[quote]Originally posted by Imperial Arms:
<strong> the 1898 tests (it carries magazine serial #10), whereas serial #6 has a 'GL' hallmark (as well as on the magazine) which surprises me. I shall withhold my reasons for the latter to avoid any controversy.

Albert at Imperial Arms</strong><hr></blockquote>

I do hope that we have not eliminated the possibility for controversy which is reasoned, informed, and civil.

--Dwight

This is really interesting you guys!

I think this forum has brought some really good information this last week

[img]cool.gif[/img]

I believe No. 6 was for sale in Europe some four or five years ago for near $500,000 US, and if I remember correctly had apparently been modified as the design evolved.

In co-operation with the detailed images posted by Ron, I would like to provide an image of the upper receiver of British Test Luger serial #26. Notice that the rear toggle link is round; there are TWO firing pin retainer springs; and there is NO 'GL' on the rear toggle.

Albert

Imperial Arms

http://beliard.home.att.net/Images/B...uger-Upper.jpg

In addition to my previous post, I would like to provide a close-up image of the toggle of British Test Luger serial #26.

http://beliard.home.att.net/Images/B...ger-Toggle.jpg

Hello Albert,

Thanks so much for the nice photos.

I knew that some of the very early 1900 and transitional lugers had extractors that were strawed...

I did not know that the sear-bar "thingy" on the side of the receiver was strawed as well...

Great to learn something new !

Hey Albert!
I also thank you for the photos! I captured the close-up toggle image, did a little scale adjusting and superimposed it on the 1900 toggle image. It definately appears that #26 has the wide reinforced toggle "T". This would indicate that when the toggle was replaced after the 1898 trials as you have indicated, the receiver rails were also faced back to accommodate the wider T.
This is neat stuff! Hope we can do more of it! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hey Ron,

Accepting the fact that the Swiss and Dutch made modifications to the pre-production Lugers during the various tests, what is your opinion on the strawed sear on British Test Luger #26? Do you think the British tried to improve on the sear in England or changed it, or did it come from DWM in this manner? Do you think the Swiss Cross on the chamber for a Luger sent to England for testing was used for a marketing strategy by DWM? Do any of the so-called early 'Dutch' Test Lugers have a Swiss cross on the chamber?

I know for a fact that the British were not satisfied with 7.65 mm cartridge after testing it on (dead) sheep to determine penetration and woundage, but do you believe that they also made comments about various parts of the Lugers that may have been flawed in the same manner as the Swiss who were quite 'critical' about weight, triggers, safety etc?

Your comments and opinions as well as other forum members would be appreciated.

Cheers,
Albert

Albert
I believe that the strawed sear bar is original as manufactured by DWM. I think that it follows the early practice as is exemplified by the strawed sear bar on the Borchardt and the 1898 prototype piece serial number 5. Serial number 6 has a blued sear bar, but it also was extensively modified at a later date, so it too may originally had a strawed sear bar.

I think that the English test pieces were taken from the lot provided originally to the Swiss for testing, hence the Swiss markings.

I do not have any first-hand knowledge of the Dutch test pieces, and can only go by what I believe is the best reference on the Dutch Luger, that of Bas Martens and Guus de Vries. I would hazard a guess that the very early test pieces did not have a Swiss Cross. I think that the Dutch were doing their testing contemporary with the Swiss, therefore DWM created individual pieces for the Dutch just as they did for the Swiss. As Martens and de Vries document, the very first Luger provided to the Dutch in 1899 was a sholder-stocked example! I would love to find that one! It is hard to tell how the second two test examples, serial numbers 35 and 36, were marked. Serial number 36 was almost certainly of the 1899 configuration since it was documented that it had a "somewhat" longer breech block. Serial number 35 is pictured in the book, but it has been extensively modified, so whether or not it originally bore the Swiss Cross can't be determined from the photo. And so it goes. Questions only lead to more questions. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a time machine.

Thank you for all the wonderful information I have gotten.
It is really fun to learn, you all have helped me so much since I found this place.

Clay Sharps