The information from Mike Jones would tend to validate the discussion concerning the possibility of the photographs themselves being the culprit, but I don't see where it would have prevented the discussion. The discussion listed the possible photographic situations that could have caused the grip angle to appear different on two seemingly identical pistols, and apparently that was correct. Should the discussion have ended with Mike's post, or are we not all a little better off knowing that a pistols geometry can be unintentionally changed photographically?

[quote]Originally posted by edgedealer:
<strong>Gentlemen, what part of identical doesnt anybody understand. You guys should thank Mike for settling your arguement, identical. thanks Mike.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If anyone can guarantee that the Test Luger in the Ordinance department picture is one of the surviving two examples, then you have a point. If the picture is of the actual Luger used by the Army for it's tests, then it was destroyed early in the last century and the question has not been answered. The data that Mike has so graciously made available to the Forum concerns only the surviving guns. The actual test pistol did not survive according to the best information available as reported by the most highly respected Luger experts known to us. While I personally believe that .45 Luger serial number 1 was identical to the surviving guns, I wouldn't bet my life on it.

That is "it" in a nutshell, Doubs.

Maybe 500 of the Model 1900 Test Eagles had different grip angles. Anyone checked? It would make just as much sense.

Johnnie, I have to disagree with your above comments, since the US Test M1900s come out of the standard production run of the period and the 45s were handmade custom guns, where each one could be a bit different. Tom H.

Lugerdoc,
Ever hear of tongue-in-cheek? The statement about the Model 1900 Test Eagles was not intended to be taken seriously, and I apologize if you took it that way.
The late Pat Redmond had all the paperwork and correspondence that came from Springfield with the .45 Luger, and he never mentioned finding two different specifications for the big pistols.

Here is something to think about,Abermans gun is serial #2, Nortons gun has no serial #. could it be that Nortons gun is the prototype and test gun.While Abermans was the backup gun for the trials. Therefore a serial number 1 gun might not have ever existed. The prototype is gun #1. Just my .02 worth

Sure that is logical and makes sense, although you would think that #1 would be marked with a #1. From all indications, and rumors, it is believed that at least one gun was destroyed from the tests, (dirt, water spray, rust test, etc.) So if one was destroyed then that makes at least three 45 pistols? It makes sense to me that there were 3 - 5 guns total in America, but who knows? I feel that if there were three, then #1 was destroyed and the unmarked was the prottype used to show administration and officers while the real guns were being used.

Do the gov't rules stipulate how many guns were required to be brought to the testing? Many times a certain number were required to prove it was a workable and buildable arm.

I like to think that there is a box of 3 at Aberdeen Proving Grounds or at Anniston Army Depot waiting for Lord knows who. [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

Ed,
Do you have directions to Aberdeen Proving Grounds and The Anniston Army Depot? I need to do some, "Looking Around"!... [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

Brandon

Sure, go down to their office in the mall, see the Army Recruiters. Trust them, I'm sure they will sign you up. Age is okay, look at all the guys that joined during the Civil War and WW2 that were underage. Mom and Dad will be, well a bit upset, but maybe with luck you can get stationed in Anniston! (Alabama, RK lives around 50 - 80 miles away).

Very pretty place.

[img]biggrin.gif[/img]

I've been to both Aberdeen and Anniston Ed, and you are right... Anniston is a pretty place... Aberdeen comes in second...

I spent 5 years of my military career as a maintenance and operations inspector on a major command IG team. Of the 120+ army installations that were active prior to 1988 when I retired, I have spent time on 85 of them... They all seem to run together after all this time, but Anniston stands out as one of the nicer places I was fortunate enough to see... Of course, Anniston also passed the the last inspection I made there, and Aberdeen??? [img]frown.gif[/img] well... they didn't. But how it looked wasn't a factor... that was years ago anyway.

I know they had a lot of work to do to work off the findings I wrote there... I haven't visited the Ordnance Museum there in years... I might have to do that one weekend soon.

I have only seen pictures of the Aberman pistol, but have seen the Norton pistol at the Norton Gallery. From the pictures in the article in G&A on the Aberman pistol, the Norton pistol is in better condition. It is all speculation, but the Norton pistol could very well have been the prototype or backup to the two sent to the US, but was retained by DWM. The Norton pistol has a C/N proof which would seem to indicate that it was sold at a later date by DWM.

Brandon,
Aberdeen has an excellent museum, with a great arms collection. It is open to the public, at least it was before 9/11. Check the internet they probably have a lisitng. If you are interested in armor they have tanks from all periods and countries. Most museums will allow reasearch on pieces which are not on display. If you are interested I can probably get you the name of a contact person there.
Carl

Followed the discussions regarding photographic distortion with interest.

One comment made by another poster was the observation that the "tang" at the end of the rear toggle on Mathews/Meadows/Reese gun is missing but is shown on photos of both the Aberman and the Norton pistols.

If this absence is likewise attriubted to "photographic cropping", why would the photo still show the lanyard loop on the Mathews/Meadows/Reese photo ? <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />