MG 08 635

[bmg17a1]

Maybe this will help. I've taken pics of typical stamps on a number of different parts of DWM and Spandau guns, mostly the parts that are the same ones as you have posted for comparison.
You can look over them and make up your own mind, which is the fun of all this. I don't have all the answers, but have been at this for a long, long time and have a farily good understand of what I see on 080s and other vintage MGs. What I get into below is fairly basic and really a starting piint for finding out the actual facts, and is not all inclusive of techniques and means of evaluating and processing what one finds on the guns themselves. There are lots more techniques for identifying and parsing the evidence on the guns. Keep in mind that this is an exploration and not a denigration or criticism of the gun, but an effort to understand what it is and what has happened to it.
The vintage maxim fonts are very different from modern fonts. Typical characteristics are that the vintage fonts have 'serifs', the small ball at the ends of the twos, three, sixes, nines, etc. Modern fonts do not have these. The sizes and shapes of the vintage numbers are also very consistent and do not correspond to modern number sizes and shapes without having custom numbers made. Another aspect to look for is the order of stamping and finishing during production. The numbers were stamped and then the parts blued without any polishing of the metal surfaces prior to bluing, and there was no polishing of the parts after the numbers were stamped, so the stamp impressions leave raised edges around the numbers. Numbers that are on parts that have been severly exposed to oxidation often don't have ridges, but most guns are in relatively good condition and exhibit the ridges.
A very revealilng aspect is the surface of the metal, especially on MGs that have been in existence for 90 plus years like the 08 Maxims. Metal oxidizes from exposure to air, water and various other elements and solutions, as well as being subject to abrasions, cuts, dents, bends, etc. The factory finish is usually still intact to greater or leser degree and very rarely entirely gone on 080s, which is a very reliable indicator of whether the metal has been worked or not. Bluing which has been removed and replaced by cold bluing processes is easy to see. Any metal surface on a vintage MG that is smooth, bright and unblemished, or where rust pits have sharp edges, has been reworked. Look for very fine aging of the metal surface, too, which shows micro pitting from oxidation, remaining bluing of many different hues and densities, dings, scratches, cuts, rust pits of various sizes and all sorts of indication of aging. Any metal surface that has no aging oxidation or lacks any evidence of aging has been worked. Looking at the pic of the oil caps and the latch, it is very clear to me that the metal has been worked and the numbers stamped there. The numbers display smooth edges and no raised edges indcating that the metal was polished with a medium to fine material, removing the raised edges of the numbers. The spandau ID is not visible either, which should be opposite the number at the edge.
Spandau had their factory ID stamp on the caps, the latch and the safety. If you compare the safety lever which is aged appropriately and compare it to the latch and oil caps you can see the difference in aging and metal surface and the nature of the numbers.
I have many sets of modern and vintage style stamps and the modern sets display two common types of threes, as well as other numbers. The threes are the double loop three, and the three with the diagonal center section. The stamp used on the steam tube head is a late style double loop three and and the five is a common modern style and shape as well. There are no serifs on these stamps and the sizes are incorrect for vintage stamp sizes found on Maxims. The steam tube head was stamped to match the serial number, not to repair a faulty steam tube. Steam tubes only got damaged if there was shrapnel or rounds through the jacket or the front endcap, otherwise they would suffer no damage.
Another point that is worth noting is that with all the several hundred or more Maxims that I've seen, worked on and owned, none have had any overstamped parts that appeared vintage, nor did they have worked parts that were replaced with restamped parts to match the original numbers that could be believed to be vintage. Parts were replaced, but there is no evidence that they were restamped in the field or in arsenals. Parts were stamped at the factory during production ands that was it. No parts have shown up or been observed that were traditionally stamped but without stamped numbers which could be construed as replacement parts that would then be stamped with the serials to match the gun. there just isn't any evidence to support this with the German Maxims. I have seen MG008 sleds with crossed out serials and new serials added, but never the guns themselves, with the exceptions noted.
However, I have observed a number of Maxims that have had numbers stamped on small parts to match the serial, but clearly the stamps were late and done to make the parts match gun's serial. As noted above, years ago this was a practice engendered by enthusiasts who wanted to have a "matching" gun, but had no understanding of the factory and field procedures, types of fonts, sizes, etc. It is far more commonplace now with title I firearms, but with the scrutiny and research available today from MG collectors who now understand the numbering practices of the various MG factories, have researched the stamp styles from examples and have much more detailed knowledge of the character of vintage markng practices, it isn't practiced much any more.
With all due respect, it is not possible to accurately determine or verify what has been done and by whom to many MGs by previous owners.
What can be determined, and verified is the evidence accumulated through the long study of the guns themselves along with archives of manuals and other documents that reveal information. I am a hardliner when it comes to verification of anything about MGs, as some of the others who frequent these boards will know about me, and I don't indulge in fantasies aobut what might or might not be. I like evidence from the guns themselves and have spent many years with many guns of alls sorts observing as many of the characteristics of the guns as I can and building a trail of evidence about them that reinforces what evidence has shown before. It is of great interest to me, and to many others who also are on the same trail many of whom participate on these sites. Every gun has a story from the factory, and then its history after that, and every gun is interesting and unique, but there are many common threads between them that create the real fabric of the history of their productiion and use as time goes by.
I offer my experience as a way to follow the trail and not as a judgement on the quality or value of the guns. I really enjoy trying to discern the truth, which makes the history of these guns more valuable as historic artifacts.
I tried to add a number of pics of typical Spandau part stamps, but I can't find them on the list of attachments below so I must have exceeded the limit for a post. I'll post them below on a new post if they don't show up on this post.
Hope this is of interest and useful.

Bob Naess

[bmg17a1]

I'll post the Spandau parts here.

[bbigbore]

You have effectively pissed in my fruit loops to a small extent, but I do appreciate the help and your effort. Now if you know where I can find a spare lock I'll really be in your debt. I'd like to shoot this thing more, but the thought of having no spare parts doesnt leave an easy feeling...

here it is up and running this past weekend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i7g213J77k

[bmg17a1]

bbigbore wrote:
>You have effectively pissed in my fruit loops to a small extent,.....<
bbigbore also wrote previous to that:
>Assumptions are nice, but I love documented facts if any exist in the form of pics or official notes.<

Well, you asked for some illumination on your gun to avoid "assumptions", of which many were being made in this thread, and perhaps it didn't turn out as you had hoped, but knowledge is power. Of course, I don't know what your expectations were of the gun, or what you were told about it before you bought it, but there is always a lot to be learned about any vintage MG. "The proof is in the pudding" always applies to MGs.You brought the gun to this site with pics to find out some answers and you can take what you want or need from the posts and form your own opinion. I don't think there is anyone who has been in the vintage MG collecting hobby for any length of time that hasn't bought an MG and found that it has some unforseen attributes that might not be what one espected or desired. I know I have. Personally, I find the real story about any MG, as far as it can be determined from experience and the evidence of the gun, far more interesting than suppositions or imaginings. Understanding MGs as fully as possible has always been my goal.
Personally, I always want to know the truth about any MG that I come across, as a matter of historic accuracy, which is what collecting is all about for me. As I posted above, learning about an MG is an exploration, and undesireable attributes are not evaluated as negatives, in my view, for a particular gun, but rather reveal the actual state of the weapon. This is neither good or bad, but just "what it is".
My fulltime business is MGs, and my MG collecting goes back to the middle fifties. My expectations have become over the years that someone who has an MG for me to broker for them or an MG that I want to buy for myself or for a customer, will know the state of his weapon and be informed about what are its specific attributes. With reasonable, accurate and detailed knowledge of our guns we can honestly appreciate them for what they are, and, in my position, for business purposes, I can present a gun fairly and accurately so the buyer knows what he is purchasing. This is always important in dealing MGs, and especially so for new buyers who don't have experience in the world of MGs.
It might be of interest to you that I spent some months trying to broker that particular 08 for Davis, and had some decent pictures of it provided by him. I was already familiar with some of the issues with the gun from the pics, and because I did learn some things about it, I communicated them to potential buyers. This is my ethical obligation, and the people I approached made up their minds about the gun based on as much real information as I could provide without actually having the gun in my shop.
You have a wonderful, historic weapon which you will enjoy greatly, and are fortunate to be able to own and shoot. I believe the more you know about it the more you will appreciate it! Keep it well lubed and preserve your barrels with a jacket well filled with water when shooting and it will give you a great ride for as long as you have it.
I don't have any locks for sale, but they do show up now and then on internet sites and at shows. Prices seem to be in the $400 and up range now.

Bob Naess

[bbigbore]

The "pissed in my fruit loops was tongue in cheek". As I'm sure any collector can relate, I'm a bit bummed, but not going to lose any sleep over it. I'm still happy with what I have. I do appreciate the info. If I wasnt looking for answers I wouldnt have posted so may pics and pestered so hard for clarification.

[IMBLITZVT]

Bob,

I have been reading threads for years now. That might be the best reply I have ever seen. Well explained with taste and facts to back it up. Very well done!

Parts were replaced, but there is no evidence that they were restamped in the field or in arsenals. Parts were stamped at the factory during production ands that was it. No parts have shown up or been observed that were traditionally stamped but without stamped numbers which could be construed as replacement parts that would then be stamped with the serials to match the gun. there just isn't any evidence to support this with the German Maxims. I have seen MG008 sleds with crossed out serials and new serials added, but never the guns themselves, with the exceptions noted.

I to have never seen evidence of restamping in the field or arsenals by the Germans. Of course the Russians did this commonly and you can see it on every other part. So I completely agree. Any renumbering was probably done Post WWI. It does look like the German renumbered some locks and other items post WWI when they upgraded the Maxims but they completely removed the original marks, not just a restamp... plus they marked it with the Interwar Eagle or Nazi Eagle. You see this often on locks and barrels. I don't think this gun fits that in any way.

"No parts have shown up or been observed that were traditionally stamped but without stamped numbers which could be construed as replacement parts that would then be stamped with the serials to match the gun."

I don't know if I totally agree here. I have a lock that looks un-screwed with that is totally unnumbered. I also have fusee cover with no serial number marked on the outside (like normal), just small stamping on the inside front "trunnion" piece. Both "seem" to be replacement parts to me. I will have to take some pictures. Do you have one of those armorers kits with all the parts like one shown in Dolf's book? If so, are those parts numbered? I guess what I am saying is that is seems to me that there must have been un numbered parts given to armorers as replacement parts. They could not have only used parts salvaged from older guns. So unless these were somehow numbered, there would be un numbered parts out there. Now if they were stamped by the armorer... they fonts and styles would still be the same... they just would have been blued before stamping... everything else stands as far as what you were saying about metal surface...etc.

[dwmmg08]

Fantastic information Bob, and everyone. I too have some un-numbered, but proofed and maker marked locks. I had been of the understanding that the parts in the armorer's chests were un-numbered replacement parts, partly as that's the only possible way to have it that would make sense. Come to think of it, I don't think I've seen any parts in a gun that aren't numbered, somewhere?

A point though, I have seen a number of Gew. 98's that were re-worked in the WWI era. You do see items, such as the occasional un-numbered but imperial proofed firing pins, etc. which are proofed but not #. I'm thinking now that perhaps any permanantly re-numbered parts were NOT done below the factory or arsenal level- there wasn't anything to keep the Imperials from sending damaged Gew. 98's or even Maxim 08's, back through the Arsenal or at least Corps level Depots, for repair- in fact, it would probably be better, as they could keep a better handle on quality.

The principal thing I have ever seen struck through on Imperial guns are unit property marks. These are often struck through like "X" over the numbers on Gew. 88's, Reichsrevolvers etc., to erase the old unit and then denote new units they were sent to. As this would be something done at the unit, that makes some sense, especially thinking about it with what Bob wrote. A lot of collectors want to do that with serial #'s on parts, but that would have been a different issue at the time. Striking out the prior unit's marks and updating it with your new unit info, not a big deal. You can also see exactly the same effort on Imperial ID disks.

[oprod]

Great gun despite the froot loop fiasco! I really enjoy the knowledge base the forums supply it is better then any magazine article.The type of information posted herin provides us all valueable insight when looking at other guns as well. Is the bottom of this particular gun brass or steel and does it have any stamps? How about some more pics of the tripod? I have yet to see a swiss tripod but have several finnish ones in states of repair.

[dwmmg08]

You know, you're right, the knowledge base on here is excellent, I would love to see some of this discussion turned into a Small Arms Review article, that would be very interesting.

[bmg17a1]

Haven't been able to pay attention to the interesting posts on this site for a while, but here's my take on the armorer's chest and related stuff.
So far, the only chest that I've ever heard of or has been revealed is the one in Dolf's book. If these were in common use with germabn maxims during various conflicts, where are the rest of them and where are the parts? None have ever showed up in the US on the market, and the knowledgeable people in europe haven't revealed any, which hopefully may change, nor has there ever been any significant number of un-numbered 08 or 08/15 parts on the parts market in the US or on guns. It is easy and entertaining to speculate about what any particular part signifies, but there needs to be substantial evidence in documents or numbers of items to make any meaningful evaluation of their use and history. So far, there is really nothing to point at that says these parts are definitely for this use at this time in this location, etc.
I have seen a few un-numbered locks and one or two other parts, but from looking them over they had been cleaned of their numbers, which could have happened anywere and at any time. I know that un-numbered locks do exist, which does not provide evidence of anything exept there are un-number locks. They could exist for lots of reasons.
Parts that tend to have the most extensive remarking, or possibililty of exchange or loss are those that break or wear out the most easily, which are locks and barrels for the Maxims. There is no other part on the Maxim that is subject to wear or breakage except perhaps other springs in the upper feed pawl and the mouth of the feedblock, etc. It would seem that these parts would need to be in a chest, along with small parts for locks, springs, etc, but larger parts don't seem as if they would be needed in large quantites in a chest and if, say, a feedblock were needed, there were probably enough damaged guns to cannabalize. Of course, this is speculation, but without more extensive evidence of the use of un-numbered parts, there isn't much support for any real concrete explanation yet. Maybe in the future or from someone who has documentation from some source. That's my $.02.

Bob

[Bil]

You are right,Bob.If we are trying to get the history straight,we can have ideas and theories all we want,but actual facts are the end result we want.Surmising where or when something is not the same as actually knowing for sure.100 years is a long time,but just a small speck in history,so it should be a bit easier than finding out what dinosaurs wore. I do have (in books) many referances from both sides in WW I of gunners taking the locks with them if they were being over-run,it prevented their own guns from being turned on them if they couldn't carry them.Some said they would throw the locks into a watery crater,etc.It makes sense,and is as close to actual fact as it gets.I have also seen piles of guns in pictures after the war,locks removed,and rifles next to piles of bolts.It is a wonder there are any matching numbers pieces at all! This has become an excellant clearing house for this info.Hopefully someone is saving it or printing it out! ---bil

[alpencorps]

Any idea what means the point near/under the serial-Nr.?

Its a early 08/15 Gun, Spandau, only Nr 441 on the top cover.

Greetings
Alpencorps

[bmg17a1]

I don't know for sure, but I suspect it is a hardness test punch prick. The topcover latch is an odd place to test for hardness, as all the ones I've welded to repair have been mild steel. The locks lilfing levers have punch pricks to indicate hardness.

Bob Naess

[alpencorps]

Bob, thank you for your help,
I assumed the punch prick is may bee a sign for replaced parts?
At some lift levers I see this punch already, but not at all.

alpencorps

[IMBLITZVT]

That kind of looks like the same muzzle gland on this MG01... what do you think?

[bbigbore]

That kind of looks like the same muzzle gland on this MG01... what do you think?

cool pic, thanks for posting.

[bmg17a1]

Pic of an early Maxim DWM made gland. This came assembled to a DWM 1894/09 Argentine Maxim, which have theri own unique serial range. Serial on gland suggests early production DWM Maxim, perhaps early to mid 1890s.

Bob Naess

[IMBLITZVT]

Very cool Bob! I guess they did not like the "slotted" method and when to the "wrench"!