Walther LP52

[Troubledshooter]

It sounds like Walther would need to organise a base metal comparison, Harvey, and I'm not overly keen on sending it back to Germany to be honest. But I suppose that getting into the DNA of the frame is the surest way of knowing whether it came from the factory. Mind you, where else might it have come from? The Soviet State Western Copies Unit?!

If any forensic examination is to take place, the last place I would initially send it for such an examination, is Walther.
It needs to be done by a totally independent laboratory, and unless an earlier example is offered, and I accept my butchered LP53 may not be ideal test material, it is on loan offer, if needed, for any metallurgical tests, as I believe nowadays such tests can be carried out without destruction of the test sample, although I would have thought a small sample of frame material removed from the grip area wouldn't cause any damage to the working of the pistol, if found to be necessary.

[Garvin]

If any forensic examination is to take place, the last place I would initially send it for such an examination, is Walther.
It needs to be done by a totally independent laboratory, and unless an earlier example is offered, and I accept my butchered LP53 may not be ideal test material, it is on loan offer, if needed, for any metallurgical tests, as I believe nowadays such tests can be carried out without destruction of the test sample, although I would have thought a small sample of frame material removed from the grip area wouldn't cause any damage to the working of the pistol, if found to be necessary.

That all sounds rather expensive, David! Probably not realistic (unless someone on here runs such a lab?). But thanks for the offer, it's kind of you.

[Troubledshooter]

Another thought on this subject; did Walther produce their own castings or did they, like Webley, source their castings from outside suppliers ?

[harvey_s]

It sounds like Walther would need to organise a base metal comparison, Harvey, and I'm not overly keen on sending it back to Germany to be honest. But I suppose that getting into the DNA of the frame is the surest way of knowing whether it came from the factory.

Firstly, I was saying the opposite and I think at least one other agrees that the last person I would trust in this case to produce an un-biased opinion would be Walther.
Secondly, a base metal comparison will prove what exactly? given that we would expect that if the gun IS genuine that it came from an early batch which will have been cast at a different time, possibly from a different supplier unless Walther had their own foundry and potentialy with a different base metal specification (which may have been rejected).
I think that the method of manufacture and and the marks that the machinery that produced it needs to be the point of focus - all difficult to fake.
Don't forget Walther say they never made one - so they won't be of any help at all.

BTW, I had an interesting email saying that the model numbers and Walther banner were certainly cast into the frames, not stamped or otherwise impressed into them later. The author appeared to be something of an expert in such matters.

I'm no expert on the finer details of the model, however the author of this article seems to have done quite a bit of research on the LP53 and this seems to indicate that the earliest one he has found has been done on a engraving machine.
It might be the photos of course, but while you're looking - compare the two finishes around the markings on these 2 guns as well - they appear quite different and their authenticity is not in doubt...see below:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/40594...il+pics+added)

[Leonardj]

BTW, I had an interesting email saying that the model numbers and Walther banner were certainly cast into the frames, not stamped or otherwise impressed into them later. The author appeared to be something of an expert in such matters.

I'd be interested in knowing how this fellow has come up with the idea that the markings were cast into the frames, rather than stamped. (or in the case of the few known very early guns, machined in).

The exceptionally fine details found in the markings on these guns would be near impossible to produce by casting - especially considering that we are dealing with the casting methods in use in the early 1950s, not the precision die-casting methods that were developed a few decades later. Examination of the markings with a jeweler's loupe will reveal the rounded edges of the markings resulting from the downward strike of the stamp.

Additionally, if the markings were cast in, there would be absolutely no variance in the location of these markings on the side of the frame. I have pics of guns in my LP53 database in which the markings are mis-located by a few mm one way or another. I'd have thought that the frames would have been set into a jig to hold the frame securely during the stamping process, but some guns almost appear to have been stamped "free-hand".

And of course, there are also the mis-stamped guns that appear to have had the stamping die cocked slightly when it struck the frame, resulting in the marking being heavier at one side of the marking that at the other.

[Leonardj]

Likewise there has been reference to trigger geometry - is this relevant? again I would argue No, as its nothing to do with the frame (which is the only part bearing the LP52 identification) and I believe the holes in the frame are unaltered, its just the internals that are different and this could have been changed later or indeed originally assembled with later internals if the gun was created after LP53 production had started - which at this point seems the most likely scenario.

The trigger geometry may have some relevance in determining a build point once a few more specimens come to light to fill in the gap between SN 1345 and SN 1745.
I'd be most interested in hearing from anyone with an LP53 bearing a serial number within that range - or earlier.

It might be the photos of course, but while you're looking - compare the two finishes around the markings on these 2 guns as well - they appear quite different and their authenticity is not in doubt...see below:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/40594...il+pics+added)

Yes, it is the pics. I'm afraid that my photographic skills are lacking.
Both guns have the linear scuffs in the finishes, but on the later gun, they are much finer, and do not show up well in the pic.
Over all, the later gun does have a much nicer finish than the early gun.

[Garvin]

I'd be interested in knowing how this fellow has come up with the idea that the markings were cast into the frames, rather than stamped. (or in the case of the few known very early guns, machined in).

The exceptionally fine details found in the markings on these guns would be near impossible to produce by casting - especially considering that we are dealing with the casting methods in use in the early 1950s, not the precision die-casting methods that were developed a few decades later. Examination of the markings with a jeweler's loupe will reveal the rounded edges of the markings resulting from the downward strike of the stamp.

Additionally, if the markings were cast in, there would be absolutely no variance in the location of these markings on the side of the frame. I have pics of guns in my LP53 database in which the markings are mis-located by a few mm one way or another. I'd have thought that the frames would have been set into a jig to hold the frame securely during the stamping process, but some guns almost appear to have been stamped "free-hand".

And of course, there are also the mis-stamped guns that appear to have had the stamping die cocked slightly when it struck the frame, resulting in the marking being heavier at one side of the marking that at the other.

Yes, well it's not me who's making the argument - I simply don't have the knowledge to have an opinion either way and he's not inclined to discuss it on a forum. He did mention the uniformity of the markings as further proof (to him) of casting, so it's interesting that you have seen examples with variance in the location of markings.

[harvey_s]

Whilst engraving is likely on early examples, it is also an expensive and fairly skilled process and equally likely to be quickly replaced with more automated methods.
I would have expected that the 'trades' would have been rolled in rather than stamped once production got going.
If so, this should be visible with a loupe with the 'rolling in' effect being evident on close inspection on one side of the letters and shapes.

[harvey_s]

Just by accident, looking at Predom's - I came across this bastard off-spring as well....scroll down to 4th gun
http://www.vintagebbguns.com/european.html

[Garvin]

Just by accident, looking at Predom's - I came across this bastard off-spring as well....scroll down to 4th gun
http://www.vintagebbguns.com/european.html

Long thread about that on the AVA here.

[air-tech]

Just by accident, looking at Predom's - I came across this bastard off-spring as well....scroll down to 4th gun
http://www.vintagebbguns.com/european.html

Interestingly the vendor says it's an early gun, whereas other sources say that stamped model designations are a later thing.

Very interesting thread Danny and very interesting gun.

I just wonder.

Perhaps the 53/52 issue is related to the way the model designation was created (machined apparently).

Perhaps all it took was operator error one dozy Monday morning to set up the machinery to engrave "52" rather than "53". The LG52 is no myth, the error must have been easy to make at the time, 52, 53, etc etc.

Till the mistake was noted by the operator, who mentioned this accident to no-one for obvious reasons, so a handful of guns were mismarked and got through Walther's gates and out onto the shelves.

Would explain why Walther deny the existence of the 52, (why would they otherwise?) and why there are so few of these known about, Danny's is the first I have seen, yet "no smoke without fire" the fact that the "52" has had previous mention indicates that there may be something behind the myth, it was not just dreamt up.

I don't see why anyone would want to fake a 52 it's not like its value is going to change anyone's life or even be worth the extraordinary effort.

If the above is correct (though I admit it is impossible to prove, only to speculate) then the gun may well not be a "52" as we imagine it to be, but it's augmented value will be of a similar sort to that accorded to collectible postage stamps that have been printed with errors, some of which are exceedingly costly!

[harvey_s]

I know....send it to Fiona Bruce on Fake or Fortune it'll make a change from old dodgy old masters and you can pinch her bum

[Binners]

Just get over it

Bloody pistols taking up all the thread

Who cares if it's a 51, 56, 58 or whatever, it's still just a pistol

[ccdjg]

Well, after all pistols are more interesting. Their curves and texture and the fact that they can be controlled with one hand makes them a man thing. For some, rifles are probably just a substitute for a small endowment.



Remember - a thread is like a drawing pin. If you can't see the point then perhaps it's best to sit somewhere else.

[harvey_s]

...and ideally suited to a man with no fence