Mauser Guns Collectors Forum
Pistols => Model HSC Pistol => Topic started by: rob67gt on February 15, 2015, 06:01:51 PM
-
Alan, I was paging through Pender today and read in a description of the early KM pantographed E/M that he thought them to originate from "commercial" sources. I know the markings were put on by the Kriegsmarine but I suspected that they had come directly from Mauser to the KM. Curious if you have sources that indicate whether the KM got HScs directly from Mauser, "Commercial" sources, or perhaps both.
Hope you are warm where you are - obviously snuggling up with my HSc references to stay warm here!
Thanks! Rob
-
A thoughtful question as always, Rob. Unfortunately, I have nothing to clarify the answer. It has always been a question without an answer since all three variations (Eagle/M, Eagle/M + Eagle/M III/8, and just Eagle/M III/8) have been noted throughout the war without a clear definition of why. Any supply "channel" (Pender's word) other than directly from Mauser would be pure supposition.
-
One could properly state that Mauser was "a" or "the" commercial source. The plural in his sentence raises the question what was his provenance. Without footnotes or his research notes, we are left seeking the truth. If only these guns could talk. Sure makes for an interesting condition.
Jim
-
Alan, Thanks for the clarification on the use of the term "channel" I could not recall the wording when I got to the computer.
Along your line of thought Jim, perhaps Pender had no definitive source but speculated that the absence of a army proof meant a commercial source (he lacked your extensive database and the precise understanding of when the first Army HSc appeared). A plausible theory when you think that the initial HSc (LGSs) were primarily KM with some commercials - army markings came later. So perhaps initially there were only unproofed "commercial" units of which some were obtained by the smallest member of the Wehrmacht (the KM) and distinguished "after the fact" with a pantograph. Under this theory with all units would be coming directly from Mauser. I can see the Army [with promise of the acquisition of many units (HScs) and perhaps the police given the volume they acquired initially] requiring a formal process for acceptance and "proofing" to distinguish the their units somewhere prior to the end of the actual production process. This would prevent the KM from snatching up 1st-choice pistols already set aside by the Army. All said and done, we may never know for certain - :( .
Alan, isn't it safe to conclude that anything with a III/8 proof came directly from Mauser as the proof was put on prior to bluing? This seems to suggest that an inspector was at Mauser accepting pistols within the assembly process the same as the Army.
Thanks for the input and response.
Rob
-
Absolutely correct! Recall that by September 1941, Army Inspector 655 had been transferred to Czechoslovakia and was replaced by Inspector 135. At the same time, the Navy installed Inspector III/8 so that any HSc with that Acceptance Mark was designated for the Navy (KM). The question remains as to how the KM acquired those pistols with just an Eagle/M on the Grip before and after September 1941.
-
I called Jan Still yesterday and learned that a Mr. Van Gilmer might know the answer to this question. Jan was sure Van Gilmer was a member of his forum.
Jim
-
I am not familiar with Mr. Gilmer but if he has information on this subject and is a member here I hope he responds.
Rob