Marsouin_2
Member
The reject mark is at the same place!
HK 1936 17521
- Thread starter Guillaume d'Orange
- Start date
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
Marsouin_2
Member
Yes model 1936 - (1)7521
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
Thanks for the reply.
Pretty well settles why your gun is one of the "added 1" guns.
Note the barrel has the original serial.
Like all I have seen.
Quite a few things can cause a stiff takedown lever and the machining on the left side inside the front frame well is surely one of them.
Adds a little character to your gun IMHO.
These "added 1" guns have been a known variation for a long time and are not very common.
Are the "added 1's" through the blue?
Is your takedown lever still stiff or did they get it fixed?
Gun actually failed twice [4 point star and missing proof on right receiver]
It was final accepted in the end though [right barrel proof]. This should be through the blue.
Pretty well settles why your gun is one of the "added 1" guns.
Note the barrel has the original serial.
Like all I have seen.
Quite a few things can cause a stiff takedown lever and the machining on the left side inside the front frame well is surely one of them.
Adds a little character to your gun IMHO.
These "added 1" guns have been a known variation for a long time and are not very common.
Are the "added 1's" through the blue?
Is your takedown lever still stiff or did they get it fixed?
Gun actually failed twice [4 point star and missing proof on right receiver]
It was final accepted in the end though [right barrel proof]. This should be through the blue.
The gun did not fail twice.
The idea that the star is some sort of reject stamp was made up by collectors in the 1960s. Not impossible, but there is no evidence of this.
Had it failed BAL acceptance, it would have been marked with a Fehlerstempel to ensure it was segregated from acceptable parts. The BAL was very strict about this sort of thing. Manufacturers slipping rejected parts into normal production without military approval was a very serious offense.
The one BAL2 acceptance on the receiver indicates the part was manufactured under BAL supervision, but the missing second BAL acceptance indicates it was assembled and completed outside that supervision.
The "final proof" is just the Beschußstempel, indicating the gun passed high pressure safety testing, but this is not "final".
No commercial proofing means it isn't commercial either. So military export makes sense (see the Romanian MG15s above!) but who knows. The two known duplicates should suggest to you that these are not "rejects" but a separate production run for whatever purpose.
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
Probably should have not said "failed twice".
Should have said it appears to have been set aside twice by "in-house" inspection.
These "added 1" guns are a known and long accepted variation.
If the "star" is not some sort of "in-house" reject mark why do guns with it have issues?
The E2 inspectors' quality of work on HK lugers is a well-documented joke.
Are we forgetting the entire purpose of these Lugers was to showcase precision manufacturing skills?
Pretty sure the "SEMPERT & KRIEGHOFF" people were looking these over very carefully.
To any seriously interested in HK lugers look into "SEMPERT & KRIEGHOFF" sporting arms from the same time.
You will see their fingerprints all over the lugers and also sloppy- erratic stampings.
Same odd color blue also.
If the "final proof" was not the final acceptance, why is it the only one through the blue?
Gone enough rounds with this guy to know this is a waste of my time so form your own opinions.
Are you kidding on the "military export" part?
Should have said it appears to have been set aside twice by "in-house" inspection.
These "added 1" guns are a known and long accepted variation.
If the "star" is not some sort of "in-house" reject mark why do guns with it have issues?
The E2 inspectors' quality of work on HK lugers is a well-documented joke.
Are we forgetting the entire purpose of these Lugers was to showcase precision manufacturing skills?
Pretty sure the "SEMPERT & KRIEGHOFF" people were looking these over very carefully.
To any seriously interested in HK lugers look into "SEMPERT & KRIEGHOFF" sporting arms from the same time.
You will see their fingerprints all over the lugers and also sloppy- erratic stampings.
Same odd color blue also.
If the "final proof" was not the final acceptance, why is it the only one through the blue?
Gone enough rounds with this guy to know this is a waste of my time so form your own opinions.
Are you kidding on the "military export" part?
Did you look at the export ST.61/MG15s that were made by Rheinmetall? It has BAL1 acceptance for the receiver manufacture inspection, but no additional assembly acceptance since it was made for export. I suspect HK made some of these also since HK made parts show up in the guns that were presumably all exported from Romania to the US/EU. HK certainly made some replacement water-cooled barrels because I have personally seen them.
What issues? If you just mean odd acceptance patterns or serial numbers, those are not "issues", reference the the Romanian ST.61 mentioned above.
Was Sempert u. Kreighoff even still a separate company by the 1930s? Or just a brand name used for their sporting arms? Krieghoff took over the original company in 1919, so functionally there isn't really a difference the two except branding.
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
I am not worth a crap at writing but this link should help some.
Latest all original example I have pawed was 11/44 but no pics.
The real telling thing is to have a 1936 HK luger and a 1936 S&K gun to compare side by side.
That will make it very obvious.
Pic 1 is 1936 and not pristine
Pic 2 is 1938
Pic 3 is 1939
Pic 4 is 1940
Pics - 5 & 6 are 8/42.
Did my homework on this a few years back until I was sure of this,
I have since lost track of some of the research.
No matter really as anyone digging into this will find the same info.
Serials are screwed up some date wise on these also.
Ever see that on a HK luger? 
Latest all original example I have pawed was 11/44 but no pics.
The real telling thing is to have a 1936 HK luger and a 1936 S&K gun to compare side by side.
That will make it very obvious.
Pic 1 is 1936 and not pristine
Pic 2 is 1938
Pic 3 is 1939
Pic 4 is 1940
Pics - 5 & 6 are 8/42.
Did my homework on this a few years back until I was sure of this,
I have since lost track of some of the research.
No matter really as anyone digging into this will find the same info.
Serials are screwed up some date wise on these also.
Ever see that on a HK luger? 
I think the point is that "H. Kreighoff Waffenfabrik" and "Sempert & Kreighoff" were the same company. S&K was just the brand name Krieghoff stamped on its sporting guns. Same company, same factory, same people, though its possible they may have remained legally distinct for tax purposes or liability or whatever.
Here are some period drawings of the S&K factory from a 1927 catalog, and the Waffenfabrik from probably sometime in the 1930s. Same complex.
Here are some period drawings of the S&K factory from a 1927 catalog, and the Waffenfabrik from probably sometime in the 1930s. Same complex.
Attachments
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
Interesting that you gathered that much solid info from these images.
You may want to look into what H. Krieghoff Waffenfabrik was actually doing prior to the contract for 10,000 P.08's.
The 10,000 are not reworks.
You may want to look into the "Model 1934 Sporting Rifle" and how the contract was passed from H. Krieghoff Waffenfabrik to S&K.
That the 10,000 P.08's contract was awarded to H. Krieghoff Waffenfabrik is likely true.
That it was their first contract to produce new arms for the German Military is likely true.
I would think some of our German members could carry that further.
That the S&K firm was deeply involved in the production- finishing speaks for itself.
My opinion on that is based on the comparison of 1937 to 1937, 1940 to 1940 etc.
If you are looking at honest examples, it will be obvious.
The 10,000 contract was only a way into Military contracts.
You may want to look into what H. Krieghoff Waffenfabrik was actually doing prior to the contract for 10,000 P.08's.
The 10,000 are not reworks.
You may want to look into the "Model 1934 Sporting Rifle" and how the contract was passed from H. Krieghoff Waffenfabrik to S&K.
That the 10,000 P.08's contract was awarded to H. Krieghoff Waffenfabrik is likely true.
That it was their first contract to produce new arms for the German Military is likely true.
I would think some of our German members could carry that further.
That the S&K firm was deeply involved in the production- finishing speaks for itself.
My opinion on that is based on the comparison of 1937 to 1937, 1940 to 1940 etc.
If you are looking at honest examples, it will be obvious.
The 10,000 contract was only a way into Military contracts.
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
You willing to share some details on [1] 7521?
You have a late 1936 there and internal markings are likely like a 1937.
You have a late 1936 there and internal markings are likely like a 1937.
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
To address the question in post 1.
That is a long known and accepted variation of a 1936 contract gun.
Unusual but by no means unique.
Nice score
To address the "Point is" in post 50
We will probably never know for sure but the 10,000 contract was likely a combination of H. KRIEGHOFF WAFFENFABRIK, SEMPERT & KRIEGHOFF and outside suppliers.
Mags and grips at the very least were from outside suppliers.
The finishing work and markings at the very least were done by SEMPERT & KRIEGHOFF.
That the remaining P.08 parts or whatever stayed with S&K is obvious also.
Look at the early [crown N] and the 1940- later [EN] commercial guns.
Look at the post war assembled guns
Same finishing work with the bluing on the post wars actually nicer than late war.
They still had E2 stamps to mark the post wars also.
Yes, that is my opinion but the physical evidence to back it up is plain to see.
If you do not agree look into it yourself.
It is also plain to see that the workmanship- finish on later H. KRIEGHOFF WAFFENFABRIK produced items is nothing like "S&K" work.
Am looking for later examples of S&K work with latest so far being 11/44.
Looked like typical S&K work slightly diminished but still good.
Just like an [honest] 1944 date P.08
Form your own opinions as I have ventured into the black hole all I care to.
That is a long known and accepted variation of a 1936 contract gun.
Unusual but by no means unique.
Nice score
To address the "Point is" in post 50
We will probably never know for sure but the 10,000 contract was likely a combination of H. KRIEGHOFF WAFFENFABRIK, SEMPERT & KRIEGHOFF and outside suppliers.
Mags and grips at the very least were from outside suppliers.
The finishing work and markings at the very least were done by SEMPERT & KRIEGHOFF.
That the remaining P.08 parts or whatever stayed with S&K is obvious also.
Look at the early [crown N] and the 1940- later [EN] commercial guns.
Look at the post war assembled guns
Same finishing work with the bluing on the post wars actually nicer than late war.
They still had E2 stamps to mark the post wars also.
Yes, that is my opinion but the physical evidence to back it up is plain to see.
If you do not agree look into it yourself.
It is also plain to see that the workmanship- finish on later H. KRIEGHOFF WAFFENFABRIK produced items is nothing like "S&K" work.
Am looking for later examples of S&K work with latest so far being 11/44.
Looked like typical S&K work slightly diminished but still good.
Just like an [honest] 1944 date P.08
Form your own opinions as I have ventured into the black hole all I care to.