SVW45 Commercial Marked P38

Tiger 2 Tank said:
Hope I answered your questions.
Click to expand...

I think all these arguments, discussions and fights about what it could be is the problem and this should stop.

Let's just stick with the "steel" facts we can see and read, not the "paper" facts we can't see and read.

In my humble opinion the "steel" facts are that is a legitimate all matching German WW2 SVW45 P38 with all the correct markings out of the known or documented serial number range. STOP
 
I agree that the fighting should stop and facts should be presented about known Mauser production as it relates to this pistol. So yes "STOP" the fighting but keep the discussion open on the pistol itself.

The information Mark presented earlier using Buxton as a source is absolutely correct. This information has been added to, supplemented, and enhanced over the years thanks to experts like Orv Reichert and his data base. Sadly Orv is no longer with us. But the point is that it is true that Walther which was the parent factory was the only factory producing commercial P.38 pistols. This is well known. Mauser produced the police contract pistols which did use the Eagle over "N" commercial proof on the left side of the slide. The Mauser police P.38 pistols never used a letter suffix such as the "v" seen on this pistol. The serial number ranges, slide codes, proof marks, and other markings, are also very well known and documented.

Again, thanks to Orv's data base we know that a Mauser produced pistol carrying a "v" suffix serial number would have been produced in June, 1944 and the slide would have been marked "byf 44", not "SVW 45". So in order to believe this was truly a late war pistol that was produced, assembled, and stamped with these markings at the Mauser factory, as has been claimed here, we would have to believe that they were willing to duplicate the serial number of a pistol that they already produced. The serial number system used by the Germans was purposely very strict and orderly to prevent this from happening. Neither plant personnel nor the inspectors would have been okay with this. Plus there would have been easy ways around duplicating any previously produced serial numbers. For example during the late war period at the Spreewerk period they made a couple different changes. First of all when they ran our of serial numbers and letter suffixes they changed to using a letter prefix which was added to the serial number. There was also a run of late war "zero series" pistols done at Spreewerk which is considered a Volkssturm contract. A zero preceded the serial number and the markings were very different than anything they produced before. Again, a simple system to make sure there was no duplication of serial numbers. Also for some reason the "v" was forgotten on the frame of the pistol presented here.

It had been mentioned that Mauser had used the letter "v" on some prototypes but I have to agree that it is not early or unique in that respect either for the reasons already mentioned which include; it has later war production features such as the trigger reinforcement "hump", stamped slide release and late war extractor cut, as well of course the "SVW 45" slide code.

So as Mike Steves had mentioned earlier the origin and history of this pistol may have been lost to time. People can speculate on it all they want and not be wrong. After all "X" is true because we can't prove that "X" is false, correct?

This pistol was originally posted on August 28th, 2009 on the P.38 Forum. I think Orv Reichert summed it up best when he said concerning this pistol:

I think we should avoid making up stories to explain such items. Some folks read them and then quote them as being proof that it is correct!

Kind of like "I read it in a book!"

So yes it is made up of WW2 parts and strangely marked. So people can surely use words like "odd", "unique", "one-of-a-kind" or pretty much anything they would like. But maybe it is what it is and no further stories, theories, or verbal enhancements need to be attached. If it truly is being posted to see if any others show up leave it at that.

One other thing that could be done would be to compare close-ups of the Eagle N stamp to examples known to be correct of late war Mauser police pistols. I will try and do that for everyone's reference.

Ron
 
Forensic evidence of markings.

Cold steel markings on the pistol in question and my Police guns.

There may be more "cold steel" comparisons for markings being posted later by Ron.

Gentlemen look at the photos and decide, the commercial stamps are not the same.

Notice the eagle on my pistols is centered over the "N", the pistol in question is slanted. Look at the eagle beak on my pistols and the one on the pistol in question, look at the space under the eagle wing for the "feathers" on my pistol and the one in question. Look closely on the photos and then comment, are they the same markings?

The German stamps got more worn but never deviated with the style.

So with photo evidence of the two styles of e/n markings can you still defend your stance on the gun?

Can anyone refute my point? This is not paper documentation but photographic analysis.

Mark
 

Attachments

  • FAKE.jpg
    FAKE.jpg
    207.6 KB · Views: 35
Last edited:
Easy. They had and used more than one stamp. Look at the commercial stamps on the barrel and locking block. They are identical to your short winged type.
 
Here is a BYF43 Police pistol that I have since given to a friend of mine. Notice that the commercial stamps are not identical to each other. They had more than one commercial stamp and there were variations:

















 
Hmmm .. OK where is your evidence? I do not see the side by side comparisons ... should I take it apart for the the intel, you need to do work to show they are the same as yours.

I have presented this in a format that most collectors and visitors will appreciate. So produce some photographic evidence your point works with "cold steel"

I am just working on comments from other great collectors who want the "cold steel" rather than paper.

My photos stand with my original statement, a parts gun with questionable markings.

Now go ... what evidence of "cold steel" do you have to support your theory on this gun?

I don't have the time or initiative to show the e/n markings are the same as your pistol.

It is your turn to show me I am wrong.

Mark
 
Last edited:
The eagles you picked to post curl up a bit at the top tip of their stubby wings. The BYF43 I posted has the type with longer wings that do not tip up at the tip on the slide, just like the SVW45 I have. Again, variations in dies. They used multiple dies not just one over and over.
 
Merged Eagle N stamps.jpg

Gentlemen,

I did have time to further study these markings today after work and will present a photo merge here.

Both the top and bottom photos are from known to be correct late war Mauser police contract pistols. The top photo is SN 5136 and the bottom photo is SN 4650. Both carry the Eagle over "N" commercial proof mark of the stamp used on these Mauser pistols during this time period. The middle photo of this merge is the pistol posted here on page one. The top and bottom photos have identical characteristics in common, the center photo does not have these same characteristics.

Some observations and comments; Note the shape of the neck, the head, and the beak, of the eagle on all three photos. Also note the shape of the wings on all three. The shape of the neck, the head, and the beak, of the eagle are the same on the top and bottom photos. They are not the same as the middle photo. The wings of the eagle on the center photo are very straight across with heavy horizontal lines, while the wings on the top and bottom photos contain slightly less detail. This can be attributed to the wear of the original stamp. Also note the slightly upswept tip of the wings which is more noticeable on the tip of the right wing.

Particularly noteworthy is the shape and size of the letter "N" and the wear patterns which are consistent with the overall wear of this stamp. May I draw your attention to lower right portion of the letter "N" at the bottom tip where the vertical line and angled line come together. They are identical. I don't think I would be going out on a limb here if I said that the stamp used on the pistols shown in both the top and bottom photos was one in the same. I have studied close-up detailed photos from four other examples from the collections of two other moderators from the P.38 Forum, one advanced collector, and my own collection (confirmed under lit magnification) , and all have yielded the same result.

Ron
 
Mark, all you are doing is picking commercial proofs that are of a different variation than the one on the SVW45 slide. Compare the ones you posted to the eagle on my locking block and barrel. They are identical. Then look at the fact that both my barrel and locking block are stamped 44V just as my slide is. For my barrel and locking block, they used up a die that has shorter wings with turned up tips....just like yours. For the slide, a longer winged variation without turned up tips was used. There is no conflict here. You are simply comparing apples and oranges by picking another die variation and then comparing it to mine to say it is "questionable." In other words, you are comparing two different dies. Who knows how many different dies were used? Nobody. That has been lost to history. But there were most assuredly more than one or two or even three.

Ron, the same argument applies. Look at the stamps on the BYF43 I posted. They do not look like yours either yet that pistol is real and original too.
 
Last edited:
Sorry guys,

Here is the full size image:



Remember we are only talking about the Eagle over "N" commercial proof right side slide markings during this late war time period that concern this topic. Not a variety of other stamps. Please stay on topic.

Ron
 
I am on topic. We are talking about commercial proofs, wherever they may be whether it is slide, barrel or locking block. There are VARIATIONS in the dies. They didn't have a die set just for slides, one set just for barrels and one just for blocks. They just had a sets of dies that were used on any part needing a stamp. Sometimes they would pick one, other times they would pick another. It was random. Different parts were stamped by different people at different points. There were multiple dies so, yes, talking about any part bearing a commercial stamp IS staying on topic. I don't have a crapload of firearms with these proofs so I can't give you example after example. I have a pretty good hunch that you wouldn't post a variation that was the same as mine even if you had it. The BYF43 I posted has a long straight winged stamp just as my SVW45 does.
 
Where is your supporting detail about the points you are trying to make? Is this in a paper book? You have refuted collector evidence in paper books and now we bring "cold steel" markings to you as the other forum collectors have requested.

So now I turn your point over, look at the markings we presented as "cold steel" markings for what you see here and refute it with other markings to make your point. Your argument is being used against you and now comply with the same evidence that you and other forum members requested.

A simple request, refute the authors of years past and look at the photos ... we presented photo's now it is your turn for the evidence this gun has original e/n stamps made in the Mauser factory for police guns.

I await your evidence and photos, I have presented not only my reference from world class books but also photographic, forensic, evidence to support my position. ... a parts gun with suspect stamps.

I stand by my opinion until you can deliver a better statement than "I know it is true because I know where the gun came from".

Mark
 
Here is a BYF44 Police with a slide stamp of the straight long winged variety:

http://www.rockislandauction.com/viewitem/aid/58/lid/1572

I am providing ample evidence both in logic and in photographs. You are just choosing to ignore it. If anything here is "questionable" it's your rigid adherence to a flawed belief that ALL stamps must look like ones you have presented. I can't believe that an "advanced collector" does not seem to understand the absolute FACT that there were variations in German dies. Even the most novice of collectors understands that. You know that too but you are choosing to ignore it because it immediately disproves your assertion that the pistol is "questionable".
 
Last edited:
It only took me few minutes using google to find SEVERAL variations in slide stamps (from EXTREMELY reputable sources too) but that's enough. Saying that my stamp doesn't look like your stamp so it's "questionable" is ridiculous. Anyone can see that.

We have some very knowledgeable collectors on this forum who can probably show us more variations if the cared to but they don't need to because they understand that there are variations in dies. Again, you know it too but you're ignoring it to further your "mission" of discrediting me.
 
I still can't see your point with these links, provide more detail on your post.

Your link to these guns are not conclusive with your statements about different dies being used for production, how do you know different dies were used for the e/n stamps in Mauser production?

Do you have evidence for this? Do you have a reference or is this more speculation?

I have provided a context for my statements and you have not provided anything to the contrary. Should I go back to my books and look it up? Have you done any research? Can you provide detail in photos to refute my point or in a printed reference?

I refuse to continue this debate until you support your position, which is very weak in my opinion.

Other members can decide on my position.

I have also have not not made any emotional responses and made my comments in the context of a researcher.

You seem to just post and post without refuting my points in a civilized debate without any evidence.

The photos I posted on the spurious markings on your pistol stand with me until you post better detail for your debate and support your position with references or better photos.

Mark
 
Last edited:
Wilhelm,

The photos you are posting from RIA are of pistols much earlier in production and are not what we are talking about here specifically concerning the late war E/N Mauser production. The stamps you are showing with those photos are typical of production during that earlier time period. I am sure that the members and moderators here would appreciate that you stay on topic and compare apples to apples and not by grabbing random photos from other periods of production. The photos I merged and other pistols I studied were not randomly selected but rather carefully chosen to fit the criteria based on the subject matter at hand. Neither were they hand selected to support one position over another. Yet they all exhibited the same characteristics. People can look at them and judge for themselves. I fully realize there are many knowledgeable collectors on this forum. Many I know very well and some are also members of the P.38 Forum.

As Mike Steves stated " use the facts to win the argument". In this case it appears you are grasping at straws and I am not even sure what you are arguing about anymore. Besides Mark's summation you have posted the last four times. Maybe against yourself?

Have a good night.

Ron
 
Last edited:
Mark, even the four Mauser police pistols you show on your site show variation.

It is not speculation on my part to say that different dies were used...all ANYONE has to do is look. There are long wing and short wing types. Turned up tips and straight tips. Messed up N's and non messed up N's. Eagle head shape differences and probably more that I have not seen.

Ron, do you think they just replaced dies every spring cleaning or something?? No. They used them and used them until they degraded to the point that they had to be replaced regardless of whether it was 1943 or 1945....regardless of whether it was Tuesday or Saturday. By late 1944-early 1945, some were worn more than others. Some were old and worn to the point that the N was really crappy looking. Some were barely worn at all because they were still relatively new so they looked nicer. This stuff is collecting 101 guys!!!

At this point, it should be absolutely obvious to anyone reading this they you guys are just being argumentative because you have backed yourself into a corner that you cannot get out of without flat out admitting that you are wrong. Instead, you are just being silly and acting like you are autistic.

"I said it's fake, so it must be fake." "I said it's fake, so it must be fake." "I said it's fake, so it must be fake." "I said it's fake, so it must be fake." ........
 
Last edited:
Ron from Minnesota said:
.......... The photos I merged and other pistols I studied were not randomly selected but rather carefully chosen to fit the criteria based on the subject matter at hand..........
Click to expand...


Well, at least you're telling the truth about that. You carefully picked them alright. You carefully picked a variation that is as far away from mine as possible in an attempt to gloss over the fact that variations are normal and often times many.

But we're just beating a dead horse here. The pistol is obviously authentic but you guys will never admit it because you can't stomach the fact that a peon such as myself could ever teach an "advanced collector" anything let alone prove them wrong. I'd quote Mark and say ""Just face the facts and be a man" but I'm not.....even though I just did .HAHA!!!

Take care friends. We'll battle it out again someday! I think everyone's had enough of this silliness. I know I have
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top