C.G. Haenel 1917

mauser1908

mauser1908

Senior Member
Extremely happy with this pick up. This is the first Haenel I've been able to find, turned out to be quite nice. It ended up being a straight bolt m/m, the original rear barrel band is missing the sling loop but it came with the rifle.

Receiver SN: 5243g
Barrel SN: 5243g
Front sight SN: 43
Rear sight SN: 43
Sight Slider SN: 43
Ejector box SN: 43
Trigger Sear SN: 43
Front barrel band SN: 43
Rear barrel band SN: 43
Trigger guard SN: 5243
Trigger guard screws SN: 43, 43
Floor Plate SN: 43
Follower SN: 43
Stock SN: 5243
Handguard SN: 5243
Buttplate SN: 5243
Bolt SN: 1304c



IMG_2929.jpegIMG_2930.jpegIMG_2931.jpegIMG_2932.jpegIMG_2933.jpegIMG_2934.jpegIMG_2936.jpegIMG_2937.jpegIMG_2938.jpegIMG_2939.jpeg
 
A nice rifle Sam, I never could find a nice CGH when I was active in collecting, - a VCS neither... I did find several really nice JPS's (and a few dogs), as most know the Suhl's, Simson and the Consortium, are tough to find nice. It is impossible to estimate who made the most between the three firms of the Consortium, as i detailed in the article some years ago. They intermingled production and there was no apparent grouping to maker, - I actually started the article with that as my theory, but when trends were conducted I couldn't make it fit the facts (probabilities) that were showing up in observations. So, as I am not a modern day politician, eco-climate "warrior-scientist" or other "professional" whose livelihoods depend on the conclusions they make, I had to take the old fashion path and change the narrative to fit the probabilities and facts so far as they exist.

Anyway, from pure speculation I suspect CGH made the most, they and S&S "seem" to be more common (serial ranges can't help here as they intermingle and are not grouped in any obvious way) and CGH was the lead firm and the majority of the receivers (some Erfurt's group), JPS made the vast majority of the barrels, VCS seem the scarcest from my observations, but I doubt they are appreciably lower in number. Erfurt's role is the most interesting and I wish Storz would have "illuminated" the subject a little.
 
*** I should also add that the rifles show that they were not centrally made, as in groups of marked receivers being centrally assembled, they all have distinct acceptance patterns that separate the three producers products. I ran that theory too (with BobT's advise) and discounted it, - though I still can't figure out how they did production with the serialing patterns established. Certainly doesn't seem very "efficient", which I guess the Germans are given considerable credit for, though they certainly can also be accused of over-thinking things too (apparently Irish Americans can overthink things also!)

You guys will figure it out for your project!
 
Loewe said:
A nice rifle Sam, I never could find a nice CGH when I was active in collecting, - a VCS neither... I did find several really nice JPS's (and a few dogs), as most know the Suhl's, Simson and the Consortium, are tough to find nice. It is impossible to estimate who made the most between the three firms of the Consortium, as i detailed in the article some years ago. They intermingled production and there was no apparent grouping to maker, - I actually started the article with that as my theory, but when trends were conducted I couldn't make it fit the facts (probabilities) that were showing up in observations. So, as I am not a modern day politician, eco-climate "warrior-scientist" or other "professional" whose livelihoods depend on the conclusions they make, I had to take the old fashion path and change the narrative to fit the probabilities and facts so far as they exist.

Anyway, from pure speculation I suspect CGH made the most, they and S&S "seem" to be more common (serial ranges can't help here as they intermingle and are not grouped in any obvious way) and CGH was the lead firm and the majority of the receivers (some Erfurt's group), JPS made the vast majority of the barrels, VCS seem the scarcest from my observations, but I doubt they are appreciably lower in number. Erfurt's role is the most interesting and I wish Storz would have "illuminated" the subject a little.
Click to expand...
Loewe said:
*** I should also add that the rifles show that they were not centrally made, as in groups of marked receivers being centrally assembled, they all have distinct acceptance patterns that separate the three producers products. I ran that theory too (with BobT's advise) and discounted it, - though I still can't figure out how they did production with the serialing patterns established. Certainly doesn't seem very "efficient", which I guess the Germans are given considerable credit for, though they certainly can also be accused of over-thinking things too (apparently Irish Americans can overthink things also!)

You guys will figure it out for your project!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the great info as always Paul! The Suhl consortium has always fascinated me, probably because they're elusive. I refer back to your article often, I as well can't see how sharing serial number ranges is the most efficient method of collaboration especially because these weren't done in a central location, as you mentioned. That being said, if you look at luger production from the era LP 08s from both Erfurt and DWM occupied the same blocks as standard P08s. DWM is the more important maker for this comparison, below is the assumed production for DWM LP08s.

1914 ~5,000
1915 ~15,000
1916 ~20,000
1917 ~90,000
1918 ~25,000

The years 1914, 15, and 16 loaded all their LP08 production in the first few blocks, though still side by side with P08s. 1917 and 1918 are more significant because they spread the LP08 production equally throughout the year. While the base components were the same the frames destined to become LP08s needed to be relieved to accommodate the adjustable rear sight. Somehow they were able to receive and fill orders, diverting the required resources for both subtypes of pistol, at the same time keeping them straight on the ledger occupying the same blocks. While not exactly the same, they seemed to have used a similar procedure.
 
Cross comparisons are always interesting, - and often helpful! It is a favored method in my research also.

I think that more eyes on this question may be helpful, I will try to remember to take up a revised Consortium trends sheet for posting on this forum. Naturally it will interest very few and I haven't kept up with the trends sheet for the last year, so some gaps may exist, but they will be small in nature. I do need to tidy up before posting as some of the research threads using my typical style can confuse the question, - I tend to trend several observations in one line and this works for me as the author (compiler) naturally has a familiarity others do not and I think the G88 thread is too "busy" for its own good.

At anyrate, it might be of some help with the book project you guys are undertaking.
 
Loewe said:
Cross comparisons are always interesting, - and often helpful! It is a favored method in my research also.

I think that more eyes on this question may be helpful, I will try to remember to take up a revised Consortium trends sheet for posting on this forum. Naturally it will interest very few and I haven't kept up with the trends sheet for the last year, so some gaps may exist, but they will be small in nature. I do need to tidy up before posting as some of the research threads using my typical style can confuse the question, - I tend to trend several observations in one line and this works for me as the author (compiler) naturally has a familiarity others do not and I think the G88 thread is too "busy" for its own good.

At anyrate, it might be of some help with the book project you guys are undertaking.
Click to expand...
Thanks Paul, looking forward to see the sheet!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top