The M1906 Russian Contract Controversy Strikes Again

Edward Tinker · 09-29-2011, 08:39 AM

Albert, I just don't understand how your bringing up Sturgess in so many of your postings helps your theories? I don't know the man, never met him and never met you.

The excuse for not finishing your book is that you are gathering together data is an old, lame excuse and one I have seen numerous times after the person has died and the family wonders what to do with this semi-finished manuscript. You have been working on this book for what, 5 years? 10 or is it 15 years? What are you waiting for?

I don't believe some of your theories because you don't provide concrete paperwork or provide documentation from other guns. I have never said that your theories could not be correct, but simply that you base it on conjecture, just as the present theories are based.

If the crossed rifles were a marketing ploy, just as the american eagle was, then that hurts the theory that DWM and the gov'ts were involved in the reason behind the crossed rifles. If you go on the assumption that Bulgaria / Russia, they didn't ask, just as the US gov't didn't ask for the crest on the chamber, as no precise measurements were taken, given or asked for. If you take that into consideration, then the crossed rifles is just a marketing ploy for a 'commercial' market and not some gov't request.

Do you have any idea how many 'geladen' and Geischert marked lugers came to america? Now why would they have new made lugers come to america that had the german language instead of in english? Shouldn't all new made lugers instead have SAFE and Loaded on them? Perhaps because they had a lot more frames and extractors already marked, just as they already had bulgarian extractors marked. DWM simply didn't care, DWM made lots of mistakes or omissions, sales were more important than some precise wording for commercially sold guns to Russia.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

09-29-2011, 08:39 AM	#8
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,980 Thanks: 2,079 Thanked 4,614 Times in 2,127 Posts	Albert, I just don't understand how your bringing up Sturgess in so many of your postings helps your theories? I don't know the man, never met him and never met you. The excuse for not finishing your book is that you are gathering together data is an old, lame excuse and one I have seen numerous times after the person has died and the family wonders what to do with this semi-finished manuscript. You have been working on this book for what, 5 years? 10 or is it 15 years? What are you waiting for? I don't believe some of your theories because you don't provide concrete paperwork or provide documentation from other guns. I have never said that your theories could not be correct, but simply that you base it on conjecture, just as the present theories are based. If the crossed rifles were a marketing ploy, just as the american eagle was, then that hurts the theory that DWM and the gov'ts were involved in the reason behind the crossed rifles. If you go on the assumption that Bulgaria / Russia, they didn't ask, just as the US gov't didn't ask for the crest on the chamber, as no precise measurements were taken, given or asked for. If you take that into consideration, then the crossed rifles is just a marketing ploy for a 'commercial' market and not some gov't request. Do you have any idea how many 'geladen' and Geischert marked lugers came to america? Now why would they have new made lugers come to america that had the german language instead of in english? Shouldn't all new made lugers instead have SAFE and Loaded on them? Perhaps because they had a lot more frames and extractors already marked, just as they already had bulgarian extractors marked. DWM simply didn't care, DWM made lots of mistakes or omissions, sales were more important than some precise wording for commercially sold guns to Russia.