates. The 1942 is spaced differently with the "194" (as are the small die 1941). The "1942" numerals are closer together and the "2" spaced offset, so that the overall "date" is equidistant across the chamber - but the "2" is offset slightly to the right.

On a 1945 date - the "5" has it's own characteristics, that are unique and follow those that I believe are non-faked 1945 chamber-dates Kriegs... The "forged "1945"" pieces I believe are out there and some I have seen, have a different "5" altogether without some of the original characteristics of the original "5" die - spacing notwithstanding. The "originals" also have a specific offset, numeral cant and irregularities (within the base and baseline cursive).

Best to you!

[John D.]

Sorry - I forgot this date (the 1930 dates are slightly different, as there is no baseline from the 3rd numeral)... The 1943 follows the dies settings as the "1942", with the "3" offset to the right as well.

Hope this helps...