Navy Luger?
 

This DWM 4inch Navy Luger, double-date 1917/1920 with Navy (Crown M) proofs is on GA.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976738104.htm

What makes it a 'Navy' Luger? Is it the unit marking? I don't see that it has Navy-style rear sight. I want eventually to get an authentic Navy P04 so I need an education (so what else is new?) I like those with six or seven-inch barrels anyway.

Russell

Russell,

I will let our Navy guys help you out...I do think this is a Weimar-era rework of a previous M1914 Navy.

The G-A seller is actually a nice gun dealer named Bob Adams out of NM. He has a solid, good reputation amongst folks.

Here is a link to his web site and you will see the same 4" Navy rework offered there as well.

http://www.adamsguns.com/0p.htm

Russell,

An authentic Navy P04? You must have deep pockets... The last authentic P04 that I am aware of sold for $30K+

There aren't too many of them... most of them went down in the WW1 submarines.

Friends,

This is why I need an education.
Obviously I have my nomenclature all messed up.
What are the Navy Lugers typically going for a paltry $4K?

Russell:rolleyes:

Russell,

The "Cheap" Navy Lugers are the 1914 ( year of design ) variation dated 1916 and 1917. The 4'" that Bob is selling is a Weimar rework. Mandated to have the barrel shortened or replaced with 4" barrel post WWI. Most had the barrel replaced with a standard barrel and rear toggle.

Ron

But I am still with Para, how can we still call this a navy? there is very little "navy" about it any more...this thread shows we must educate ourselves before buying.

Guys,

The piece started as a Navy; with better pix, I could perhaps shed more light on it...but it has been rebarreded,,,So how can we still call it a navy? Very simply because the property mark on the front strap indicates service in the Weimar Navy. It was very likely used by the Kreigsmarine, but there are no obvious indications.

Two tours in German naval service should constitute a sufficient pedigree to warrant calling the piece a navy, despite the Versailles-era mods.

Tom A

Fare enough Folks,

I too concur than Naval service should be the final arbiter of what is 'Navy'. That must weigh in favor of the weapon's collectable value. I'm learning.

That said, I see that Simpson's has had seven Navy Lugers displayed for some weeks. All appear to have Navy sights and 6-inch barrels, be 9mm DWM production between 1906 and 1917, and are offered in the price-range between just under $3K to well over #6K. Ignoring my use of the word â??authenticâ??, are these P04 Lugers?
Depending on the answer, I am between one and ten years from ever affording one.

But I do see how this all works. I have been a compulsive collector all my life. It drives my wife up the wall. Hughâ??s tagline really hits home, â??There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness".â??

Thank you all for furthering my obsession--uuuuh--education. :roflmao:

Russell

Very good Tom...thanks

P04 is the German designation for the Navy Luger since it was adapted by the Kriegsmarine in 1904, just like the army Luger is called a P08 since it was brought into service in 1908. Therefore, any Navy Luger is generically a P04, whether it is a Model 1904, 1906, 1908 or 1914. So I guess the generic answer to your question "are these P04 Lugers" is yes.

Thanks Ron,

That puts me a lot closer to one year than ten.
I take it this means that mainly the Model 1904s are the ones that now rest in Davy Jones's Locker.

And thank you Pete, John, Ron, Tom, and Howard. You fellows along with Terry, Herb, Don M, Dwight, Ed, Gerben, Big Norm, Jerry, Thomas, Bob, Jack, Rick, and many others who's contributions are giving me a foothold on the landscape of firearms, their function, their history, and the history surrounding them.

Sincerely,

Russell

I think the left side of the receiver show some faint Crown/M proofs as well...

Fair enough on the reworked Navy.

What about this one supposedly 'original and unaltered'? No Navy sight, no numbers or markings discernable, the barrel appears dark, and the front sight looks to be the wrong shape.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976743639.htm

Thanks again for looking. Iâ??m just trying to learn something.

Russell

Nice shooter. Only about $2800 overpriced (at least). Darned if I can see that "two position rear sight".

Thank you Ron,

You all are helping me get better at this.

Russell

Now, this one looks like a halfway decent deal. Re-barreled.

http://www.simpsonltd.com/product_in...oducts_id=4449

Still nowhere near buying, Just dreaming. :o

But would a Navy guy pay $2500 for a shooter and repro rig? :confused:

Russell

Three Navy magazines, if they are straight goods, would be a significant percentage of this rig's value.

--Dwight

A very nice looking rig, but with this degree of restoration, replacement and reproductions; is this rig a pricey shooter, or a true collector's item?

And also for the sake of argument and our education, if the three Navy magazines were subtracted or replaced with reproductions, what would this rig be worth?

The magazines do not appear to be original navies so figure them at $50 each. The cleaning rod is worth $130 and the stock holster about $200. As we have seen, the rear sight is worth $300 -$700.

George,

I agree that the mags look 'hinky', hence the "if". Your value assessment of them is spot-on, although actually buying a mag like that for that price is going to be a nearly hopeless endeavour. I'll bet Simpson's values them a -lot- more.

--Dwight

The GA example has a "two position" rear sight? Evidently when the toggle is closed counts as one position. When it's open is the second position??

I finally found a Navy that I can (almost) afford. I was at my favorite toy store (KrausewerK). I had inquired with Mike Krause about putting together a mock-Navy-style shooter not unlike Ron Smithâ??s.
:D
http://forum.lugerforum.com/showthre...0&pagenumber=1

He pointed out that he had this Model 1914 which he could not offer as a collectorâ??s piece but could be just what I was looking for. The reasons are that it is not an all-original matching piece. â??It is what it is,â?? as I have been told. It is a shooter, a 1917 DWM Model 1914 with replaced side-plate and sight-slider. Iâ??m sure it has been refinished. The grips don't match (each other). Nevertheless the rear sight looks correct. The barrel matches. The Crown/Ms are nested. I'll get some pictures if I can. I made a small down payment to reserve it until I can pay it off.

Now the catch. At the same time I reserved a Wartime Commercial 7.63mm C96 all matching including stock. This will lengthen the pay-off time. The Broomhandle is a bit less expensive than the Navy so I could have it sooner if I decide to pay it off first.
Decisions, decisions. :p

Russell

Mike let me photograph the item in his store.
I wonder about the rear toggle pin flange. Is it correct? Could it be that the entire rear sight & toggle have been replaced?
And yes, the left grip has â??the chipâ??:eek:

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...u_1917002a.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...u_1917003a.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...u_1917004a.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...u_1917005a.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...u_1917008a.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...u_1917009a.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...u_1917010a.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...u_1917011a.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...u_1917012a.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...u_1917015a.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...u_1917016a.jpg

I truly appreciate any observations and comments on this, soon-to-be-mine, Navy shooter.

Russell

Russell,

Since you ask--the inspector marks and proof on the right receiver and the small flange toggle pin reveal this gun's origin as an Army weapon.

The outline profile of the rear sight, the modern machining marks, and the slider's fit at the front where it recesses into the rear toggle reveal it as a modern reproduction.

The constant stroke widths and rounded ends of the grip-strap number are characteristic of pantograph rounting--if you remove the whitening you will probably find router-end swirling in the strokes.

It would be instructive for us all if you could post closeup, detailed views of the left receiver, breechblock, left barrel, and under-barrel markings.

If you paid a decently moderate shooting gun price for this it should be great fun to shoot and show off at the range.

--Dwight

Russell
Maybe I missed something. It appears that photograph 2 shows the left receiver with a Navy crown and two C/Ms. Photograph 5 shows the standard three acceptance stamps and a test proof used by the Army on the right receiver. The frame serial number in photograph 5 is 3245 which is consistent with the parts serial numbers of 45 in the other photographs.

If I have not made a mistake, your photographs show a receiver with Navy proofs on the left side and Army proofs on the right side. Have never observed such an Army/Navy receiver.
Thanks for the interesting photographs.
Jan

I think Dwight has said it all, the rear sight looks like a reproduction, the grip strap marking is very questionable, the Navy acceptance stampings are just plain weird on an army gun. The 1917 stampings are probably fake and the barrel as well.

Russell, if your gun budget is such that you must put this pistol on layaway it would indicate a sacrifice on your part. This pistol does not warrant such a sacrifice.

Thank you very much Dwight, Jan, & George.

I'm glad I put this up for review. I hope to get more and better pictures next week to detail the Navy proofs, etc. The Army markings are something I will be asking Mike about.

Sacrifice (ie. needing to lay away) is not a problem when it comes to these guns. I definitely want one that I can shoot. This is my 'reality check'. In any case I plan to pick up the Broomhandle first. So I have lots of time to consider my options.

Thanks again,

Russell

Thank you very much Dwight, Jan, & George.

I'm glad I put this up for review. I hope to get more and better pictures next week to detail the Navy proofs, etc. The Army markings are something I will be asking Mike about.

Sacrifice (ie. needing to lay away) is not a problem when it comes to these guns. I definitely want one that I can shoot. I know that $2Gs is a lot for a shooter but cheap for a real Navy Luger. This is my 'reality check'. In any case I plan to pick up the Broomhandle first for a bit less $1.75Gs. So I have lots of time to consider my options.

Thanks again,

Russell

What does "SAR" signify ?

BTW...toggle pin flange does not look right and the photo of the left-side proofs need better resolution, as the proofs look odd in the photo provided.

Russell,

There are "deals" out there from time to time on REAL Navy lugers, albiet refinished. This is one the Simpson shop had for sale at $ 2500 but I see is on hold with a customer now :

http://www.simpsonltd.com/product_in...oducts_id=4449

If you decide to change your mind about this piece but cannot get out of the lay-away, maybe the seller will allow you to transfer your lay-away dollars to another piece that he might have for sale that would hold some collector and investment value for you in the future.

Russell:

"I know that $2Gs is a lot for a shooter but cheap for a real Navy Luger."

IMHO, this is NOT a real Navy; it is a bogus piece of crap offered at an exorbitant price. As Pete Ebink pointed out, although you might pay a bit more for an original "shooter" you will have something of value. If you just want a bogus Navy "shooter" you can find one for less than the one you a contemplating buying.

Garfield!

Welcome back to the Lugerforum Bill Garrison... I know you have been active over on Jan Still's forum... but your expertise is very welcome here... within the rules that have not changed since your last post in September of 2002... despite belief to the contrary... you were never banned... just warned...

It has been many moons since you graced us with your input... I for one hope you choose to visit often... :)

Thank you Pete,

Your thoughtful insights are always welcome. I'm glad I brought this before the Forum for coment. Your suggestions are good. I'm glad I was allowed to photograph it and bring it before the Forum. Now I have a better perspective. No one was ever injured by having a little cold water thrown on his overheated enthusiasm. Iâ??m sure I can eventually find a Navy piece to pass inspection though it may be too expensive to dare to shoot. I am very reluctant to buy anything off an auction or online store, especially from out of state. I want to see it and touch it. At a gun show I would be at the mercy of whomever without an expert along.

Thanks again, all, for all your help.

Russell

JS:

Your warm welcome is duly noted. My post on this thread was made at the behest of a friend. Should I decide to make future contributions to this forum, I will make every effort to acquaint myself with your rules.

garfield

Russell,
I'm afraid that I have to agree with everyone else here. $2K is a lot of AFTER TAX molla to pay for a shooter. Get out of this deal, if you can. :mad: There is alway another deal that will come along. :rolleyes:
Big Norm :typing:

Well, Mike is not obligating me to this purchase. He agrees that a less controversial Navy could come along in my price range anyway. For my part, I am still skittish about buying anything like this over the net or by mail.:crying:
I will be buying his Wartime Commercial C96, I think. Coming soon to a Forum near you.:D

Thanks for all the help, Guys.

Russell

Russell,

You might want to visit the Greg Martin auction preview days in SF, CA to look over this offering. Holster is a $ 30 repro, but the re-finished M1908 Navy might be worth a closer, in-person look over :

http://67.155.195.3:8050/FMPro?-db=G...ID=47867&-find

Thank you Pete,

Sure is worth a trip into The City to have a closer look. Will you be there in November?

Meanwhile, Mike Krause says he has an alternative piece coming in for me to look at soon. For now, I expect to take delivery on the Broomhandle in a week or so.

Russell

Pete,
The C/M's look funny on that one .
Tom

Tac,

Are you trying to imply that this pistol may not be legimate?

Ron:D