Simson "sneak" re-work? - Page 2

Evil_Ed · 08-07-2006, 03:08 PM

Dwight, I checked the barrel witness mark (but neglected to photograph it); the mark is uniform and straight, indicating that it was not rebarreled..or if it was rebarreled, it was done with such precision that it would be impossible to tell either way. The line's indentation and depth match and line up.

The left receiver is blank as is the takedown plate, and the frame front (ahead of the trigger guard) just shows the serial number/letter.

I'll get photographs of it all tonight, provided I can get my work area clean enough to photograph

One thing I did notice when I was checking it again last night; on the front of the front sight base (front being muzzle-side), there's an R (or a B perhaps?) stamped. I didn't notice it before.

What I cannot photograph I will write down; as you can tell from the above photos, I lack a decent tripod

Again, thanks!

Evil_Ed · 08-07-2006, 08:50 PM

Here we go..

Full left side shot - any splotchy areas, sorry, that's oil..notably above the magazine release.

Evil_Ed · 08-07-2006, 08:50 PM

Close up, left side:

Edited to add - you can clearly see the 96 (not 86, 96) on the sear bar - just wait, it gets weirder further on. I was willing to chalk that one up to "it's a replacement" but I'm not so sure - you'll see in a bit.

Anyway:

Evil_Ed · 08-07-2006, 08:51 PM

"R" on front sight base:

Evil_Ed · 08-07-2006, 08:53 PM

Bottom of frame and where it meets the barrel:

Evil_Ed · 08-07-2006, 08:53 PM

First bit of weirdness:

This is inside the left side cover...note the 96, and the big "1" stamped in it on the inside:

Evil_Ed · 08-07-2006, 08:56 PM

And now for the other weird part:

That's what is stamped on the BOTTOM of that very same left side cover.

Now, since to remove that sear bar to stamp it, it would require undoing that sear safety. I'm doing a WAG and saying they never restamped it because it was more of a pain in the rear to remove the sear safety, stamp, and put it back together than it was worth?

Total WAG on that...

Evil_Ed · 08-07-2006, 08:57 PM

Here's the bolt assembly..81 and eagle on the left side of the bolt:

The firing pin was NOT numbered. There was no stamped number on it or the firing pin plunger, anywhere on the part that I could see.

The ejector was also unnumbered, since I'm mentioning unnumbered things.

Evil_Ed · 08-07-2006, 09:00 PM

Now for a bit more weirdness:

Here's the BACK of the bolt, and the underside of the toggle:

There's a big 86 stamped on the back of the bolt head, and a small K stamped underside of the toggle.

Evil_Ed · 08-07-2006, 09:01 PM

Here's the underside of the slide assembly...

The witness marks line up, there's a K stamped down there as well.

Edward Tinker · 08-07-2006, 09:04 PM

Okay, looked at everything.

Three possibilities:

1. A non "sneak", a true rework, i.e. older, probably ww1 then totally reworked in the late 1920's, early 1930's.

2. "sneak" (I dislike the term sneak as much as Don, although it is a correct terminology in the luger field, so you were correct Ed), however, a DWM, NOT simson rework. Unless it has eagle 33 or eagle 6 somewhere, then it can very well be Simson rework. The 81 is a commerical stamping, better chance that this started as a commerical, bought by police and ended up in the service, being reworked thus the 86 and the official looking 81's at the same time.

3. started as a late 20's DWM, then was reworked, it appears to have no halo, thus reblued at one point. This is why the 86 and the official looking 81's at the same time.

Ed

Evil_Ed · 08-07-2006, 09:06 PM

Here's a quick tabulation of what's numbered and what isn't, and where:

Bolt Hold Open: Unnumbered
Take down lever: 81 - marked on bottom (visible in one of the photos above)
Safety lever: 81 - top
Safety bar: 81 - side (visible when engaged)
Trigger: 81 - left side on top, under cover
Frame: 3681u
Cover: 96 - inside with a big 1 on a different orientation and plane
81 - on bottom outside
Bolt: 81 - left bottom, eagle left top
86 - back
Ejector: unnumbered
Sear bar: 96 - left side
Firing pin and plunger: unnumbered
Extractor: 81

Grips, I didn't see any pencil markings on the back of them, nor did I see any numbers engraved or carved in to them.

The magazine was photographed previously; there are no markings I can find on the body, and it's a single-pin floorplate.

Any of this helpful?

If there's any other information anyone needs or could use, please let me know; I'll gladly photograph and/or transcribe what I see.

Evil_Ed · 08-07-2006, 09:16 PM

Edward, that's just it...if I look at the first proof on the right side just right, I can make out the six under the eagle.

The problem is capturing it on film, or on electrons

Larger versions of the images are again available here. That image should be the last one in the list.

Dwight Gruber · 08-07-2006, 09:28 PM

EEd,

Thanks very much for the additional pictures.

And Ed, I was writing this while the two of you posted your last messages, so this edit is playing catch-up.

This gun appears to be a standard u-suffix 29DWM which went directly to the German Weapons Office (WaffenAmt) to be inspected and proofed for Police service, rather than to the commercial proof house which serviced DWM. The right receiver, breechblock proof, and barrel marks--particularly the e/WaA66--and the absence of c/N proofs demonstrate this. There is another 29DWM in the Commercial database, sn 4140u, which is marked the same way.

(The absence of any e/6 (or e/33) inspector stamps pretty much eliminate any Simson connection.) I'm not sure what to make of the 6 under the eagle which you percieve. This suggests to me the WAG that the e/6 inspector may have performed part of the final inspection process, either at the Simson factory or at his home office. This does not necessarily imply a Simson "rework" function.

The serial number on the rear toggle pin indicates that something was done concerning this gun after 1932. 29DWM converted to Police use often have numbered toggle pins. This could have been done at a weapons depot. It remains an open question as to when these guns were sold, where they went, and when they were put into service. I believe that Don Maus's Police studies can help sort this out.

Alphabet DWM and 29DWM Commercial Lugers are commonly found without firing pin serial numbers.

The 86 on the rear face of the breechblock is also proper, a number different from the gun's serial number is usually found here on Alphabet DWM and 29DWM. I don't have any records of these numbers being found on other parts.

The presence of K on various parts of this gun is intriguing. Although the witness mark is aligned, it is not a single stroke and so cannot be used as an indicator of anything.

--Dwight

Evil_Ed · 08-07-2006, 09:37 PM

Dwight, and Edward both, thank you. I found some photos of the eagle-over-6, and you're both correct...the six is very distinct in those photographs. The eagle on mine isn't nearly as clear. Well, that's one less thing I'll have to wonder about

So this gun looks "proper", in it's current form? That is, it's not a mixmaster, or something someone threw together for the heck of it?

Can I safely take it out and use it as a shooter, or is it something I should put into my collection as a keeper but only occasional shooter, and find something more appropriate for range use? I'm embarassed to say what I paid for it, but when I bought it it was priced as a very cheap range blaster. VERY cheap range blaster, which is what I was intending to use it for until I got curious and opened a book.

Edward Tinker · 08-07-2006, 09:51 PM

This is only a start, but why I questioned it being a simson rework...

www.simsonlugers.com

you are welcome to shoot her, but if you break a part, there goes collectable.. might be better to trade it for a shooter plus some cash or buy another...

Dwight Gruber · 08-07-2006, 09:55 PM

E-Ed,

Your Luger is certainly proper and not a "mixmaster". It has some unique characterisitcs, but I wouldn't call it "rare".

Personally, I wouldn't shoot it, but I have a couple of Lugers specifically reserved for the purpose. You can probably shoot it with relative impunity. I would recommend that you pick up a couple of modern mags--Mec Gar are good--or some fxo mags for shooting. The 90-year-old early Imperial Erfurt magazine with the gun will likely not allow the gun to function well, and it is rather valuable on its own account.

If you picked up this gun really cheap you got a pretty good deal.

--Dwight

Evil_Ed · 08-07-2006, 10:03 PM

Again, thanks, both. Edward, yes, that site was one of the ones I referenced earlier when looking for eagle-over-6 stamps...boy, mine looked nothing like that.

Dwight, I just emailed you concerning the commercial database, thanks.

Again, thank you so much, this place is proving an invaluable resource.

08-07-2006, 03:08 PM	#21
Evil_Ed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 42 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Dwight, I checked the barrel witness mark (but neglected to photograph it); the mark is uniform and straight, indicating that it was not rebarreled..or if it was rebarreled, it was done with such precision that it would be impossible to tell either way. The line's indentation and depth match and line up. The left receiver is blank as is the takedown plate, and the frame front (ahead of the trigger guard) just shows the serial number/letter. I'll get photographs of it all tonight, provided I can get my work area clean enough to photograph One thing I did notice when I was checking it again last night; on the front of the front sight base (front being muzzle-side), there's an R (or a B perhaps?) stamped. I didn't notice it before. What I cannot photograph I will write down; as you can tell from the above photos, I lack a decent tripod Again, thanks!

08-07-2006, 08:50 PM	#22
Evil_Ed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 42 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Here we go.. Full left side shot - any splotchy areas, sorry, that's oil..notably above the magazine release.

08-07-2006, 08:51 PM	#24
Evil_Ed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 42 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	"R" on front sight base:

08-07-2006, 08:53 PM	#25
Evil_Ed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 42 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Bottom of frame and where it meets the barrel:

08-07-2006, 08:56 PM	#27
Evil_Ed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 42 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	And now for the other weird part: That's what is stamped on the BOTTOM of that very same left side cover. Now, since to remove that sear bar to stamp it, it would require undoing that sear safety. I'm doing a WAG and saying they never restamped it because it was more of a pain in the rear to remove the sear safety, stamp, and put it back together than it was worth? Total WAG on that...

08-07-2006, 08:57 PM	#28
Evil_Ed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 42 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Here's the bolt assembly..81 and eagle on the left side of the bolt: The firing pin was NOT numbered. There was no stamped number on it or the firing pin plunger, anywhere on the part that I could see. The ejector was also unnumbered, since I'm mentioning unnumbered things.

08-07-2006, 09:00 PM	#29
Evil_Ed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 42 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Now for a bit more weirdness: Here's the BACK of the bolt, and the underside of the toggle: There's a big 86 stamped on the back of the bolt head, and a small K stamped underside of the toggle.

08-07-2006, 09:01 PM	#30
Evil_Ed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 42 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Here's the underside of the slide assembly... The witness marks line up, there's a K stamped down there as well.

08-07-2006, 09:04 PM	#31
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,935 Thanks: 2,034 Thanked 4,533 Times in 2,093 Posts	Okay, looked at everything. Three possibilities: 1. A non "sneak", a true rework, i.e. older, probably ww1 then totally reworked in the late 1920's, early 1930's. 2. "sneak" (I dislike the term sneak as much as Don, although it is a correct terminology in the luger field, so you were correct Ed), however, a DWM, NOT simson rework. Unless it has eagle 33 or eagle 6 somewhere, then it can very well be Simson rework. The 81 is a commerical stamping, better chance that this started as a commerical, bought by police and ended up in the service, being reworked thus the 86 and the official looking 81's at the same time. 3. started as a late 20's DWM, then was reworked, it appears to have no halo, thus reblued at one point. This is why the 86 and the official looking 81's at the same time. Ed

08-07-2006, 09:06 PM	#32
Evil_Ed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 42 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Here's a quick tabulation of what's numbered and what isn't, and where: Bolt Hold Open: Unnumbered Take down lever: 81 - marked on bottom (visible in one of the photos above) Safety lever: 81 - top Safety bar: 81 - side (visible when engaged) Trigger: 81 - left side on top, under cover Frame: 3681u Cover: 96 - inside with a big 1 on a different orientation and plane 81 - on bottom outside Bolt: 81 - left bottom, eagle left top 86 - back Ejector: unnumbered Sear bar: 96 - left side Firing pin and plunger: unnumbered Extractor: 81 Grips, I didn't see any pencil markings on the back of them, nor did I see any numbers engraved or carved in to them. The magazine was photographed previously; there are no markings I can find on the body, and it's a single-pin floorplate. Any of this helpful? If there's any other information anyone needs or could use, please let me know; I'll gladly photograph and/or transcribe what I see.

08-07-2006, 09:16 PM	#33
Evil_Ed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 42 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Edward, that's just it...if I look at the first proof on the right side just right, I can make out the six under the eagle. The problem is capturing it on film, or on electrons Larger versions of the images are again available here. That image should be the last one in the list.

08-07-2006, 09:28 PM	#34
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,902 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,318 Times in 431 Posts	EEd, Thanks very much for the additional pictures. And Ed, I was writing this while the two of you posted your last messages, so this edit is playing catch-up. This gun appears to be a standard u-suffix 29DWM which went directly to the German Weapons Office (WaffenAmt) to be inspected and proofed for Police service, rather than to the commercial proof house which serviced DWM. The right receiver, breechblock proof, and barrel marks--particularly the e/WaA66--and the absence of c/N proofs demonstrate this. There is another 29DWM in the Commercial database, sn 4140u, which is marked the same way. (The absence of any e/6 (or e/33) inspector stamps pretty much eliminate any Simson connection.) I'm not sure what to make of the 6 under the eagle which you percieve. This suggests to me the WAG that the e/6 inspector may have performed part of the final inspection process, either at the Simson factory or at his home office. This does not necessarily imply a Simson "rework" function. The serial number on the rear toggle pin indicates that something was done concerning this gun after 1932. 29DWM converted to Police use often have numbered toggle pins. This could have been done at a weapons depot. It remains an open question as to when these guns were sold, where they went, and when they were put into service. I believe that Don Maus's Police studies can help sort this out. Alphabet DWM and 29DWM Commercial Lugers are commonly found without firing pin serial numbers. The 86 on the rear face of the breechblock is also proper, a number different from the gun's serial number is usually found here on Alphabet DWM and 29DWM. I don't have any records of these numbers being found on other parts. The presence of K on various parts of this gun is intriguing. Although the witness mark is aligned, it is not a single stroke and so cannot be used as an indicator of anything. --Dwight

08-07-2006, 09:37 PM	#35
Evil_Ed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 42 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Dwight, and Edward both, thank you. I found some photos of the eagle-over-6, and you're both correct...the six is very distinct in those photographs. The eagle on mine isn't nearly as clear. Well, that's one less thing I'll have to wonder about So this gun looks "proper", in it's current form? That is, it's not a mixmaster, or something someone threw together for the heck of it? Can I safely take it out and use it as a shooter, or is it something I should put into my collection as a keeper but only occasional shooter, and find something more appropriate for range use? I'm embarassed to say what I paid for it, but when I bought it it was priced as a very cheap range blaster. VERY cheap range blaster, which is what I was intending to use it for until I got curious and opened a book.

08-07-2006, 09:51 PM	#36
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,935 Thanks: 2,034 Thanked 4,533 Times in 2,093 Posts	This is only a start, but why I questioned it being a simson rework... www.simsonlugers.com you are welcome to shoot her, but if you break a part, there goes collectable.. might be better to trade it for a shooter plus some cash or buy another...

08-07-2006, 09:55 PM	#37
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,902 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,318 Times in 431 Posts	E-Ed, Your Luger is certainly proper and not a "mixmaster". It has some unique characterisitcs, but I wouldn't call it "rare". Personally, I wouldn't shoot it, but I have a couple of Lugers specifically reserved for the purpose. You can probably shoot it with relative impunity. I would recommend that you pick up a couple of modern mags--Mec Gar are good--or some fxo mags for shooting. The 90-year-old early Imperial Erfurt magazine with the gun will likely not allow the gun to function well, and it is rather valuable on its own account. If you picked up this gun really cheap you got a pretty good deal. --Dwight

08-07-2006, 10:03 PM	#38
Evil_Ed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 42 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Again, thanks, both. Edward, yes, that site was one of the ones I referenced earlier when looking for eagle-over-6 stamps...boy, mine looked nothing like that. Dwight, I just emailed you concerning the commercial database, thanks. Again, thank you so much, this place is proving an invaluable resource.