A. Weiss Baby Luger Threads ???
 

It is just me and I cannot find it... or did the Patrons-Only section discussion on the recently purchased A. Weiss baby luger disappear ?

If I recall, there were two separate discussion threads running with lots of photos. I cannot find either thread (but did save the photos, luckily...).

yes, in the PATRONS only area, not in the general discussion area. there is a reason we have a patrons only area, so things can be discussed in less public forums.


The owner asked me to delete the threads so I did.

Security issues aside...

There can still be a good technical discussion about the Baby Lugers...especially on the open-Forums so all can read and contribute.

As one may know, several "phony" A. Weiss Baby lugers are rumored to exist and some collectors do not think any Weiss Baby is real.

And then there are the Krause-made Baby lugers as well.

Wonder if the "owner" of the Baby from the deleted posting would allow his photos to be re-posted (on the open-Forum sections) so a technical discussion can occur without any concern about who owns the piece, how much was paid, and other related security issues.

I have the photos from the other discussions, so re-posting would be an easy thing to do.

Pete, I would ask Tom directly for permission to use the photos that he had previously posted... If you need his email address, PM me...

The "owner" decided he did not want his name associated, Pete is saying out loud he has photos downloaded, and now his first name...


If I was the "owner" I would be very leery of posting anything again.

What are you guys thinking here?

Ed,

If you read my postings, above, carefully...you will see I purposely excluded the Owner's name.

I think Sabato did that.

And do you really think I am the only Patron that downloaded the photos the Owner's friend had posted up and the others in that Patrons-only discussion ? I would guess the jpegs are all over the world by now.

My point in opening this thread on the "open" Forum was :

1. Can we not have an intelligent discussion about somewhat controversial Baby lugers ?

2. Secure opinions from other davanced collectors that may not have Patron status. Some of these guys have followed the "history" of a few Baby lugers for many years.

BTW...The previous posting in the Patrons section possibly could have been edited, carefully, to remove any trace of the Owner's ID while leaving the photos and discussions intact...IMHO.


John,

I have traded emails with the Owner and he would prefer his photos not be posted on the Luger Forum. I will honor that.

Here are two (2) photos of a modern day copy Mike Krause out of San Mateo, CA makes and sells; last I heard in the $ 15K USD price range :

These photos were on the old Krause web site before it was dismantled.

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...e_krause_1.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...e_krause_2.jpg

And to both Ed and Pete... there are a lot of guys named "Tom" on this forum... and Dick and Harry, and John. Just because a member requested that a thread be deleted... where is the implication that the matter is never to be discussed again? You never mentioned that Ed, just that the owner was uncomfortable leaving the thread posted.

If the owner of the recently displayed Baby would prefer that the photos that he had posted, not be reposted on the forum or anywhere else, and that request has been now made public, then all forum members who may have them in their possession should honor that... but if he wanted to remain anonymous, whatever his reasons, (and he is entitled to his reasons and privacy,) ..it is just too late to put the genie back in the bottle... the owner made the announcement himself and such a signifigant event in Luger collecting history would be discussed for years in the Luger collector community, whether in the forum or over gunshow tables.

There are lots of active forum patron class members of the collector community who have the knowledge because they read what he chose to proudly post in the patron section when he acquired it...heck! if "I" had been the one to acquire it (fat chance!!!) I would have crowed it from the rooftops with pride myself... I am glad that there are lugerforum patrons had to opportunity to admire its sleek lines when we did, even if it was for just a short time.

...and whatever the owner's reasons, and I am sure they are good ones, the event can't be erased. That is what gun safes are for.

kind regards to all,

John

...

I think I give up

Hang in there Ed....your right, there seems to be an undertow of discrediting anything that come up, with out a sound background to do so. To "whom ever" Tom may be, my very best to him for sharing with us.

Ed, You certainly did nothing wrong...

It appears that you understood the owner's intent better than anyone else... all I am saying is that your initial posting didn't make your later description of the owner's desires clear...

You do a great job all the time and I am extremely grateful for all you do... please don't interpret my comments to be unflattering... only that you cracked on Pete and I for our comments when we had no clue (based on your initial reply to Pete) that discussion was to be limited about this weapon's status... or that the owner wanted to annul his announcement of ownership...

Seriously, thanks again for being so diligent in your moderator duties...

;) John, must be the medication (I kid about that, but actually was at the dentisit, and it was a loooong 2.5 hours there, and so, yes, tonight, it IS the meds... :D

:cheers:


ed

Howard,

Thank you for bringing this up. I have noticed this trend. I had a long talk with a collector friend yesterday, a member of both this and Jan's forum, who mentioned during the conversation that he will not post pictures of his guns on the Forums for this very reason.

--Dwight

With thousands of lugers being boosted and peddled by the Luger Mafia in the USA and abroad each year, one needs to be somewhat cynical.

Maybe I have just become "bent", but I look at those rare and/or mint guns assuming they are boosted until shown otherwise.

You guys are welcomed to call me "Paranoid Pete"...but at least the well known peddlers of boosted wares do not get my money, anymore...and I do not take certain luger authors' writings for granted, either.

Regarding these Weiss Baby lugers, one cannot ignore :

1. That they have all seemingly appeared only in the USA. Similarly to the Spandau lugers. Would one not expect a Weiss Baby to have originally surfaced in Europe ?

2. Old timer stories of the Carl Wilson Baby being fabricated in the USA and then Weiss being paid to write a testimonial letter.

3. Initial writings that Weiss first reported up to only 4 Baby lugers being made and then follow-up reports that Weiss recalled up to 12 Baby lugers being made. Is it just possible the "number" changed to make room for more Baby lugers to appear on the American scene ???

Oops...my paranoia is showing again...;)

Technically...I was trying to learn in the Patrons-Only section discussion about some of the subtle machining differences I noticed in the No. 1 Baby that was showcased by its current Owner with other photos of Baby lugers shown in various books and web sites.

Specifically, the length of the receiver "flutes" is longer than the portion remaining along the receiver between the flute and the front edge of the side plate...on some Baby lugers while it is just the opposite on other Baby Lugers.

Here is what I saw :

1. No. 1 Baby (from the deleted posting ) : Flute shorter in length than the remaining section of receiver flat.

2. Wilson Baby (numbered either No. 3 or No. 4...I am not sure) ; Flute is longer in length that the remaining section of the receiver flat. (Kenyon states, in LAR on page 194-195, the Wilson gun is No. 4.)

3. An un-numbered 32 cal "prototype" in Ralph Shattuck's little book on page 25 : Flute is just a bit longer in length than the remaining section of receiver flat. Maybe this one is one of the Mel Torme lugers (???); as the book caption states a "Hollywood entertainer"...

4. Krause modern-day creations : Flute is shorter in length than the remaining section of receiver flat.

In Datig's revised edition of his book "The Luger Pistol" on page 137,, of the 1962 reprinting; he mentions another Baby in .32 cal with DWM on the toggle and it being reported as a No. 8 serial. No photo is shown, unfortunately.

If I am not mistaken, I think the No. 1 current Owner mentioned his gun was used by Krause for reverse engineering drawings and measurements.

Here are two photo scans of the Wilson Baby luger :

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...by_1_copy1.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...by_3_copy1.jpg

Here is the Baby in the Shattuck book :

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...ook_baby_1.jpg

Pete,

Not trying to excoriate you here. The scepticism you exhibit is an attribute unfortunately necessary to engage in the attempt to assemble a high-level Luger collection in the 21st century.

The topic of boosting, faking, and forgery is a maturing one, and the discussion has a rich underground or "back-channel" life. You know of my frustration with the coy, roundabout references to nefarious "well-known" operators which avoid mentioning their names. I understand some reasons why the names are not named, but I believe that this stands the general collecting community in poor stead.

The essential Luger library is a small one, as is the pool of senior expert authors. We are all ultimately faced with the same sources. I think knowing which authors' commentaries no longer have your confidence, and why, would be beneficial and enlightening.

Some comments which occur to me on your numbered points:

1. The USA was a major participant in victory over Germany in two wars, and had an active presence in the suppression of the country after both. All these activities promote the plunder of "spoils of war", understood more gently as the taking of souvenirs. Of the victor nations, the U.S.'s gun laws are particularly amenable to the possession of captured arms.

Under these circumstances, I would expect unusual Lugers to come "out of the woodwork" in the US. Equally, I see no particular reason why they should preferentially be expected to surface in Europe first.

The coincidence of so many unique Lugers showing up first in the US is noteworthy, and is rightly a matter for further examination, but I do not see it as a prima facie reason to deny their authenticity.

2. Could you provide details and sources for the "old-timer stories"?

3. Datig (1955 p.137) mentions "reports" of the .32 Baby Luger, production being "not more than a dozen", and specifically mentioning the report of serial number 8. In the 1958 revision (p.229) he reports August Weiss's specific recollection of supervising the production of 12 of these guns.

This is pretty early work. Could you identify the "initial writings"?

I am not trying to trip you up here, my friend. Your writings have been a lightening-rod for some of my own frustrations, and your comments here have afforded me an opportunity to express some of my thoughts.

--Dwight

DG, just as a bit of a side note, for about 35 years that I have been gun smithing here, a customer and former co-worker has been bring in his 1900 commerical for a light oiling and check-up before it goes back in the case. He is not into Lugers but rather this was a gift from a long pasted uncle, if ever a gun was 99.99% mint this is it...it will within a few years I expect it will become mine, it is so beautiful, that picture will not most likely make it here, just because, well Luger collectors are not suppose to find such mint guns today, about the same deal with a Banner police, been "working" it for years and like the 1900 when he gets ready for the trip he wants to take to the mid-east??? not me....he will make it mine....but to post it and go through the gauntlet of comments....well, not me and selling items like this are more profitable, yep I said it...more profitable outside of LF....a nice site to surf, but not the stopping place some think it is.....I do not mean to offend anyone, Ed please remember I think the world of you, John my plans for next years back east trip include buying you dinner so don't forget we're friends.....but this is just a web site.....and 40 years ago I was visiting Datig on a weekly basis, to quote his works today is just wrong.

Howard,

Appreciate your comments, but do not understand this one. Is it because his material is out of date, or because it is questionable or spurious on a fundamental basis?

--Dwight

Sorry, was not clear, his work is so outdated and should not be used as the basis of a high profile gun, I would say his work was a great foundation on the study of Luger, and every collector should have a copy of his work, but new studies, new authors, greater reference book have come to light over the years, I do not take any of he works to be spurious as I define the word, not intent to decieve, but questionable because it is an out dated, old, work.....hope this clears it up somewhat.

Howard,

Thanks for the clarification. I quite agree, and would never cite Daitg 1955-58 as a sole source or resource for a high-profile gun. In a discussion of "initial writings" his writing is pertinent, and his own attribution of August Weiss (whom he interviewed) as a source is something which, to my mind, must be considered seriously.

--Dwight

Dwight,

1. The issue of "outing" the boosters and sellers of boosted items is another discussion for another day.

2. The fellows I know that relate the details of the Carl Wilson Baby luger and the Weiss testimonial letter want to remain anonymous, for differing reasons. One does not own a computer/Internet access and is well into his 80's. The other does participate on the the forum and gunboards and I will leave it up to him if he decides to jump in on the discussion about the Wilson Baby or not.

3. Several very old-time collectors related to me that when the first Baby luger appeared in the USA in the middle 1950's, only 4 were thought to exist; 2 in 7,65 cal and in 9 mm kurtz.

Sometime after that when the Datig books in 1955 and 1962 were issued, that number was speculated to be around 12 guns or so (not sure what the breakdown between the 2 calibers, was...)...Datig relating that this info. came from Weiss.

Subsequent authors such as Kenyon, Walter, Reese stayed with the number of Baby lugers at 4 in their writings through the 1960-late 1970's.

The details of why these subsequent authors did not follow the number of Baby guns at 12 or so may or may not be important. Yet those follow-up authors stayed with the number of 4.

One should also note that Harry Jones in 1959 and in the 1975 reprint of his book seems to make no mention of any Baby Lugers, at all. That may or may not have its own significance.

Howard,

There are many reasons why a collector may not chose to post photos of his collection on the forums and gunboards.

In addition to what your friend stated, other reasons may include :

1. Not wanting to broadcast to the world what is in their collections for security reasons.

2. Not wanting to broadcast to the world what they own and what might be subject to some possible taxation in the future.

3. Not wanting to broadcast to the world and certain officials what might be in their collections, especially in States where a form of gun registration may exist and their guns exist "under the radar screen".

4. Not wanting to let some family members or ex-spouses know what they have in their collections.

5. Their possible fear that they may own boosted lugers purchased from high-profile peddlers in the 1970's, 1980, and even the 1990's; knowing that if they profile such guns, their "investment value" may depreciate as other collectors would see their serial numbers and guns' conditions.

6. Many other reasons...

There are many advanced collectors you meet at gun shows that never participate on the Internet and on gun forums; many do not even own PC's.

There are also many advanced collectors you meet at gun shows that are on the forums all the time in a "voyeur" mode...never posting and would never think to share their collections so openly.

Dwight,

Here is an informative posting that Ron Wood made on the LF back in 2005; with a differing account of the Carl Wilson Baby Luger :

" The â??Babyâ?� Luger is one of the rarest variations. It is a scaled down â??pocketâ?� version of the Luger. According to Herr August Weiss, there were two constructed, serial numbers 1 and 2, in 7.65mm (.32 ACP) and two, serial numbers 3 and 4, in 9mm Kurz (.380). Again according to Herr Weiss, there may have been enough parts to construct a fifth pistol, but there is no evidence that this was ever done. Herr Weiss probably never actually â??ownedâ?� one of these examples, but they were built under his supervision as DWM Works Manager in 1925-1926. The pistol was designed by Herr Heinrich Hoffman, Chief Engineer of the Pistol Production Department of DWM, and was intended to introduce a pocket pistol that would hopefully compete with some of the other popular pocket autos of the time.

The connection of the best-documented example with Herr Weiss came about with the discovery of serial number 4 by a French gun collector in 1961 in a French estate. The French collector contacted the well known American collector, Carl Wilson. After some negotiation, Mr. Wilson set about to have it authenticated. Herr Weiss was still very much alive, so pictures and correspondence were exchanged. In 1962 the gun was hand carried to Germany for Herr Weiss to examine first-hand. Herr Weiss confirmed that it was genuine and provided a notarized letter of authentication. Mr. Wilson then proceeded with the acquisition and it remained in his collection until 1981. Another prominent American collector, Pat Redmond (now deceased), was the lucky individual that purchased it from Mr. Wilson. I do not know its history after that point. "

Ed,

I understand and respect your opinions.

But as a famous architect stated : " God is in the details. "

In my professional line of work, I am paid to look for the tinest little flaws and quality short-cuts taken in projects worth millions of dollars. If you find enough of those little problems, it usually is a symptom of bigger problems.

Another Baby Luger photo; taken in the 1978 time frame. Serial number of the gun was not noted by the photographer, unfortunately :

(From the very faint wear spot on the flat of the TD lever just in front of the button and the pattern of loss of wood along the upper part of the left grip high up on the grip strap, it might be possible that this 1978 photo may be the Wilson gun; as compared to the photo scan in my previous posting above from the Walter book. Similar dents in the metal at the front of the frame just above the trigger guard interface.)

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

Pete I deleted my remarks, although I figured I left them there long enough for you to read.

details are fine, but if you make forum members uncomfortable, is that being helpful? Be helpful but don't be overlly critical was my point. I don't think we want collectors fearful of posting their items?

Interesting discussion. Many good points made.
However, the numbers of boosted and faked Lugers continues to increase. They are a very serious problem for all Luger collectors particularly beginners or the uninformed. Presently this problem is being mostly addressed by gun show rumors, word of mouth, and anonymous experts. If this problem is not addressed by us, out in the open and on this Forum,(and other forms), then who will. Meanwhile the faked and boosted Lugers continue to be produced and sold to fellow collectors.
Jan

Bit of image comparisons between the 1978 Baby photo and a Krause reproduction Baby to see some of the dimensional differences :

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/image002.jpg
/http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/image004.jpg

The question is, can collectors openly discuss the authenticity or flaws of a Luger without causing other people/collectors to become uncomfortable or angry? If we are restricted in what we write on the forums in order to protect the preying crooks, then there is a likelihood that more fake Lugers will continue to be made and purchased by those collectors with lesser knowledge. Some collectors will say, "who cares, as long as it does not affect me" - is this the right attitude? Unfortunately, some collectors in our society are willing to protect the reputation of those crooks because of 'politics' and personal relationships, and these 'dreamers' who follow and worship those crooks continue to buy Lugers from the crooks based on fantasies hoping that they are buying the 'real deal'. Well, eventually when the truth comes out, it hurts like a mother- ! Who likes to waste their hard earned money because they might be naive? It is sad to see the decline of ethics and honesty in the collectors society and who knows how many collectors will be hurt by such appalling practices?

For the many collectors who do not know, the Baby Luger serial #4 (which was once owned by Pat Redmond) is mismatched even if it might be the only original Baby Luger known to exist. This pistol will NOT function normally because the upper receiver is in .380 caliber and the frame is for a Baby Luger in caliber .32. The combination might be in reverse, but the pistol was mentioned to be assembled from two different Baby Lugers. If one looks carefully at any photo of this Baby Luger, it will be observed that the magazine does not sit perfectly in the magazine well, and it appears somewhat crude for a pistol being made by DWM. A genuine Baby Luger coming out of DWM would have been made to very high standards even if there were prior problems in its design and production.

Before a collector gets all excited about a certain Luger, he should learn about the traditions of Germany and the high standards that were expected from those German factories such as DWM or Mauser. It is a good habit to have suspicion about a Luger especially if it is extremely rare and expensive. It is not surprising that some of these pistols are now being sold by auctions which are a good channel to get them into the market place.

Be ware,
Albert

Hi Albert,

What I do find somewhat puzzling about the Baby lugers, from a technical perspective is :

1. All Baby's seem to have no "DWM" on the top of the front toggle link. If these 4 (or 12 or so...) pistols were DWM's attempt to enter a crowded "pocket pistol" market place in Germany and elsewhere in the 1920's and these Baby lugers were to be used as "marketing & salesman" specimens, I would think DWM would certainly add their DWM-logo to such important pistols.

2. The lack of "dicing" of the metal on the flats of the toggle knobs is quite odd. Seems like a dicing pattern would provide more friction to prevent finger/thumb slippage when cycling the toggle action. Even the GL 7-shot Baby luger has full dicing on the more-narrowed toggle knobs.

If DWM was experimenting with less "dicing" to reduce machining time/costs and this new "pattern" shown on the 1920's Baby lugers proved to be a positive experiment, would one not expect to see that carried over into the production means of the regular luger production ?

The 1920's Baby lugers seems to have only a slight pattern of groves placed radially on the edges of the "knobs".

One should note the Swiss Bern folks decided to do away with all dicing on the toggle knobs of their M1929 designs to reduce production costs/time. Once in a while you will run across a M1929 that has had some rudimentary "dicing" added by a Owner or his/her gunsmith...so for some, the smooth toggle knobs were not desirable.

Similar photo comparison of the Shattuck Baby luger and a Krause-made reproduction...to see the dimensional differences/similarities :

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

Pete, If the "baby" Lugers do represent bench production in the DWM or Mauser factory I think the characteristics that you have commented on would probably be observed. Pieces like this could well have been constrcted from from a draft level blueprint with revisions occuring as prototypes were made. The conclusions would seem to have been "too much work, too expensive for the market."

The situation that would follow is the only way to tell a piece bench made in Weimar germany from a piece bench made in California 50 years later would be very subtle hints in the workmanship and most importantly the provenance.

I think the observations are valuable. However I think we perhaps need a place on the forum to anonymously post such truly one of a kind pieces for observation and comment. If a buyer has a comfortable provenance, they understandably would not want to risk having the value of the piece diminished by a critique that weighed too heavily on their particular piece and consequently their investment. An anonymous posting are would allow a healthy free for all without a great financial risk to the poster.

I am not sure we need that kind of an area for standard factory production pieces but I think it would be beneficial when dealing with prototypes.

The only way for such "anonymous" postings to take place would be for the owner/buyer to provide the requisite text and photos to a moderator to be posted... the way the forum is designed, is intended to make "anonymous" postings difficult to impossible... it is what keeps out the majority of the "anonymous" forum troll contributors and what makes the Lugerforum a special place to visit where we are nearly exempt from anonymous flames and personal attacks...

Got something really controversial to display and request comments on? Send the particulars to Ed Tinker or myself and we will assist you to do this "anonymously"

Thanks John. I think that may be a reasonable course in cases involving prototypes or very rare pieces where the poster is relyiing on provenance but would like to show the piece to the forum without setting his/her investment up in flames. But I think you and ed would make good initial screeners as to wether or not it was appropriate

Interesting old discussion exchange between Ron Wood and Albert Beliard back on 10-16-2002 time frame.

Albert's posting :


Ron,

With reference to your post above and based on various expert opinions I have received, I am not saying that the Baby Luger is mismatched in respect to serial number, but it is possibly mismatched physically, mechanically or it has been modified at a later date. Supposingly, there were four Baby Lugers manufactured, the first two in .32 ACP and the next two in .380 and maybe a fifth for parts. Let us put aside what was reported in the 1950/60's because there could have been speech translation and comprehension problems at the time. I have a few questions I would like to ask:

1) Would all the four Baby Luger bottom receivers and magazines be the same for each caliber, or would they be slightly different for each caliber?

2) Would the two Baby Lugers in caliber .380 need to be modified from upper receivers originally made in .32 ACP, and would August Weiss allow such an alteration when it would probably be cheaper and more reliable to make a correctly functioning pistol from scratch? If DWM wanted to compete in the area of small pocket pistols, such as against the Browning pistol, why would they want to produce a pistol in the uncommon .380 caliber when the most popular small cartridge at the time was .32 ACP?

3) With all the tooling, machinery and skilled designers/workmen that DWM had available in the factory, what was the problem in making a proper Baby Luger in the first place instead of producing a pistol which appears crude in manufacture? German engineering would not allow such a pistol to pass inspection! When I handled the Baby Luger serial #4 in Geoff Sturgess's collection in 1990/91, it appeared crude and even the Baby Luger made by Krausewerke was better made than serial #4!

According to what I am mentioning based on various opinions I have received, the Baby Luger serial #4 is open to further debate according to its present physical nature/structure and I am not an expert in this field to make a judgement until a genuine Baby Luger would be compared with it side-by-side. I can accept the fact that serial number #4 is a Baby Luger, but further research and study is required to determine its authenticity.

Albert

__________________
Web Site: Imperial Arms


Ron's reply :

Albert,

You ask some very good questions. Now I am going to do something dumb and take a shot at addressing them. I probably will be shot down by folks who really know what they are talking about, but what the heckâ?¦it wonâ??t be the first time.

1) Would all the four Baby Luger bottom receivers [frames] and magazines be the same for each caliber? Iâ??m guessing they could be. I looked at the dimensional specs for the .32 ACP cartridge vs. the 380. Case lengths are identical. Rim diameter is only .02â?� difference. Then I checked a .32 caliber Browning 1900 magazine against a Walther PPK .380 mag. The difference in thickness is about the thickness of a credit card. I then checked an original DWM 479A .32 cartridge against a new Winchester .380 cartridge. Case and overall lengths are identical. Then I loaded up the PPK mag with .32 cartridges. Worked pretty goodâ?¦a little stagger stacked but nothing that couldnâ??t be compensated for by a proper follower and slight modification of the magazine lips. I think they would feed just fine from that mag with a little tinkering. Looks like frame and magazine compatibility to me.

2) Would the two Baby Lugers in caliber .380 need to be modified from upper receivers originally made in .32 ACP? First of all, I am not really sure why it is assumed that the .380 receivers were originally made for the .32 ACP and not from scratch to begin with. As far as modifying a .32 receiver, other than the barrel change, I am guessing that all that is required is hogging out the bolt face .02â?� and maybe shortening the height of the extractor hook .01â?� since both cartridges have the same rim thickness. Both cartridges are straight sided, so I am guessing that headspacing is accomplished by the chamber and therefore not a problem with a barrel swap and proper chamber reamer.

Would August Weiss allow such an alteration when it would probably be cheaper and more reliable to make a correctly functioning pistol from scratch? As stated above, how do we know the .380 receivers werenâ??t fabricated from scratch? Nevertheless, Herr Weiss probably would have made the modifications considering how little effort would be involved (and the probability that it was intended to create two different caliber prototypes from the beginning). Actually, Herr Weiss would not have to have made that decision since the supervision of the construction of the babies was by Herr Heinrich Hoffmann, Herr Weissâ?? predecessor. Herr Weiss only authenticated #4 as one of the babies produced by Herr Hoffmann.

Why would they [DWM] want to produce a pistol in the uncommon .380 caliber when the most popular small cartridge at the time was .32 ACP? Why did DWM create the 9mm Parabellum and not stay with the 7.65 cartridge? Perhaps it is because the .380 has about 60% more energy than the .32 ACP and would make a more effective pocket pistol?

3) With respect to the manufacturing crudeness of #4, you have the advantage in actually handling the weapon in question. I can only go by the contemporary photos in the aforementioned articles. Externally at least, the construction looks pretty darned good. Mike Krause is a very skilled craftsman and considering that nearly a century has passed, his baby Lugers probably do look a bit better by comparison to the original. It is known that #4 has been subjected to questionable indignities. The brazed bolt face was perpetrated by a person or persons unknown. Whether it was a factory modification or a repair by the former French collector from whom it was obtained, or somebody else, may never be known. By all accounts, #4 has had a hard and checkered history.

I am not defending the authenticity of #4, just presenting some observations. It would be enlightening if the expert would divulge how he/she determined the frame is for a .32. I can think of a couple of ways, but I would like to hear the process from the original source.

Regards
Ron

__________________
If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction


This was the last posting in the thread by Johnny Peppers :

Ron,

Your comments on the minor difference in dimension of the .32 and .380 cartridge are very valid. As in the case of the .32acp Colt Model 1903 and the .380acp Model 1908 Pocket Pistols, the difference was so slight that the magazine well of the Model 1903 was opened slightly to accept the .380 magazine and the Model 1908 was born. No further modification was necessary and the .380 barrel was a drop in fit. The small dimensional difference of the two cartridges would have created no problems for DWM.