ghengiskhan
New member
What kind of Luger proof marks are these? I've never seen them.
Luger Proof Marks
- Thread starter ghengiskhan
- Start date
I am willing to be educated, but I don't think that is an official proof mark; more likely it is a factory inspection marking. Both those toggles appear to be from the same factory, even very close in production date; what are the top markings?
Later edit: It does look a bit like the Weimar era Reichsadler but not what is usually seen. That location was used, at times, for a factory marking indicating that the breechblock had gone through the hardening process.
Jim
Later edit: It does look a bit like the Weimar era Reichsadler but not what is usually seen. That location was used, at times, for a factory marking indicating that the breechblock had gone through the hardening process.
Jim
ghengiskhan
New member
Sorry, I messed up the first image.
No date, toggle is DWM. The proof marks aren't listed in any of my sources, verly perplexing.
No date, toggle is DWM. The proof marks aren't listed in any of my sources, verly perplexing.
ghengiskhan
New member
Oh wow, well thanks a lot, that was very helpful (all of you).
Mike Irwin
Staff
I wonder why they would put three on the barrel?
The three identical marks is unusual and lends itself to the idea that someone (Simson?) was trying to emulate the earlier markings. The usual three marks are an inspection mark for the receiver as a receiver, one for the assembled pistol, and one (usually larger and/or different) indicating that the pistol passed firing proof. In the Nazi era, the first two would have the same WaA number, the firing proof mark would have an eagle and swastika.
Jim
Jim
Jim Watson
New member
I don't know about this specific case, but a lot of European proof houses have degrees of proof, Provisional, Definitive, and Superior. Sometimes each level has its own proof mark, sometimes they just whack it again.
Jim, I don't think that was the case here, but with Simson it sort is all bets off; they just did things differently.
The inspection marks (the WaA marks) served two purposes. They showed that the part had passed dimensional checks (gauges) and/or gone through whatever other processes were required for that part, like heat treatment. But they also told anyone "down the line" that that part was OK to be used in assembly. If the part was not appropriately stamped, it would be set aside and not used.
The whole process was labor and time intensive. I am sure the folks who spent the war stamping small parts were darned glad they were not freezing on the Ostfront, but the waste of manpower (not many women in those factories) must have been incrediible. And it was absurd; by WWII, Germany had the most modern precision production equipment in the world; gauging and stamping each part (rather than just spot checking) must have absorbed tens of thousands of people in German industry. Even if some were not suitable for active military service, or were "guest workers" (as the Germans called foreign slave labor) surely they could have been better used elsewhere.
Jim
The inspection marks (the WaA marks) served two purposes. They showed that the part had passed dimensional checks (gauges) and/or gone through whatever other processes were required for that part, like heat treatment. But they also told anyone "down the line" that that part was OK to be used in assembly. If the part was not appropriately stamped, it would be set aside and not used.
The whole process was labor and time intensive. I am sure the folks who spent the war stamping small parts were darned glad they were not freezing on the Ostfront, but the waste of manpower (not many women in those factories) must have been incrediible. And it was absurd; by WWII, Germany had the most modern precision production equipment in the world; gauging and stamping each part (rather than just spot checking) must have absorbed tens of thousands of people in German industry. Even if some were not suitable for active military service, or were "guest workers" (as the Germans called foreign slave labor) surely they could have been better used elsewhere.
Jim