HK 1936 17521
- Thread starter Guillaume d'Orange
- Start date
Krieghoffs are such a mess its honestly hard to say if this stuff is real or not. Commercial guns with weird ranges are even more messy than the "late war" stuff.
That said, there are others in the 17000 range just like it floating around, including several apparently in Spain and France. Note the incomplete military acceptance but with military proofing. The matching magazines lack BAL2 acceptance also and the font seems consistent at least. There are also some in this range that are engraved (some are in Gibson's book I think) but I have a very low opinion of engraved guns in general.
Some suggest these are "rejects" that had a 1 added to them to segregate them to commercial sales, but I don't think so. It lacks any commercial proofing (which would absolutely be required), and after successfully completing military proof testing, the gun is basically finished unless it fails accuracy testing or something. Also, at least one duplicate pair is known: 7024 (1937) and 17024 (1936).
My own thoughts, for what little it is worth, is that if these are legit, the 17000 range may be a small export contract (possibly 1000 for Spain or Portugal) around 1936/37. The incomplete military acceptance coupled with the military style fireproof sort of lines up with some of the exports to Spain/Portugal/Romania of MG15s.
That said, there are others in the 17000 range just like it floating around, including several apparently in Spain and France. Note the incomplete military acceptance but with military proofing. The matching magazines lack BAL2 acceptance also and the font seems consistent at least. There are also some in this range that are engraved (some are in Gibson's book I think) but I have a very low opinion of engraved guns in general.
Some suggest these are "rejects" that had a 1 added to them to segregate them to commercial sales, but I don't think so. It lacks any commercial proofing (which would absolutely be required), and after successfully completing military proof testing, the gun is basically finished unless it fails accuracy testing or something. Also, at least one duplicate pair is known: 7024 (1937) and 17024 (1936).
My own thoughts, for what little it is worth, is that if these are legit, the 17000 range may be a small export contract (possibly 1000 for Spain or Portugal) around 1936/37. The incomplete military acceptance coupled with the military style fireproof sort of lines up with some of the exports to Spain/Portugal/Romania of MG15s.
Attachments
Guillaume d'Orange
Senior Member
Thank you Ryan for the interesting theory. If it is legit, it might have been a bring-back from the Spanish Civil War.
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
It is here as a comparison to 17480. Thoughts?
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
1936 date
Last edited:
Well, yours is standard military production. Perfectly normal, nothing unusual.
The 17XXX guns are a different animal for the reasons listed above.
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
Does the 1 on 17480 look added to you?
Sure, it looks that way. Stamped separately from the other four.
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
It is a reject.
Check the front framewell.
Check the front framewell.
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
What I am actually curious about is the right receiver proof on 17480. Note 7475 has a mid 1937 style proof an a 1936 dated gun.
Does 17480 have a right side barrel proof?
Does 17480 have a right side barrel proof?
Possible, but seems unlikely. Why so many in the 7000 range? Why do they have military fireproofing? Shouldn't there be rejects from other ranges with 1s added? And yes I am aware of some 20000 range weirdness.
The idea that the star (which you are referencing) is a reject stamp is not backed by any evidence. Some collector just decided it's a reject stamp. It certainly wasn't the BAL's rejection stamp.
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
Not unique to find HK's with four-point stars in front frame well.
Never considered it a BAL thing .
Just HK workers finding a problem.
Is it dated 1936?
Is it the gun in second pic?
Never considered it a BAL thing .
Just HK workers finding a problem.
Is it dated 1936?
Is it the gun in second pic?
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
Note barrel serial is un-altered 7480.
7475 has a mis-matched sideplate.
Read somewhere about another of these 17xxx guns and the locking bolt was really stiff.
Would be interesting to know if 17480 has its original sideplate.
If it is gun in second pic it has the same out of place right receiver proof as my 7475 and a final firing proof. Good chance it was set aside and sent for final firing after fixed and had a 1 added to keep track of it..
Sideplate machining may have been off on some in this range
Odd for sure but still a military accepted gun.
7475 has a mis-matched sideplate.
Read somewhere about another of these 17xxx guns and the locking bolt was really stiff.
Would be interesting to know if 17480 has its original sideplate.
If it is gun in second pic it has the same out of place right receiver proof as my 7475 and a final firing proof. Good chance it was set aside and sent for final firing after fixed and had a 1 added to keep track of it..
Sideplate machining may have been off on some in this range
Odd for sure but still a military accepted gun.
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
Looked at pics of this.
As usual the things you really want to see are not there.
Note barrel serial is not altered
Same proofs as mine and 17480
My 7475 passed but had its sideplate switched with a mauser one at some time.
Wear indicates it was long ago.
No added markings of any kind..
Marks on takedown lever indicate it had really stiff issues also.
Right side barrel proof should be through the blue.
Oddbal for sure but still a Luft gun.
Looks genuine SO FAR to me.
Always want in hand with these.
As usual the things you really want to see are not there.
Note barrel serial is not altered
Same proofs as mine and 17480
My 7475 passed but had its sideplate switched with a mauser one at some time.
Wear indicates it was long ago.
No added markings of any kind..
Marks on takedown lever indicate it had really stiff issues also.
Right side barrel proof should be through the blue.
Oddbal for sure but still a Luft gun.
Looks genuine SO FAR to me.
Always want in hand with these.
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
Should add mag is not a HK mag. No known honest examples of blued tube backpin type mags used by HK.
Mags were an outsourced part .
Mags were an outsourced part .
Guillaume d'Orange
Senior Member
Thanks, although yours is of a different kind, it surely looks very nice.
I’m no specialist of these HK Luftwaffe P08, but I wonder of they were earmarked for Fallschirmjägers or the big brass or if they were issued indiscriminately.
1933 FORD NUT
Well-known member
I actually think all 3 are in fact the same. Just mine was not pulled.
It sure seems to have had the same issue as the one I mentioned with the really stiff locking bolt.
There is actually a few of these around.
For sure not common and this is one of the reasons for my keeping it.
Look close and you will see all 3 are pretty much identical.
No idea on usage but the common belief of " fallschirmjaeger" and " flak corps" does not make any sense to me.
How big were either in 1936?
It sure seems to have had the same issue as the one I mentioned with the really stiff locking bolt.
There is actually a few of these around.
For sure not common and this is one of the reasons for my keeping it.
Look close and you will see all 3 are pretty much identical.
No idea on usage but the common belief of " fallschirmjaeger" and " flak corps" does not make any sense to me.
How big were either in 1936?
Guillaume d'Orange
Senior Member
FJR 1 was created in 1938.
In 1936, paratroopers were the new kids, less than 1000, I’d say.
