DWM Commercial 9mmP

[DonVoigt]

I find it tough to square the "rules out the window" conjecture when the 1920 DWM Commercials, i.e. the alphabet commercials- are inspected and proofed without notable exception.

Dick,
what were the secret codes in 1925?

Lugers rebuilt and proved in Suhl post WWI have their own similar but different Crown/N proof; If this time was such a free for all- why were they marked at all?

The simplest and probably most accurate assumption is that the proof marking was removed from the OP luger during subsequent re-finishing. JMHO.

[Kyrie]

Let’s remember that German proof law requires each and every firearm that is offered for commercial sale pass proof and be so marked, and the final (or definitive) mark is the firing proof. Without passing proof a firearm may not be legally sold.

That there are (1920 Commercial) Lugers, clearly sold in Germany on the commercial market, without proof, demonstrates the proof laws were ignored for some guns. We don’t know why some guns were submitted for proof and some were not, but the physical evidence shows that was the case.

Some of these guns have parts salvaged from older guns, and some of these parts still show the (now invalid) commercial (or military) firing proof (and in some cases military inspection/acceptance stamps) applied to the gun from which they were salvaged. In other guns these same kinds of parts may show evidence that the old firing proofs (and sometimes old military inspection/acceptance stamps) were (quite properly) removed.

All this is part and parcel of the confusion that goes hand in hand with the 1920 Commercial Luger variants. They just don’t follow what collectors consider to be “the rules”, and are inexplicable when collectors attempt to apply the rules. Applying the rules to each part of some of these guns ends up creating more than one story, and the stories frequently diverge.

These guns make for lively discussions, and can fuel some entertaining lines of speculation. But ultimately we just don’t know and cannot know with certainty when, by whom, and for what purpose they were made. I think it’s wise to keep that in mind when tempted to become dogmatic on some pet line of speculation

[Dick Herman]

Don,
In the post WWI German Republic plans were made to hide future military manufacturing. In 1925 an alphabet list was developed for indicating the year of acceptance. The K date Luger was the first year that list was applied in 1934. The Luger toggle in 1934 used a S/42 for identifying the type weapon (S) and the manufacturer (42 -Mauser). I could not quickly locate my source for more detail but the S indicates pistols, rifles and machine guns.

[Dwight Gruber]

Originally Posted by Kyrie

...ultimately we just don’t know and cannot know with certainty when, by whom, and for what purpose they were made.

We can know that upright c/N proofed Lugers were made by DWM and proofed in Berlin.

We can know that Lugers with two lazy c/N proofs with a proof on the top of the breechblock were reworked somewhere in Germany and proofed in Suhl.

We can know that DWM-toggle Lugers with upright C/c/U proofs were assembled by Mauser and proofed in Oberndorf.

(We can know that Lugers reworked or repurposed in Germany for state purposes will have their own identifying characteristics.)

We can know that a Luger without a proper commercial proof could not legally be sold in Germany (or anyplace else in Europe).

We can know that Lugers marketed outside continental Europe were proofed in their country of sale, or in the case of the US and some other countries, not necessarily proofed at all.

We can know that all Lugers formally imported into the US were required to be stamped GERMANY or MADE IN GERMANY (with the exception of an expicitly recognized pre-war variation).

With this knowledge in hand, the vast majority of commercial Lugers with a purported origin between 1918 and 1932 (or so) can be identified. Speculatively, the origin of those remaining--such as the example in the beginning of this discussion--cannot even be differentiated between inter-war Germany or elsewhere (particularly the US) from any other time.

Lumping all the foregoing into the convenient catch-all designation of "1920 Commercial designation" does a disservice to the Luger collector and historian. It is much more useful to identify and discuss individual examples by their actual characteristics.

The collector designation "1920 Commercial" ought to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

--Dwight

[Kyrie]

Dwight,

I thought I was clear in my usage of the term “1920 Commercial” :

Originally Posted by Kyrie

I’m using 1920 Commercial for Lugers that are outside the underlying rules that define the usage of 20 DWM, Alphabet DWM, or 29 DWM.

It seems to me your post is fundamentally about the rules by which a Luger may be reasonably classed as a 20 DWM, or an Alphabet DWM, OR A 29 DWM, which would leave you and I talking past each other.

[DonVoigt]

Originally Posted by Dick Herman

Don,
In the post WWI German Republic plans were made to hide future military manufacturing. In 1925 an alphabet list was developed for indicating the year of acceptance. The K date Luger was the first year that list was applied in 1934. The Luger toggle in 1934 used a S/42 for identifying the type weapon (S) and the manufacturer (42 -Mauser). I could not quickly locate my source for more detail but the S indicates pistols, rifles and machine guns.

Thanks Dick,
"everybody knows that".
You threw me with the 1925 bit, Yes, we understand the "K" = 1934, of the not so secret secret codes.

[Kyrie]

Dwight,

It just occurred to me that you had not responded to my request for my information on your post:

Dwight: The shield with a slash is a DWM inspector's mark.

Kyrie: Dwight,
I'd be very interested in learning more on this subject. This mark is, in my experience, not often encountered. Is there any primary source information concerning the circumstances under which it was used? Absent primary source info, has there been any observable pattern in its usage?
TIA!

A reply would be very much appreciated, as I’d like to learn more about this mark, and especially your source for the comment, as your comment leads me to suspect there is a reference I don’t know about or have a copy of.

[eagle7373]

As an interested bystander keeping up with this robust series of posts, I would like to say that I really appreciate the depth of knowledge, the thoughtful and reasoned speculations, the enthusiasm and the philosophic underpinnings behind the posts. I find this thread very educational, and also entertaining. In my view, this is exactly the exchange that a forum like this should encourage.

As for definitions of "1920 Commercial" I do not have all the background to appreciate the fine points (yet), but I'm learning. I was drawn to this thread because I am contemplating purchasing a "1920 Commercial" Luger from among the many that are posted on the Simpson Ltd web site. For clarification, which of the Jan Still definitions applies to the Simpson definition?

Thanks very much. (Now I'll go back to being quiet, listening, and learning).

G.W.

[Ron Wood]

In collector parlance, 1920 Commercial Lugers would have been manufactured by BKIW (as DWM was renamed after being reorganized post WWI), would bear a factory serial number in the known range and possess a firing proof as applied by the government. As Dwight Gruber has pointed out, frequently there is an attempt to call a Luger that has been assembled from period parts but lacking a proper serial number range and/or firing proof a "1920 Commercial", but that, as he states, does a disservice to the Luger collector and historian...the date of fabrication of such a piece is indeterminate and could be 1920, last year or any time between.

[Kyrie]

G.W.

I just looked at a few of the Lugers on the Simpson site, and came away with the feeling he is using "1920 Commercial" in the old sense of the phrase. The sense that makes Don and Dwight break out in hives

P.S. Look here for a primer that will hopefully provide enough background for you to make up your own mind as to which of Jan Still's classification best suit any given Luger on Simpson's:

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...923-definition

[Kyrie]

Originally Posted by Ron Wood

In collector parlance, 1920 Commercial Lugers would have been manufactured by BKIW (as DWM was renamed after being reorganized post WWI), would bear a factory serial number in the known range and possess a firing proof as applied by the government. As Dwight Gruber has pointed out, frequently there is an attempt to call a Luger that has been assembled from period parts but lacking a proper serial number range and/or firing proof a "1920 Commercial", but that, as he states, does a disservice to the Luger collector and historian...the date of fabrication of such a piece is indeterminate and could be 1920, last year or any time between.

Respectfully, it depends on the collector, and his parlance.

Your definition of "1920 Commercial" is not my definition and, as a Luger collector, my definition serves me better that your definition would. I'll leave the historians to look after themselves [insert friendly smile here].

[DonVoigt]

Originally Posted by Kyrie

G.W.

I just looked at a few of the Lugers on the Simpson site, and came away with the feeling he is using "1920 Commercial" in the old sense of the phrase. The sense that makes Don and Dwight break out in hives

P.S. Look here for a primer that will hopefully provide enough background for you to make up your own mind as to which of Jan Still's classification best suit any given Luger on Simpson's:

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...923-definition

Kyrie,
I don't "break out in hives" as this stuff is really not that important!
You use your definition, while many use another; a situation that only leads to confusion.

I know the difference between an "assembled by someone luger" and one produced by DWM or BKIW; such knowledge serves me quite adequately.

I have built several "1920 commercial lugers" by your definition in the last two or four years. Same as many enterprising gunsmiths no doubt did in 1920 and 1930 Germany!

[Kyrie]

G.W.

Just spent a little more time running through the Lugers on Simpson, and he appears to be using the system of nomenclature you can find in Kenyon's "Luger's at Random."

That system is anathema to Don, Ron, and Dwight, but lots of collectors still use and prefer it (Simpson being a case in point).

Speaking purely for myself, I think the "Kenyon" system lacks precision, but I understand it when it is spoken to me. OTOH, while I like Still's system of nomenclature, I feel it has its own set of flaws (not the least of which is incompleteness, occasioned by the avoidance of Lugers that don't fit neatly into his system).

In any event, my feeling is that the value of any system of nomenclature is entirely in the ability of the system to serve as a verbal shorthand that facilitates communication between Luger collectors, when said collectors are trying to describe a Luger that not everyone in the discussion can see and touch.

My best advice is to learn as many systems of nomenclature as are in common usage, and learn how to recognize which system is being spoken to you at the moment. Most of the issues we have had in this thread are rooted in people thinking all parties were speaking the same language when that was not really the case.

[Dwight Gruber]

Originally Posted by Kyrie

Dwight,

It just occurred to me that you had not responded to my request for my information on your post:

Dwight: The shield with a slash is a DWM inspector's mark.

Kyrie: Dwight,
I'd be very interested in learning more on this subject. This mark is, in my experience, not often encountered. Is there any primary source information concerning the circumstances under which it was used? Absent primary source info, has there been any observable pattern in its usage?

Sturgess, red edition. Many references to the mark, pointing out its use as a primary inspector's stamp between 1900 and 1914, on many different parts, across all German production and production contracts. Evolutionary between the DWM "flaming bomb" and N inspector's marks.

--Dwight

[Dwight Gruber]

I am serious with my attempts to rectify collector terminology to accurately represent the physical object. Belittling this as "hives" is insulting and not appreciated.

--Dwight

[Kyrie]

Originally Posted by Dwight Gruber

Sturgess, red edition. Many references to the mark, pointing out its use as a primary inspector's stamp between 1900 and 1914, on many different parts, across all German production and production contracts. Evolutionary between the DWM "flaming bomb" and N inspector's marks.

--Dwight

Thank you, sir. I've never owned a copy of Sturgess' 'History of the "Luger System"' and have just ordered a copy.

[Kyrie]

Originally Posted by Dwight Gruber

I am serious with my attempts to rectify collector terminology to accurately represent the physical object. Belittling this as "hives" is insulting and not appreciated.

--Dwight

My comment about hives was intended to be humorous and I apologize for the unintended offense given.

That said I also have to say, with respect and with no offense intended, that any attempt you may make to correct the terminology used by other collectors presumes an authority you do not possess.

[Kyrie]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

Kyrie,
I don't "break out in hives" as this stuff is really not that important!
You use your definition, while many use another; a situation that only leads to confusion.

I know the difference between an "assembled by someone luger" and one produced by DWM or BKIW; such knowledge serves me quite adequately.

I have built several "1920 commercial lugers" by your definition in the last two or four years. Same as many enterprising gunsmiths no doubt did in 1920 and 1930 Germany!

I generally agree with your comments here, save for the one concerning your ability to distinguish between a Luger made by DWM/BKIW and all others. On that claim I have insufficient information to comment.

[DonVoigt]

Originally Posted by Kyrie

I generally agree with your comments here, save for the one concerning your ability to distinguish between a Luger made by DWM/BKIW and all others. On that claim I have insufficient information to comment.

I would never question your ability to determine if a luger fits your definition of 1920 commercial, and find you quite bold to question my ability to discern lugers according to "my" definition.

[John Sabato]

Gentlemen! This thread is now CLOSED!