, Collector Forums" /> Lugerforum Archive" />
my profile |
register |
faq |
search upload photo | donate | calendar |
01-10-2002, 02:16 AM | #1 |
User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 385
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Odd Proof
Hi,
Here is a picture of a blank chamber, DWM toggle marked, Police Luger with serial number 8662 R. It has a 1935 dated police holster numbered on the back with S.M. 740, which is the property number on the front grip strap. It has two wood magazines with it, with 740 on one and 740 and 1 on the other. Kind of odd that they did not use the serial number of the gun for the magazine numbers. This is not a very good picture of the proof on the right receiver, but it is an Eagle, then GL, and then 6. The left side proofs are also odd in that they are like a really deep struck Simson Test Eagle -- looks like a eagle inside of a square box. I'm pretty sure that these are Simson proofs on both sides of the gun, but have never heard of anything like this on the right side. Have any of you? http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/86623.jpg |
01-10-2002, 02:18 AM | #2 |
User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 385
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Hey Dok, I actually did it! (EOM)
|
01-10-2002, 03:57 AM | #3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Hey Dok, I actually did it!
Next time will be a bit easier!
With me, if I don't do that same thing in a reasonable amount of time, I'll go... Now it goes like this? Or drive down the same wrong street I drove before! I have to get it stuck in my head good... Ed |
01-10-2002, 10:17 AM | #4 |
RIP
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bermuda (Eat Your Heart Out)
Posts: 1,626
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
Well done bill m... no stopping you now! (
|
01-10-2002, 03:48 PM | #5 |
Lifer
Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Capital of the Free World
Posts: 10,154
Thanks: 3,003
Thanked 2,306 Times in 1,097 Posts
|
Congrats on the photo upload procedure success Bill
and NO I have not see this proof mark before.
-John |
01-10-2002, 08:10 PM | #6 |
User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 385
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Re: Odd Proof
Hi,
Here is the Eagle that is on the left side of the receiver, the breech, and the barrel. Normally these Weimar Lugers would have an Crown N proof in this location, but not this one. Again, any idea's as to what it is? Simson Eagle? http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/P1010010.jpg |
01-10-2002, 08:59 PM | #7 |
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Utah, in the land of the Sleeping Rainbow
Posts: 1,457
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
Re: Congrats on the photo upload procedure success Bill
Bill, that eagle appears to be a Simpson Suhl eagle but it appears on the wrong side. See Costanzo pages 90 & 91 nembers 68 and 69 (eagles).
|
01-10-2002, 11:40 PM | #8 |
User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 385
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
I agree
Hi Herb,
Looks like a Simson Eagle. This is on the left receiver, left breech, and also the left underside of the barrel. Odd isn't it? And the right side markings no one seems to have seen before. Odd also that this Luger is not marked with an C/N. The sideplate is marked in both the commercial and military style serial number placement, but the takedown lever is only numbered in the commercial style. The barrel is marked 8662 r as is the frame, but the barrel does not have a guage number. Is hard to tell if this is a reworked or new manufactured Luger, but appears to be of new manufacture. An alphabet Luger as Jan Still referrs to them of about 1928 manufacture, which is 5 years past the use of this Simson Eagle according to Costanzo. This is a neat Luger rig and unique, but with lots of un-answered questions yet at this time. Any opinions on it?? |
01-10-2002, 11:47 PM | #9 |
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Utah, in the land of the Sleeping Rainbow
Posts: 1,457
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
Re: I agree
Exactly, doesn't fit the norm, but that doesn't make it a fake or rework as there are so many variations of the markings. I love researching these Lugers, but it can really be frustrating as there are so many markings that do not fit the 'usual' marking found in the references.
|
|
|