Grading Firearms

Dwight Gruber · 01-24-2006, 02:36 PM

I don't find the Blue Book photo method particularly useful as it only shows one side view of their examples. I'm not sure how realistic it is, either-- judging by their scale almost all the Lugers one sees are less than 80%. In general, the percentage system seems to be a useful one specifically for collecting.

I like the NRA system as a useful begining designation, but it has its limits in colleting Lugers. It allows for some parts replacement and refinishing in its higher grades--useful for evaluating many firearms, but which would usually eliminate a Luger from consideration as a collection piece.

I've never heard anybody refer to throat erosion in regards to Lugers. I was told by a respected collector-for-condition to "never look at the bore"; this seems, however, to be a minority opinion. Also I am not familiar with bore condition being included in the overall percentage of a Luger's condition, it usually merits its own description. This is partly due to the use of corrosive ammunition during a Luger's lifetime: it is possible to have a Luger which is in extremely good condition on the outside, which has an extremely pitted bore due to poor cleaning protocol during its use.

As an aside, I know a table-holder at the Portland gun show who routinely runs a Hoppes-soaked cleaning patch through the bore of a Luger before he hands it to you to look at; ostensibly this is to demonstrate the bore's cleanliness, but it has the effect of oiling it up a bit, makine it shinier and artificially appear smoother than it in fact may be.

I'm not familiar with a grade for Luger woodwork, either--again, this is usually a matter for actual description.

Ed and Rod are right-on with the subjective conclusion--the buyer/seller differential is particularly apt.

--Dwight

01-24-2006, 02:36 PM	#5
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,908 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,330 Times in 435 Posts	I don't find the Blue Book photo method particularly useful as it only shows one side view of their examples. I'm not sure how realistic it is, either-- judging by their scale almost all the Lugers one sees are less than 80%. In general, the percentage system seems to be a useful one specifically for collecting. I like the NRA system as a useful begining designation, but it has its limits in colleting Lugers. It allows for some parts replacement and refinishing in its higher grades--useful for evaluating many firearms, but which would usually eliminate a Luger from consideration as a collection piece. I've never heard anybody refer to throat erosion in regards to Lugers. I was told by a respected collector-for-condition to "never look at the bore"; this seems, however, to be a minority opinion. Also I am not familiar with bore condition being included in the overall percentage of a Luger's condition, it usually merits its own description. This is partly due to the use of corrosive ammunition during a Luger's lifetime: it is possible to have a Luger which is in extremely good condition on the outside, which has an extremely pitted bore due to poor cleaning protocol during its use. As an aside, I know a table-holder at the Portland gun show who routinely runs a Hoppes-soaked cleaning patch through the bore of a Luger before he hands it to you to look at; ostensibly this is to demonstrate the bore's cleanliness, but it has the effect of oiling it up a bit, makine it shinier and artificially appear smoother than it in fact may be. I'm not familiar with a grade for Luger woodwork, either--again, this is usually a matter for actual description. Ed and Rod are right-on with the subjective conclusion--the buyer/seller differential is particularly apt. --Dwight