Looks like a nice Erfurt, but

Mike B · 12-17-2005, 12:26 AM

A friend was out on the range yesterday shooting his Desert Eagle when he noticed an old acquantance of his banging away with this 1916 Erfurt. In short order, the person shooting the Luger approached my friend to renew an old friendship. During the conversation, he asked him if he might know of anyone who would be interested in purchasing his Luger. Well fortunately for me, I was first on his list and he called me that night and told me the story. I was able to "borrow" the Luger and present it to the forum for evaluation. It is in really good condition in my opinion. The only one problem I see is the number stamped on the breechblock seems to be over-stamped. It appears as though there was a "30" then it was stamped with a "10" or possibly or some other number. Can anyone shed any light on this situation? The only other problem I see is there are two magazine, both of which are incorrect. One is a black widow fxo and the other is an aluminum bottom with an eagle 63 proof. If I do purchase this Luger, I would like to swap either one of these for a NICE Erfurt magazine. If any other comments are in order, please don't hesitate to make them. Thanks again for the all the help in the past, Mike.

Edward Tinker · 12-17-2005, 12:29 AM

Mike how much?

It is a nice looking erfurt, so price would matter on how much to "deduct" for the double stamp...

ed

Doug G. · 12-17-2005, 12:43 AM

Shouldn't it have a cut for an Artillery rear sight? Odd that it does not, yet has RC markings and Erfurt proofs. Wonder if this one slipped by? The number on the breach block bothers me. I think it broke the original and someone tried to fix the problem. I would say value to be $5-600, it will bring that much broken up for parts.

Mike B · 12-17-2005, 12:47 AM

Ed,
That is my delima. Is it just a shooter with the double strike. He wants me make him an offer. I like the Luger, and I am truly disappointed with the flaw, but I am not sure of the severity of the flaw. I noticed the "crowed RC" proof. Could this have been done as an arsenal repair procedure?

Mike

minigun · 12-17-2005, 01:41 AM

If you did decide to buy it I would probably be interested in the aluminum bottom magazine. I'd need to take a look at it though by pics. If you do get it and want to sell that mag, just email me at [email protected] .

Odd that the gun would be an Erfurt, double stamped and have the two different period mags. Wonder if it could have been issued to soldiers during the WWII period?

Dwight Gruber · 12-17-2005, 03:17 AM

Mike,

Still (Imperial Lugers p.61) notes that "almost all" 1916 Erfurt have the rear sight receiver cut, but also notes that the dimensional tables were not amended until November of that year. This gun (no suffix) was made within the first 10,000 examples of an estimated 80,000-pistol run that year, so the lack of a sight cut is not particularly worrisome, unless someone comes up with statistics for early guns in that range with the cut.

The c/RC Revisions-Commission stamp means only that some part was sufficiently out-of-tolerance to go to a higher authority for acceptance. It does not indicate a rework of any sort.

There is no accounting for the overstamp on the breechblock. It might be useful to photograph it in different lighting conditions--direction, hi contrast vs. low, etc., to see if anything more can be drawn from it. It occurs to me to wonder, what is the firing pin serial number?

It appears that the front of the frame rails--both sides--are somewhat pitted. It is hard to tell from the phtots, are the pits blued to the bottom?

I wouldn't read anything into the magazine selection with this Luger. Its been 90 years, through the ownership of no-one can know how many people, and there is no accounting of what owner came up with what magazines to go along with it, whenever.

--Dwight

Mike B · 12-17-2005, 08:47 AM

Dwight,
Here are a few more pictures with a different camera set in a different mode. The firing pin is restamped as well, but not as badly as the breechblock. It appears that the blueing is all the way to the bottom of the pitting, but it is really hard to tell. I have a picture of that as well. Thanks again for another very informative reply.
Mike

12-17-2005, 12:26 AM	#1
Mike B Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: South Louisiana Posts: 979 Thanks: 1 Thanked 271 Times in 99 Posts	Looks like a nice Erfurt, but A friend was out on the range yesterday shooting his Desert Eagle when he noticed an old acquantance of his banging away with this 1916 Erfurt. In short order, the person shooting the Luger approached my friend to renew an old friendship. During the conversation, he asked him if he might know of anyone who would be interested in purchasing his Luger. Well fortunately for me, I was first on his list and he called me that night and told me the story. I was able to "borrow" the Luger and present it to the forum for evaluation. It is in really good condition in my opinion. The only one problem I see is the number stamped on the breechblock seems to be over-stamped. It appears as though there was a "30" then it was stamped with a "10" or possibly or some other number. Can anyone shed any light on this situation? The only other problem I see is there are two magazine, both of which are incorrect. One is a black widow fxo and the other is an aluminum bottom with an eagle 63 proof. If I do purchase this Luger, I would like to swap either one of these for a NICE Erfurt magazine. If any other comments are in order, please don't hesitate to make them. Thanks again for the all the help in the past, Mike.

12-17-2005, 12:29 AM	#2
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,935 Thanks: 2,033 Thanked 4,533 Times in 2,093 Posts	Mike how much? It is a nice looking erfurt, so price would matter on how much to "deduct" for the double stamp... ed __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV

12-17-2005, 12:43 AM	#3
Doug G. User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 713 Thanks: 1 Thanked 53 Times in 17 Posts	Shouldn't it have a cut for an Artillery rear sight? Odd that it does not, yet has RC markings and Erfurt proofs. Wonder if this one slipped by? The number on the breach block bothers me. I think it broke the original and someone tried to fix the problem. I would say value to be $5-600, it will bring that much broken up for parts. __________________ Suppose you were an idiot.....and suppose you were a member of Congress.....But I repeat myself" ~~ Mark Twain

12-17-2005, 08:47 AM	#7
Mike B Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: South Louisiana Posts: 979 Thanks: 1 Thanked 271 Times in 99 Posts	more pictures Dwight, Here are a few more pictures with a different camera set in a different mode. The firing pin is restamped as well, but not as badly as the breechblock. It appears that the blueing is all the way to the bottom of the pitting, but it is really hard to tell. I have a picture of that as well. Thanks again for another very informative reply. Mike

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-17-2005, 12:47 AM	#4
Mike B Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: South Louisiana Posts: 979 Thanks: 1 Thanked 271 Times in 99 Posts	Ed, That is my delima. Is it just a shooter with the double strike. He wants me make him an offer. I like the Luger, and I am truly disappointed with the flaw, but I am not sure of the severity of the flaw. I noticed the "crowed RC" proof. Could this have been done as an arsenal repair procedure? Mike

12-17-2005, 01:41 AM	#5
minigun User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 424 Thanks: 15 Thanked 19 Times in 14 Posts	If you did decide to buy it I would probably be interested in the aluminum bottom magazine. I'd need to take a look at it though by pics. If you do get it and want to sell that mag, just email me at [email protected] . Odd that the gun would be an Erfurt, double stamped and have the two different period mags. Wonder if it could have been issued to soldiers during the WWII period?

12-17-2005, 03:17 AM	#6
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,902 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,318 Times in 431 Posts	Mike, Still (Imperial Lugers p.61) notes that "almost all" 1916 Erfurt have the rear sight receiver cut, but also notes that the dimensional tables were not amended until November of that year. This gun (no suffix) was made within the first 10,000 examples of an estimated 80,000-pistol run that year, so the lack of a sight cut is not particularly worrisome, unless someone comes up with statistics for early guns in that range with the cut. The c/RC Revisions-Commission stamp means only that some part was sufficiently out-of-tolerance to go to a higher authority for acceptance. It does not indicate a rework of any sort. There is no accounting for the overstamp on the breechblock. It might be useful to photograph it in different lighting conditions--direction, hi contrast vs. low, etc., to see if anything more can be drawn from it. It occurs to me to wonder, what is the firing pin serial number? It appears that the front of the frame rails--both sides--are somewhat pitted. It is hard to tell from the phtots, are the pits blued to the bottom? I wouldn't read anything into the magazine selection with this Luger. Its been 90 years, through the ownership of no-one can know how many people, and there is no accounting of what owner came up with what magazines to go along with it, whenever. --Dwight