Contrary
to common belief, the C96 was not invented by Paul Mauser,
but by the Feederle brothers
(Fidel, Friedrich, and Josef). Fidel Feederle
was the Superintendent
of the Experimental Work Shop, and it is
reported that the C96
(then referred to as P-7.63 or the Feederle Pistol)
was designed and prototyped
without the knowledge and against the
wishes of Paul Mauser.
Be that as it may, production began in 1896, and
ended about 1939 with
over one million C96 pistols produced.
Paul Mauser
named the C96 the "Mauser Military Pistol" in the hopes
that it would achieve
large sales through its adoption by the Germany
army or the army of one
of the other major powers, but his hopes were
never realized. While
limited numbers of the C96 pistol were purchased
for issue to members
of the armed forces and/or police of Germany,
China, Indonesia, Persia,
Turkey, Italy, and possibly Norway (and
unofficially used by
the troops of a large number of other countries), it
was never officially
adopted by any country as their primary sidearm.
Before getting
into the variations and characteristics of the C96 pistol,
some background and cautions
are in order. All of the Mauser
production and corporate
records retained at the Mauser plant were
destroyed in 1945, by
order of the U.S. Army officer in command at the
captured Mauser plant.
While I cannot tell you what I think of this little
act of senseless vandalism
(without resorting to language even *I* find
offensive), I will say
that this action has bedeviled Mauser collectors
ever since.
In the absence
of factory records which show when which pistol was
made (or even the number
of pistols made in any given year) people
have attempted to determine
the year that their specific pistol was
produced based on serial
number. Such attempts are fraught with peril.
In the early years of
production the big Mauser pistol was not especially
popular, and sales were
poor. In order to make it appear that more
pistols had been sold
than was actually the case, Mauser skipped blocks
of serial numbers. In
the later years it appears that some attempt was
made to fill in these
missing blocks of numbers. To add to the confusion
pistols made under contract
were usually (but not always) serial
numbered in their own
series, beginning with number "1". All of which
means that pistols which
appear, based on their serial number, to have
been made early may actually
have been made much later. The
converse is also true.
All firearms
tend to evolve over the years of their production.
Sometimes these changes
are made to improve function or appearance.
Sometimes they are made
to reduce production costs. Sometimes they
are made for no discernible
reason. Nowhere is this more true than the
C96. Over the forty odd
years that the C96 was produced a large
number of changes were
made. Markings were changed, the shape and
size of parts changed,
at least four different types of safeties were
produced, and even the
milling patterns on the frames changed.
This evolution
of the C96 has provided another technique which has
been used to date specific
pistols - dating by the mechanical
characteristics and appearance
of a specific pistol. Unfortunately, this
technique also has its
problems. There appear to have been times when
Mauser would make a change
to the C96, produce several hundred or
several thousand pistols
with these changes, revert to the old way of
making C96's for a dozen
or a thousand or so pistols, then go back to
producing the pistols
with the changes. It's almost as if the folks at
Mauser would find cases
of C96 parts, lost in some forgotten corner of
the warehouse for years,
and include them in current production until
they ran out, at which
point the would return to making C96's the way
they did before they
found the lost parts.
It can be
really very frustrating...
The significance
of all this is that it is next to impossible to accurately
determine even the year
in which a specific pistol was made, much less
the actual date.
And it has
taught me to use the words "probably", "likely", and "seems"
a lot. I have found that
the times I'm most likely (there's one of those
words!) to be wrong is
when I'm most sure I'm right. Sigh...
-By Kyrie Ellis
kyrieellis@aol.com
used with permission
|