I just received a gift via a relative on a piece that was originally my grandfathers'. It's a Walther P38 with byf 43 and 8090 above the trigger and left case. I have been reviewing some earlier threads so it looks like a 1943 model? The right side has markings of what looks like war eagles with the numbers 135 right below the eagles. This also appears above the trigger. The holster is in good shape and has P38 stamped very large with a war eagle and swastika with the number WaA869 plus and extra clip. I realize that these are common guns but can any competent gunsmith clean this up a bit? It is in good shape but I would like to get in the best shape possible. THANKS!!
Need P38 detail
- Thread starter O'Show
- Start date
Go to www.lugerforum.com ask for Mark Manley. He is a P38 collector, and also knows just about everything there is to know about P38's. 
There is a downloadable P-38 manual somewhere on the web, don't have the page.
I would make the investment in a new set of recoil and hammer springs available from Wolf Springs.
Your gun was made by Walther in 1943 and seems to have the usual waffenampt stamps(German army inspection and proof markings).
There are books on the P-38, do a search at Amazon.com.
If you are not familiar with the piece have it looked at by a knowledgable pistol smith. Pay particular attention to the locking block, make sure it's there before you try to shoot the gun!
I would make the investment in a new set of recoil and hammer springs available from Wolf Springs.
Your gun was made by Walther in 1943 and seems to have the usual waffenampt stamps(German army inspection and proof markings).
There are books on the P-38, do a search at Amazon.com.
If you are not familiar with the piece have it looked at by a knowledgable pistol smith. Pay particular attention to the locking block, make sure it's there before you try to shoot the gun!
John Lawson
New member
Guru of P-38's? NOT!
Your pistol, being made in the time frame when German arms production factories used slave labor, was subject to sabotage by the unwilling conscriptees. The most common defects were looseness between slide and barrel that would preclude anything like accuracy, and a very serious defect: cooking the firing pin block. Sometimes they were so brittle that lowering the hammer with the thumb lever would allow the hammer to strike the firing pin hard enough to discharge a round.
You can read all this in the February, 1946 issue of The American Rifleman, available in some libraries.
NEVER USE one of these war trophies until a competent pistolsmith has inspected it, and done a hardness test on the firing pin block portion of the decocking lever. That's NEVER USE it without competent assurance that it has not been sabotaged.
The accuracy thing is another problem entirely. While they were based on an excellent commerical pistol (The Walther Armee Pistole) the military variety was usually second or third rate. The exception was the black grip equipped pistols issued to the Luftwaffe early in the war.
If you have to pass judgment on a customer's pistol, buy a set of hardness testing files from Brownells to test the part. Then, inform the customer that the decocking lever is for looks only. This clunker IS NOT a Walther PP style decocking system equipped handgun. Capture that hammer and lower it as if it were glass.
You may choose to ignore this warning, but many unintentional discharges in the years following WW-II made believers of very frightened shooters, some of which came very close to doing property damage with a hollowpoint 9mm bullet.
Your pistol, being made in the time frame when German arms production factories used slave labor, was subject to sabotage by the unwilling conscriptees. The most common defects were looseness between slide and barrel that would preclude anything like accuracy, and a very serious defect: cooking the firing pin block. Sometimes they were so brittle that lowering the hammer with the thumb lever would allow the hammer to strike the firing pin hard enough to discharge a round.
You can read all this in the February, 1946 issue of The American Rifleman, available in some libraries.
NEVER USE one of these war trophies until a competent pistolsmith has inspected it, and done a hardness test on the firing pin block portion of the decocking lever. That's NEVER USE it without competent assurance that it has not been sabotaged.
The accuracy thing is another problem entirely. While they were based on an excellent commerical pistol (The Walther Armee Pistole) the military variety was usually second or third rate. The exception was the black grip equipped pistols issued to the Luftwaffe early in the war.
If you have to pass judgment on a customer's pistol, buy a set of hardness testing files from Brownells to test the part. Then, inform the customer that the decocking lever is for looks only. This clunker IS NOT a Walther PP style decocking system equipped handgun. Capture that hammer and lower it as if it were glass.
You may choose to ignore this warning, but many unintentional discharges in the years following WW-II made believers of very frightened shooters, some of which came very close to doing property damage with a hollowpoint 9mm bullet.
What you have is a 1943 Mauser (BYF is the Mauser code, AC is the Walther code) P38. It will be of lesser quality than early Walther made pistols, with rougher machine work, finish and stamped sheetmetal parts (like the safety) as opposed to milled.
If all the numbers match, including the mag, then I wouldn't do anything to it including shoot it. While it's not an AC41 Walther, if it has matching numbers and the original finish then its worth more than a parts gun and will only get better.
If all the numbers match, including the mag, then I wouldn't do anything to it including shoot it. While it's not an AC41 Walther, if it has matching numbers and the original finish then its worth more than a parts gun and will only get better.
Those are some scary stories, but that is about all they are.
While there is a very slight danger of the P.38 hammer block breaking, it is extremely uncommon and nothing like the horror stories published in the late war and early post war periods. So far as I can determine, it all grew from one (1) accident which was written up in a book and thus given widespread publicity.
At that time, the P.38 was denounced as "stamped out junk" by supposed gun experts who believed that "all milled parts" was the US national anthem. Many of those "experts" harassed and denounced U.S. designers, like John Garand, who did not conform to the idea that a match 1903 was the only suitable military weapon.
Walther used little slave labor and there is no evidence of sabotage in their products. Failures of that nature are due to the normal causes, such as metal fatigue. Oddly, pistols which really were subject to sabotage (the Browning HP, for example) are rarely mentioned in that regard.
In fact, the 1942 and 1943 P.38's are among the best, since some weaknesses in the earlier pistols (like the hammer lifter) had been corrected and the later short cuts had not yet been put in place. Obviously, the finish is not as nice as in the earlier P.38's and commercial models, but it is entirely serviceable and the pistols are safe to use.
Jim
While there is a very slight danger of the P.38 hammer block breaking, it is extremely uncommon and nothing like the horror stories published in the late war and early post war periods. So far as I can determine, it all grew from one (1) accident which was written up in a book and thus given widespread publicity.
At that time, the P.38 was denounced as "stamped out junk" by supposed gun experts who believed that "all milled parts" was the US national anthem. Many of those "experts" harassed and denounced U.S. designers, like John Garand, who did not conform to the idea that a match 1903 was the only suitable military weapon.
Walther used little slave labor and there is no evidence of sabotage in their products. Failures of that nature are due to the normal causes, such as metal fatigue. Oddly, pistols which really were subject to sabotage (the Browning HP, for example) are rarely mentioned in that regard.
In fact, the 1942 and 1943 P.38's are among the best, since some weaknesses in the earlier pistols (like the hammer lifter) had been corrected and the later short cuts had not yet been put in place. Obviously, the finish is not as nice as in the earlier P.38's and commercial models, but it is entirely serviceable and the pistols are safe to use.
Jim
John Lawson
New member
You didn't bother to research this before you posted, did you, Jim? The danger is real, and I've seen two examples of broken parts myself when they came through my shop. (I did quite a bit of work on P-38's in the 40's and 50's.) The P-38 DOES NOT have the same robust hammer block system as the PP and PPK pistols. It is dangerous even on well made versions, since the part is just cut away, and hammering thereon can work harden that very thin section on the part and cause a possible fracture failure.
As I said, you can ignore this warning and believe Jim, but if you have an accident you have only yourself to blame. Maybe somebody should ask hiim to post his sources that state this pistol is unequivocally safe to shoot without a thorough check by a competent pistolsmith. Personally, I'd listen only to the man who examined the specemin in hand...the exact one I was going to use.
I prefer to be cautious and warn people about this hazard, thus keeping my name from appearing in future lawsuits.
If you really HAVE to gather further evidence, contact Don McLean, serior editor of Soldier of Fortune magazine. He'll be glad to re-iterate the serious warning concerning this pistol's design.
As I said, you can ignore this warning and believe Jim, but if you have an accident you have only yourself to blame. Maybe somebody should ask hiim to post his sources that state this pistol is unequivocally safe to shoot without a thorough check by a competent pistolsmith. Personally, I'd listen only to the man who examined the specemin in hand...the exact one I was going to use.
I prefer to be cautious and warn people about this hazard, thus keeping my name from appearing in future lawsuits.
If you really HAVE to gather further evidence, contact Don McLean, serior editor of Soldier of Fortune magazine. He'll be glad to re-iterate the serious warning concerning this pistol's design.
John Lawson
New member
In regard to the Hi Power, as mfg. at Herstal, the sabotage resulted in a very inaccurate pistol, but I can find no examples of any sabotage that would endanger life and limb. And, at that, the "sabotage" could probably be discounted as "manufacturing expediency" under presure of worsening wartime conditions. Even if "sabotaged" the Hi-Power didn't have the variety of problems displayed by Series 70 Colt pistols. At any rate, I never saw a Hi-Power that didn't benefit from a bit of accuracy work.
For more on this subject, see my forthcoming article in Gun World.
If anyone ever really did publish downside information about the Garand rifle, it had to be a Marine. The Garand, as designed, had some poorly thought out parts that were later corrected by the Ordnance Corps and the Springfield Arsenal. Some further wartime modifications and re-designed parts were proposed by George L. Herter. This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that no mechanism, as designed, is problem free. It takes field testing and some intelligent re-design and empirical modifications to become "The greatest battle implement ever devised."
And finally, if Garand had crapcanned the en block clips and utilized the already in existence BAR magazines, the M-1 would have been king of the battlefield through Korea. So, he still wasn't the greatest firearms genius of all time. (Damn, it hurt to see the M-14 retired in favor of the M-16. Now THERE was the "Greatest battle implement ever devised...if Cadillac Gage had only kept their bidding higher...)
Whatinhell are we doing talking rifles on this forum, anyway?
My apologies.
For more on this subject, see my forthcoming article in Gun World.
If anyone ever really did publish downside information about the Garand rifle, it had to be a Marine. The Garand, as designed, had some poorly thought out parts that were later corrected by the Ordnance Corps and the Springfield Arsenal. Some further wartime modifications and re-designed parts were proposed by George L. Herter. This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that no mechanism, as designed, is problem free. It takes field testing and some intelligent re-design and empirical modifications to become "The greatest battle implement ever devised."
And finally, if Garand had crapcanned the en block clips and utilized the already in existence BAR magazines, the M-1 would have been king of the battlefield through Korea. So, he still wasn't the greatest firearms genius of all time. (Damn, it hurt to see the M-14 retired in favor of the M-16. Now THERE was the "Greatest battle implement ever devised...if Cadillac Gage had only kept their bidding higher...)
Whatinhell are we doing talking rifles on this forum, anyway?
My apologies.
If someone mentioned this forgive the repeat. The Eagle proofmarks signify the pistol was test fired with loads (and passed) with loads %20 higher than normal. I believe that was so accidental or intentional use of MP 38/40 ammo was possible. In '44 the proof marks began disappearing as guality hit bottom. '44's should not be fired. Two weeks ago I sold a '43 byf which I fired occasionally with light loads. Recoil springs available from Wolf.
Herr Walther
New member
Proof marks are not on European weapons in case the wrong ammo is used in them.
They are there to signify that the pistol has passed the proof test as required by law of all handguns in Germany and many other European countries.
The Europeans have a very good quality control system in regards to weapons production.
Two P.38's with a broken hammer block? Out of 1.5 million pistols produced. What are the odds???
I haven't seen that happen on any P.38's I own or have owned. Everything from my current AC41 a block to an AC45 c block
They are there to signify that the pistol has passed the proof test as required by law of all handguns in Germany and many other European countries.
The Europeans have a very good quality control system in regards to weapons production.
Two P.38's with a broken hammer block? Out of 1.5 million pistols produced. What are the odds???
I haven't seen that happen on any P.38's I own or have owned. Everything from my current AC41 a block to an AC45 c block
Walt Sherrill
New member
A '43 BYF P-38, in good shape (and not refinished), is a potentially valuable gun to a collector -- and as someone else wrote, it will only get more valuable.
If there is a dealer in your area who specializes or knows Curio & Relic guns, let him look it over before you do anything to it.
Doing ANYTHING to a collectible can dramatically reduce its value.
Just touching up bluing, for example, can make a $1000 gun worth $250-$300 to a collector.
If there is a dealer in your area who specializes or knows Curio & Relic guns, let him look it over before you do anything to it.
Doing ANYTHING to a collectible can dramatically reduce its value.
Just touching up bluing, for example, can make a $1000 gun worth $250-$300 to a collector.
John,
Please go to the link that I have posted. This forum is populated with nothing but Luger, and P38 collectors. They know everything there is to know about these two pistols. Many are materials engineers, who can give you authoritative information about the steels used in the P38, and anything else you wish to know. Others are degreed historians of the period. Personally, I would no more trust anybody having to do with SF magazine than I would the Joe on the street.
P.38 Tests.
Hi, guys,
Well, in spite of certain other opinions, the 1943 P.38's were pretty good, though lacking in finish. By that time, the bugs had been worked out and the pistols were still well made and fitted. The story that all wartime P.38's are junk is simply not true, and no one who knows anything about them would make such a silly statement. Even the very late pistols were serviceable, though often badly fitted.
But there is a persistent story that if the hammer drop safety of the P.38 is used, the safety will break and fire a chambered round. Much of this seems to be based on a statement in Small Arms of the World about one incident, but the author offers no indication of when or where the incident happened, if there was any real investigation, or if other factors were ruled out. Others have repeated the story, often embellishing it to "several" or "hundreds" or "thousands" of incidents, again without any real evidence. No one, oddly enough, has ever mentioned the strange occurrence which would inevitably follow if this happened in the normal loading situation.
Obviously, I cannot prove or disprove a negative, but I have probably handled well over a thousand P.38's and have tried the hammer drop on many of them with no problem.
But just to see what would happen, I decided to test the theory that the guns are junk and the safeties break all the time. So, I decided on a little experiment.*
I took the following P.38's: ac41, ac42, ac43, byf44, cyq45, svw46, postwar P.38 and postwar P.1. The latter two have round firing pins and a slightly different safety.
I removed the firing pin and safety from each and studied the parts under magnification to determine if there was any sign of cracking, undue wear, or machining errors. There were none.
Then I installed the safety, firing pin, firing pin spring and firing pin retainer in the slide, attached the barrel, and inserted a primed case in the chamber. I put the safety in the down position, blocking the firing pin. I then placed each barrel-slide in a padded vise, barrel down, and hit the back of the firing pin, using a large drift punch and an eight ounce hammer. I did this repeatedly, striking much harder than any pistol hammer could possibly do.
Then I removed the firing pin and safety again, and checked for damage, cracking or breakage. There was none, and no significant difference from the original inspection. The primer showed no marks.
It seems very unlikely that the relatively light blow of the pistol hammer could break a safety when blows from a half-pound hammer did not. Nor does it seem likely the light blow of the pistol hammer would cause any sort of peening or "work hardening" that could lead to failures. Certainly at least the older guns should have shown signs of peening or deformation if that were the case.
This does not prove absolutely that the dangers pointed out by others cannot happen. I do think it shows that those who claim to have experienced many and repeated failures are somehow confused or are embellishing a dubious story to pretend to expertise they do not have.
Jim
*At some considerable risk of financial loss. P.38 safeties are running around $75 when they can be found, and firing pins are about $25.
Hi, guys,
Well, in spite of certain other opinions, the 1943 P.38's were pretty good, though lacking in finish. By that time, the bugs had been worked out and the pistols were still well made and fitted. The story that all wartime P.38's are junk is simply not true, and no one who knows anything about them would make such a silly statement. Even the very late pistols were serviceable, though often badly fitted.
But there is a persistent story that if the hammer drop safety of the P.38 is used, the safety will break and fire a chambered round. Much of this seems to be based on a statement in Small Arms of the World about one incident, but the author offers no indication of when or where the incident happened, if there was any real investigation, or if other factors were ruled out. Others have repeated the story, often embellishing it to "several" or "hundreds" or "thousands" of incidents, again without any real evidence. No one, oddly enough, has ever mentioned the strange occurrence which would inevitably follow if this happened in the normal loading situation.
Obviously, I cannot prove or disprove a negative, but I have probably handled well over a thousand P.38's and have tried the hammer drop on many of them with no problem.
But just to see what would happen, I decided to test the theory that the guns are junk and the safeties break all the time. So, I decided on a little experiment.*
I took the following P.38's: ac41, ac42, ac43, byf44, cyq45, svw46, postwar P.38 and postwar P.1. The latter two have round firing pins and a slightly different safety.
I removed the firing pin and safety from each and studied the parts under magnification to determine if there was any sign of cracking, undue wear, or machining errors. There were none.
Then I installed the safety, firing pin, firing pin spring and firing pin retainer in the slide, attached the barrel, and inserted a primed case in the chamber. I put the safety in the down position, blocking the firing pin. I then placed each barrel-slide in a padded vise, barrel down, and hit the back of the firing pin, using a large drift punch and an eight ounce hammer. I did this repeatedly, striking much harder than any pistol hammer could possibly do.
Then I removed the firing pin and safety again, and checked for damage, cracking or breakage. There was none, and no significant difference from the original inspection. The primer showed no marks.
It seems very unlikely that the relatively light blow of the pistol hammer could break a safety when blows from a half-pound hammer did not. Nor does it seem likely the light blow of the pistol hammer would cause any sort of peening or "work hardening" that could lead to failures. Certainly at least the older guns should have shown signs of peening or deformation if that were the case.
This does not prove absolutely that the dangers pointed out by others cannot happen. I do think it shows that those who claim to have experienced many and repeated failures are somehow confused or are embellishing a dubious story to pretend to expertise they do not have.
Jim
*At some considerable risk of financial loss. P.38 safeties are running around $75 when they can be found, and firing pins are about $25.
Hi John,
I concur whole heartedly that any milsurp firearm be checked out by a good gunsmith before it is fired. Moreover, I’d this same warning extended to *all* used firearms.
OTOH, I have to respectfully and cordially disagree with your comments regarding slave labor sabotaging wartime P.38’s, the fragility of the P.38’s safety, and the robustness of the PP and PPK safeties.
P.38’s (and all firearms produced by or for the Germans during WWII) were thoroughly inspected before being accepted by the German Army. The possibility that any sub-standard P.38 (much less any sabotaged pistol) getting past these rigorous inspections was vanishing small. Still this urban legend of sabotaged pistols persists and even finds its way into print - most notably in the old, 1946, issue of the “American Rifleman” you cite. Despite its persistence, it is utter nonsense.
That said, all mechanical devices are subject to failure due to normal wear and tear over time, or damage due to misuse. Failures of the safeties of P.38’s have happened - but they are very rare and are due to worn out parts. These same types of failures are also known to have happened with Walther PP and PPK pistols, and were due to the same reason - worn parts. In over forty years of collecting and shooting P.38’s I have only been present once when this happened with a P38, and have seen only three P38s where it has happened (and I've probably handled and fired over a thousand P38s over the last 40 odd years).
OTOH, it’s been my experience that this kind of failure is less uncommon with PP and PPK pistols. I've had it happen to me personally once with a PPK and with two different PP pistols.
Safety failures do happen, and can happen with any pistol. But in the Walther pistols they are not due to the mythical wartime sabotage. Any sabotage would have been caught at the next inspection station and the person responsible would not have live long enough to do it twice.
For those interested, there is an excellent p.38 site located at:
www.p38forum.com
Best regards,
Kyrie
I concur whole heartedly that any milsurp firearm be checked out by a good gunsmith before it is fired. Moreover, I’d this same warning extended to *all* used firearms.
OTOH, I have to respectfully and cordially disagree with your comments regarding slave labor sabotaging wartime P.38’s, the fragility of the P.38’s safety, and the robustness of the PP and PPK safeties.
P.38’s (and all firearms produced by or for the Germans during WWII) were thoroughly inspected before being accepted by the German Army. The possibility that any sub-standard P.38 (much less any sabotaged pistol) getting past these rigorous inspections was vanishing small. Still this urban legend of sabotaged pistols persists and even finds its way into print - most notably in the old, 1946, issue of the “American Rifleman” you cite. Despite its persistence, it is utter nonsense.
That said, all mechanical devices are subject to failure due to normal wear and tear over time, or damage due to misuse. Failures of the safeties of P.38’s have happened - but they are very rare and are due to worn out parts. These same types of failures are also known to have happened with Walther PP and PPK pistols, and were due to the same reason - worn parts. In over forty years of collecting and shooting P.38’s I have only been present once when this happened with a P38, and have seen only three P38s where it has happened (and I've probably handled and fired over a thousand P38s over the last 40 odd years).
OTOH, it’s been my experience that this kind of failure is less uncommon with PP and PPK pistols. I've had it happen to me personally once with a PPK and with two different PP pistols.
Safety failures do happen, and can happen with any pistol. But in the Walther pistols they are not due to the mythical wartime sabotage. Any sabotage would have been caught at the next inspection station and the person responsible would not have live long enough to do it twice.
For those interested, there is an excellent p.38 site located at:
www.p38forum.com
Best regards,
Kyrie
This is to aknowledge my earlier brain fart of calling the BYF marking an indication of Walther manufacture, it is, as was pointed out indicative of Mauser manufacture. AC is Walther.
I have a post-war Walther manual for the commercial P-38 and they strongly suggest that when you decock the hammer on a loaded chamber you catch the hammer with your thumb and slowly lower it. Whether this demonstrates a history of problems or shows caution on the manufacturer's part I don't know. I have decocked on a loaded chamber with the muzzle pointed down range with no problems. My pistol is an ex-West German army P1 vintage 1964. Replacement of springs, both recoil and hammer is a good idea.
I have a post-war Walther manual for the commercial P-38 and they strongly suggest that when you decock the hammer on a loaded chamber you catch the hammer with your thumb and slowly lower it. Whether this demonstrates a history of problems or shows caution on the manufacturer's part I don't know. I have decocked on a loaded chamber with the muzzle pointed down range with no problems. My pistol is an ex-West German army P1 vintage 1964. Replacement of springs, both recoil and hammer is a good idea.