RESEARCH PROJECT: Use of Henri PIEPER subcontracted small parts in WMO Rifles

Pieper was a well known subcontractor that manufactured parts for both the Gew 98 and Lugers. It's well documented they made receivers for Spandau identified by Crown J hardening proof. Erfurt used them to make side plates during 1917 and 1918, these are also identified by the same Crown J.



On my rifle, I noticed there are Crown Js on the Buttplate, magazine, both barrel bands, and bayonet lug. To me this would indicate these parts were made by Pieper in Liege. In addition, the floorplate and follower were made by a different subcontractor.

The first magazine shown is from a 'cc' block 1917/18 WMO, assembled Spandau, the manufacturer acceptance is a Crown J. In addition this magazine also uses a floorplate and follower from the same subcontractor as mine. I have read over the years that these WMO Spandaus were effectively Sterngewehrs. I think a good objective of this study would be to determine the scope of WMO's sterngewehr program. Much like Danzig sterngewehrs, these WMO assembled Spandaus were just rolled into standard production. It may be possible that this initiative encompassed standard WMO receivers in the same way the other Sterngewehr manufactures used their own. Without a receiver from a different manufacturer or the WMO hallmark these would be next to impossible to identify outside of where they sourced their parts.

1. WMO assembled Spandau 'cc' block 1917/18


2. Magazine, floorplate, and follower from WMO 1917 43aa


3. Buttplate, barrel bands, and bayonet lug.


I very well could be totally off on this, I just thought I would throw the idea out there. In my thought process, this would be the same inspector as the J is not underscored which would indicate a different individual who's last name also started with a J.

Sam, I think it's at least plausible, I'll do a survey of my stuff and see what I can find.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

chrisftk said:

Sam, I think it's at least plausible, I'll do a survey of my stuff and see what I can find.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Thanks Chris, like I said this could be totally bunk. Couldn’t hurt to throw it out there though.

For my own knowledge and understanding could you provide some of the sources you mentioned that document the crown J identified as Pieper?

Fal Grunt said:

For my own knowledge and understanding could you provide some of the sources you mentioned that document the crown J identified as Pieper?

Click to expand...

To my knowledge, there has not been any hard documentation that the Crown J has been identified as an inspector tied to Pieper. With that said, observations on 'H' assembled Spandaus provide an excellent resource for this. Siemens & Halske and Pieper were two subcontractors that produced receivers for Spandau in 1917.

1. Spandau stopped making rifles in 1917 when they scaled up MG 08-15 production.

2. 'H' was a non factory producer. Because of this, the second and third acceptance positions are never present leaving only the hardening proof applied at the manufacturer. Pieper marked receivers are hallmarked under them with their cavalier and also have a crown J hardening proof. Below are some photos of the hallmark on a Pieper receiver.

Pieper Receiver:


Siemens and Halske for comparison:


The document below references the P08 parts for Erfurt supplied by Pieper, courtesy of the Jan C. Still's Luger Forum.

The letter is dated the 13th of January, 1917 and goes as follows:



"To the Royal Wurttenberg War Ministry, department "Kribero" Stuttgart

We hereby inform you that we are working on the following parts for the Pistole 08 for the Royal Rifle Factory Erfurt. Since we have heard that you are also considering the production of the Pistole 08 we allow ourselves to ask whether you are interested in us offering you these parts as well. We would like to hear what daily production you require so that we can take measures to assure this."

Production of parts:
Hold open
Firing pin
(Magazine) Follower
Safety catch
Safety lever
Side plate
Trigger lever

The letter is a new document I had not seen before, thanks for sharing that. The S&H and Pieper marked receivers I am familiar with. They have been shown on occasional custom rifles as well as G98’s.

I had never seen the correlation drawn between the heat treat acceptance mark and Pieper directly. That was more what I was interested to see the connection.

Would the assertion then be that each acceptance mark being a unique hallmark to the manufacturer?

It would of course be interesting to nail down even a few. Some parts I have seen a plethora of acceptance marks, which one could suppose there were a plethora of manufacturers.

Fal Grunt said:

The letter is a new document I had not seen before, thanks for sharing that. The S&H and Pieper marked receivers I am familiar with. They have been shown on occasional custom rifles as well as G98’s.

I had never seen the correlation drawn between the heat treat acceptance mark and Pieper directly. That was more what I was interested to see the connection.

Would the assertion then be that each acceptance mark being a unique hallmark to the manufacturer?

It would of course be interesting to nail down even a few. Some parts I have seen a plethora of acceptance marks, which one could suppose there were a plethora of manufacturers.

Click to expand...

The acceptance stamps were tied to individual inspectors and the team that could use the stamp in his stead. So you’re right, the stamp is tied to the inspector, and the inspector is tied to the factory. The fraktur was the initial of the inspectors last name. Duplicate letters were underscored. So what could be said conclusively in this case was the crown J was applied at time of manufacture on the receiver, which was made at Pieper. It's also reasonable that Crown J marked sideplates on 1917 and 1918 dated Erfurt lugers would have been manufactured there as well. That assumption is based on the document and the fact we know inspector J and his team accepted receivers during the same time period. I think it would be worth while to see if there’s a connection between the Crown J applied at Pieper and the Crown J seen on WMO made rifles in 1917 and 1918. I very well could be incorrect, as inspectors did change over time but they were more consistent during the war.

This contributes to the trickiness of Imperial rifles. On the flip side of this you can have a receiver made by one maker and the rifle assembled by another. The second, and third acceptance positions tell that part of the story. I had an Erfurt assembled Sterngewehr built on an Amberg receiver. Hardening proof was applied by an Amberg inspector and the second and third positions were applied at Erfurt when the rifle was actually made.

Is this being applied to receivers specifically or all acceptance stamps for the G98’s/Imperial weapons?

I hope you take these questions in good nature. I’m trying to think through a few scenarios in my head and am trying to get a firmer footing as to how this would play out. I don’t have the trending knowledge like you, especially about specific acceptance marks. Hopefully my questions will both help you and any others with background.

One thing I’ve been considering as well, and in reference to your mentioned confusion, in one specific case you can show a string of evidence for the final acceptance mark for heat treat. As you said, the receiver may have been elsewhere.

So, the acceptance mark, may not be who manufactured the part at all. Rather, they may be the final link in the supply chain.

As an example, I machine components for a company. It is a housing for an assembly. They get the housing, do some minor fitting and installation, heat treat, package and retail. No one will ever know that I make the parts.

Another somewhat pertinent example, I make another part for a different customer. All I do is rough the parts out for the customer. They do all the final machining, fitting and installation. Again, no one will ever know I made those parts.

This topic also begs the question of Pieper involvement and the date range. You probably know more than me about their involvement in the Belgian gun trade, worth some study if you haven’t already.

All that being said, I will see if I can come up with any J marked parts, and will check with a friend who has a WMO G98 and I think an Erfurt Luger.

Fal Grunt said:

Is this being applied to receivers specifically or all acceptance stamps for the G98’s/Imperial weapons?

I hope you take these questions in good nature. I’m trying to think through a few scenarios in my head and am trying to get a firmer footing as to how this would play out. I don’t have the trending knowledge like you, especially about specific acceptance marks. Hopefully my questions will both help you and any others with background.

One thing I’ve been considering as well, and in reference to your mentioned confusion, in one specific case you can show a string of evidence for the final acceptance mark for heat treat. As you said, the receiver may have been elsewhere.

So, the acceptance mark, may not be who manufactured the part at all. Rather, they may be the final link in the supply chain.

As an example, I machine components for a company. It is a housing for an assembly. They get the housing, do some minor fitting and installation, heat treat, package and retail. No one will ever know that I make the parts.

Another somewhat pertinent example, I make another part for a different customer. All I do is rough the parts out for the customer. They do all the final machining, fitting and installation. Again, no one will ever know I made those parts.

This topic also begs the question of Pieper involvement and the date range. You probably know more than me about their involvement in the Belgian gun trade, worth some study if you haven’t already.

All that being said, I will see if I can come up with any J marked parts, and will check with a friend who has a WMO G98 and I think an Erfurt Luger.

Click to expand...

No the questions are great. I'm not sure I understand your first question, is it in reference to accepting procedure? For now, I'll answer as I understand.

As for the actual acceptance of parts and rifles. It helps to think of it in two forms. 1. Parts manufacture. 2. An assembly process completed.

For parts: parts will always be accepted at the point of origin. Basically you have three scenarios per Storz. Not every part was as actually inspected, no less than 10% of each batch were actually inspected. If those 10% passed, the inspector's team would apply his stamp to the entire batch of parts. That is scenario one.

Scenario two: If the inspector found a problem or had cause to believe there was a problem with a part. The part would be brought to the head inspection office or (Revision Commission). This would absolve the inspector of responsibility if the part failed later and brings us to scenario three.

Scenario three: The head inspection office will either accept the part with their Crown/RC control or mark it with an 'A' which identifies the part was rejected.

So with that said, individual parts didn't leave the facility of origin until they passed.

Assembly Process: This is still tied to particular inspector but this could have occurred at any of the facilities. Here is the example I mentioned earlier. I'm sure Cyrus won't mind I'm using his photos for this.



The receiver was made at Amberg and the first acceptance position was applied when it passed, this is a parts manufacture form of acceptance. The second position is an assembly process (when the barreled receiver was assembled). The third stamp was applied when the barreled action was tested. In the case of this rifle, the second and third were applied by inspectors at Erfurt.

Another example are trigger guards. The left hand acceptance position represents that the trigger guard passed inspection after it was made. The right hand acceptance position represents that it was successfully fitted to a rifle. We can also look to 'H' Spandaus for observations on this as well. These were assembled from armorer's spare parts and will bear the left position on the trigger guard but not the right. This is because they were a non factory assembler and didn't have inspectors on site.



Basically it comes down to whether the stamp represents the completion of parts manufacture or completion of an assembly process. To determine which is which, we look to Storz and Gortz.

Great overview Sam, your explanation matches my understanding of the process.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

Picked up this 1918 WMO 4403a rifle which ended up in Turkey. Looks like Crown/J inspections on both bands, floor plate, trigger guard, bayonet lug (bad picture, but it looks right IMO), follower, and butt plate (although this one is kinda worn out).

Very nice WMO 1918! Thanks for the contribution!