Third Party Press

Corrosion or tooling error?

BigShell

Senior Member
Picked it up cheap due to “old pitting” on the front strap, but I’m not totally convinced.

Anyone seen something like this?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3342.jpeg
    IMG_3342.jpeg
    431.9 KB · Views: 92
  • IMG_3343.jpeg
    IMG_3343.jpeg
    421.7 KB · Views: 127
  • IMG_3344.jpeg
    IMG_3344.jpeg
    435.7 KB · Views: 124
  • IMG_3345.jpeg
    IMG_3345.jpeg
    427.1 KB · Views: 125
  • IMG_3346.jpeg
    IMG_3346.jpeg
    425.1 KB · Views: 82
  • IMG_3347.jpeg
    IMG_3347.jpeg
    412.1 KB · Views: 87
I would agree, it doesn’t look like pitting to me, but does seem unusual that a first half of the year 43 would’ve made it out of the factory like that.
 
Looks like a flaw in the original forging for the frame. Given the time frame it is surprising that it passed quality control. Maybe just considered a cosmetic issue but serviceable.
 
Yeah, thanks y’all, I agree.

My first hint upon seeing the pistol was the same flaw on the underside of the trigger guard that seem to line up with the strip on the front strap.
 
I’ll also add, quality (fit & finish) was starting to slip during 1943:

My ‘43 Walther actually has a ridiculous amount of lathe marks on the trigger guard. It actually looks crooked with all the “chatter” marks.
 
If this flaw had uniformly covered the entire grip strap it could be considered a feature 50 years ahead of its time. Many combat handguners pay good money to have the front straps of their pistols custom stippled in a design not radically different than this to provide a non slip surface.
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top