Obviously, it is difficult for some collectors to rationalize without fully understanding the culture and traditions of Imperial Germany. Without being racist, Americans will continue to think like Americans and often go along with 'knee-jerk' reactions. The American mentality in regards to the firearms industry is quite different from the German way in the past and the present.

Albert

Hi Albert,
I do understand "the culture and traditions of Imperial Germany". Both my parents grew up in Germany and my three older siblings were born in Berlin. The family spoke German at home and my Mother remained a typical German Hausfrau to the end. However, business is business, and DWM, a privately owned company, was in business to make money. It is not impossible to imagine that if DWM was stuck with a few hundred Bulgarian frames from a production overrun or cancelled contract, that they would seek to recoup their investment by dumping them on the Russian commercial market.
Albert, I've enjoyed our debate, as I'm sure Ron and Ed have, but I urge you to keep it at a scholarly, impersonal level. We will likely never know the truth about these fascinating guns, but along the way, I have learned a lot from you and the others.
All the best, Norm

OK folks, I am enjoying this running discussion on one of my favorite variations. I am digesting once again what has been posted on this forum as well as outside readings. Albert has mentioned a couple of key considerations that had not registered with me before and perhaps are the crux of our disagreement. Please bear with me as I attempt to write my "opus magnum (minimum?)" on this delicious topic. It may take me a couple of days as my thought processes are not as rapid as someone several years my junior, but hopefully they are more deliberate. I will return to this thread when I can compose what I hope will be a meaningful response. "Watch this space for future developments" :) !

Thank you Ron for correcting Edward by informing him that I am a German national (born in Munich, Bavaria). I also have some French blood in my veins from my ancestor who was a General in the Napolean army who stopped over in Malta in June 1798 during Napolean's campaign to Egypt. General Count Augustin Daniel Belliard was the Governor of Egypt during the period.

Unfortunately, my German language is rather rusty due to the fact German was not spoken in my family when I was a young kid growing up in Africa. I used to speak French fluently, but most of it has been lost over the years, except that when I go to visit collectors in France where I am able to practice some of the language.

Cheers,
Albert

Norm, what has not been performed by the critics is deep 'detective' work on this topic. The critics only 'ammo' is a defensive position only stating that the 'Bulgarian theory' is conjecture. It seems that the 'Russian theory' only gives the critics some form of comfort with regards to errors made in the past. If Kenyon agrees with me that the 'Bulgarian theory' has more truth/substance than compared to the old shaky 'Russian theory', what is the problem with the critics believing a much stronger theory? Here is a promenant author accepting a mistake which the critics cannot otherwise handle. It basically means that the critics wish to continue believing in wrong information twisted by other 'experts' when they do not want to look deeper into the culture and heritage of Germany during the imperial era. I agree that 'business is business', but I do think that the Germans would compromise their reputation by selling a foreign government/military a small quantity of surplus firearms during the Imperial era. Such a situation would have placed a large stain on the DWM factory. Whatever a foreign military did with their pistols after delivery is their business.

Albert

What mistake is that??? :confused:

Which wrong information is that??? :confused:

The mistake of identifying the Luger pistol with crossed rifles on the chamber as a Russian Contract Luger. Furthermore, Mr. Kenyon had overlooked the fact that crossed rifles normally refer to an Infantry regiment. If he had recognized this detail when he wrote the book, I suppose that he would have gotten it right as a another Bulgarian contract pistol, especially when these pistols have Bulgarian markings - there is nothing Russian on it! Unfortunately, what we learn today cannot be applied 50 years ago and critics will be critics.

The wrong information which was originally written in the book 'Lugers at Random' about the M1906 Russian Luger that was repeated by other authors in future Luger books.

It would be great to have some contacts in Bulgaria going through the archives there.

About the cartel agreement: One of the first lessons of historical research is to find out whether a particular item that exists today had the possibility to exist in the time frame it was claimed to come from.

With the Bulgarian/Russian luger, the same practice exists. If the cartel agreement between Steyr-Mannlicher and Loewe existed for pistols, then it would be very, very unlikely that any Parabellum pistol was sold to Steyr-Mannlicher controlled areas (like Bulgaria).

So we have established that:
-Mannlicher had the exclusive right to sell military rifles to Bulgaria and Rumania.
-Loewe group had the exclusive right to sell rifles to Serbia and Greece.
-The market for sporting/hunting rifles, pistols and revolvers was open for all players

Which means that
-There was a market for the Parabellum in Bulgaria at the time.
-Loewe/DWM was free to sell Parabellum pistols to any military organization in that country.

Edward, with regards to your point about a so-called 'marketing ploy', you fail to understand the notion of consistency. If the Swiss market received Lugers with a national Swiss cross, the Americans received Lugers with the national US emblem (eagle), the Bulgarians received Lugers with the national Bulgarian crest (raised lions), why would the Russians receive crossed rifles when their national crest was a double-headed eagle with a crown? Furthermore, I guess it would have been easier from the start to leave the safety area unmarked until an order was received. Considering what you say, if this was intended to be a marketing ploy, it is one hell of a confusing one created by DWM! I mentioned this in the original thread a few months ago, but I suppose that your short memory does not go back very far.

If you claim that DWM made lots of mistakes or omissions with regards to foreign contracts, please describe a few others to me. It is possible that commercial sales had a few small exceptions, but not to the extreme of placing (infantry) crossed rifles on a chamber for the Russian civilian market. This would be a marketing ploy without any sense and a waste of money for DWM during production. You make the Germans look like fools when they were more precise than the Americans - and still are! I have no knowledge of DWM or Mauser selling rejects or surplus pistols during the imperial era. It may have happened with the sale of military rifles which were sold in much large quantities, but we could be talking apples and oranges on this different subject.

Excuse me for often writing in excess, but sometimes I have no choice when I try to explain a simple logical theory which is different from the American way of thinking and method of manufacturing. It seems that the Americans are bent on a certain square mentality which other foreigners see as awkward/bizarre. Of course, the Americans are excellent in technology and logistics (in the past and present), but there is still plenty of room for improvement although it often costs more money.

Albert

Ok Albert, let me be really clear.

YOU SAY ANOTHER COMMENT LIKE THAT TO ANY MEMBER AND YOU WILL BE BANNED.

It is simple, quit making comments like this.

I can't wait! :order:

Hereunder are some points to consider:

1. Try to explain with some common sense why the Russian Government/Military would prefer placing vague crossed rifles (infantry) on the chamber instead of their national crest?;
2. If the M1900 Russian Contract is viewed as a legitimate Luger (delivered in 1904 after the M1900/03 Bulgarian Luger contract, why does it NOT have a safety marking like the M1900/03 Bulgarian Luger? The Bulgarian variations show consistency whereas the two 'Russian' variations are inconsistent. I suppose that the DWM 'marketing department' would have suggested safety markings to the Russian Military if they had already placed safety markings on the earlier Bulgarian contract. I believe that would be good business by the DWM factory. Maybe nobody knew a single word of Russian at the DWM factory!;
3. Who in Russia could have been the users of these pistols and how many of these pistols are known to have come out of Russia? I am hearing that the Russians are known to keep pretty good records in their (secret) archives, so how come there is not ONE single Russian collector who can say with certainty that these pistols were Russian contract Lugers? Interestingly, there are records from 1853 of those deluxe engraved Colt revolvers that were presented to Czar Nicolas I from Samuel Colt including other deluxe engraved revolvers to various officers and nobles, so how come not a single record exists of those Lugers delivered to the Russian military? There are at least three Bulgarian collectors who can state that the M1906 model is a Bulgarian Luger;

Good luck, Amigo ;)

Dear Albert, If may address a couple of your points. Firstly, you keep referring to the "Russian Government/Military" ordering these Lugers from DWM. No one I know of has made this claim, yet you keep repeating this assertion over and over again. This is a classic "straw man" debating tactic in which one distorts an opponents position so that it can be refuted. It is unworthy of you. We have always maintained that these pistol were assembled by DWM for the Russian civilian market.
Secondly, it is entirely possible that no one at DWM, at that time, was familiar with either Bulgarian or Russian. Remember, this was some years before the mass Western migration of Eastern Europeans triggered by the war and the Russian revolution.
Best regards, Norm

Hi Norm,

If the (fake) M1900 Russian was ordered and tested by the Russian military in 1904 and the 'M1906 Russian' happens to have similar contract features/characteristics (like the M1906 Portuguese Lugers), then it is safe to say that it was a contract order and not for the civilian market. When Charles Kenyon wrote in 'Lugers at Random' that these Lugers were for a contract to Russia, who is now coming up with the ideas that it was for commercial sales instead and for what reason? Were the M1906 Portuguese Lugers for the civilian market? I am not distorting an opponents position - simply look at the pistol and its characteristics speak for themselves.

Sweet dreams,
Albert

Albert, the pics of the DWM Japanese prototype Luger at www.forgottenweapons.com lends credence to this argument...

Hi Rich, I don't think that posting a picture of this particular gun adds credence to anyone's argument! Best regards, Norm

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...ese+navy+luger

Nice try, Rich. I'll be nice and give your effort an answer. If you read carefully my previous post, I make reference to NATIONAL emblems (Swiss, AE and Bulgarian) - not military units. That so-called japanese prototype is very, very suspicious and that unknown chamber marking seems to be for some navy unit. The infantry, as in the case of the crossed rifles, is NOT a national emblem. It cannot pertain to the Russian empire/nation, so the 'marketing ploy' explanation that Edward had mentioned is also useless.

Albert

Edward,

<Moderated>

Of course, I have made a few mistakes in the past while researching various subjects (i.e. with Mauser C96 pistols), however, when I gain new valid information, I always try to incorporate it very carefully in line with other correct and logical facts. This is exactly what I am doing on this particular subject where the information that I am presenting is in line with historical facts, events and German heritage. Nobody can say that the 'Bulgarian theory' in wrong even though the critics continue to use the 'escape door' of 'conjecture'; however, I can state with a very high degree of confidence that the 'Russian Contract Luger' was NEVER delivered to Russia.

Albert

Norm -

Thanks for the link! :thumbup:

It led to several other links, including posts by Pete Ebbinck and drbuster, both of whom I respect. Plus a PDF document on faked Lugers which was quite interesting, if somewhat suspect as to accuracy. ;)

I've found Still's forum to be so large and segmented that it is a daunting task [for me] to try to keep current with the various and varied threads...A classic case (again, for me) of 'too much information'... :(

<Moderated> = censorship

Oops, I just remembered that I cannot give any advise or suggestions to the forum 'masters'. Probably, it will be taken as being 'rude' and against their way of thinking.

Albert

NO, ALBERT, YOU just got suspended because you are difficult.


Admin

Thank you Albert, I almost feel vindicated............:D:D:D

Harry