M1906 Russian Luger - The Ending of its Identity
 

I wish to report with sadness that the so-called ‘M1906 Russian Luger’ is nearing the end of its documented identity! It is coming to light that it was not a Luger pistol for the Russian armed forces nor was it sold by Russia dealers (with those ‘mixed’ characteristics including the crossed rifles on the chamber). Based on new research and information which is recently surfacing and being discussed (or debated), the Russian Lugers do not meet the specific national criteria for a pistol intended as a foreign contract as compared to those Luger pistols which were sold to the countries of Switzerland, Bulgaria, the US and Portugal at the beginning of last century.

Let us analyze each of the foreign contract Luger pistols which I have mentioned in the first paragraph:

1. Swiss contract – National emblem of a cross in sunburst or a cross in shield;
2. US Test Lugers – National emblem with an American eagle as we know it;
3. Bulgarian contract – National emblem of two standing lions holding a shield (as we observe it);
4. Portuguese contract – National symbol as documented in various books and articles;
5. Russian Luger – Plain crossed rifles – oops, something is not right!

Why should a ‘Russian Luger’ have plain crossed rifles on the chamber when the national emblem/crest or coat of arms for the Russian empire was a double-headed eagle (as depicted in the image hereunder)?

How does one explain the safety marking in Bulgarian text, the extractor marking in Russian text, and the crossed rifles on the chamber that still remains a mystery? I suppose that many collectors have jumped to the conclusion that this Luger pistol continues to have a strong Russian connection simply because of the close meaning of the old spoken language in Russia and Bulgaria. Ironically, we collectors just wanted to believe that it must be a Russian Luger for the sake of a thrill. To this day, actual documentation on the ‘Russian Lugers’ is very sketchy and unreliable. There is strong evidence based on Russian dealer catalogs that Luger and Mauser C96 pistols were commercially sold in Russia, however, there are still no strong leads to a Russian contract, and there is absolutely no logical reason for commercial firearms to receive a chamber marking with crossed rifles. In this same post, there has been mentioned an Officers Shooting School in Russia where such Luger pistols could have been given as awards, but the existence of this institution in Russia would have not justified the DWM factory to produce nearly 1,000 pistols (based on the estimated serial range) and these pistols to be received by officers with markings of twin nature.

In my opinion, every thing has a reason and I doubt that the DWM factory would have been so ‘casual’ in the application of various markings on a pistol that had a particular destination. So, who was the recipient of these so-called ‘Russian Luger’? Stay tuned for more ….

Albert

Albert

I think most of us think exactly like you, its just that we don't really know where to put them as at least one or two look to be honest guns.

I don't like to call them Russian Lugers, but that terminology stuck a long time ago, so it continues.

So what do we call them " The Crossed Rifles of Bulgaria" variation, created by a third party?

I have gone from liking them to hating them to at least excepting that a scarce few may represent a unique sub variation that collectors may want to own.

I can not argue what your saying

Vern

Supporting Albert's line of thinking is that in a document, dating from 1911, written by one of the Swiss KTA executives, lists a number of contract pistols to different countries, including China and Brazil. The other 'usual suspects' like the Netherlands, Portugal, Bulgaria, etc... are included in the list. Russia, however, is not mentioned anywhere.

I'm curious to see where this will lead to.

When I present my next theory, which I reckon contains some sound logic based on actual historical facts, I suppose that many Luger collectors will be reluctant to redefine the label from a M1906 Russian Luger to another variation. By the way Vern, you are on the right track. I would like to seize this opportunity to acknowledge Nick who has been very benefical in developing this new theory using his foreign contacts.

Albert

Albert, I for one, eagerly await further posts from you on this subject.

Would the fact that some of these "Russian" lugers that have surfaced recently, including on Simpson's site, have Tula arsenal markings on the barrel underside tend to confirm or have no bearing on whether these lugers were actually in Russia?

Hello Herbert,

If any of the legitimate/authentic 'Russian Lugers' would happen to have a Tula arsenal marking on the underside of the barrel, I think that I have an explanation when I present my new findings on these 'Russian Lugers'.

The new findings will be rather lengthy, and I hope to answer most questions with sound theories. Stay tuned....

Albert

Believe me Albert, I am tuned! I'm certain that many folks, especially those who own "Russian" lugers are on the edge of their seats (am I mean this sincerely!).

Farewell to the Existence of the Russian Luger
 

Before saying farewell to the existence of the ‘Russian Luger’ which was mistakenly labeled since many, many years as a (contract) pistol delivered to Russia (for the most part attributable to the extractor marking and the depiction of crossed Mosin-Nagant ’91 rifles over the chamber), there has recently surfaced some strong evidence and facts (which I am continuing to explore) that will open some new significant theories which will very likely lead to this Luger Parabellum being another Bulgarian variation. Firstly, it is necessary to listen to some attention-grabbing history about the principality and kingdom of Bulgaria including the reign of Tsar Ferdinand I and his military connections.

Although Tsar Ferdinand I of Bulgaria (1861-1948) was one of many monarchs to lose his throne in 1918, he had shown remarkable ability to retain it till the end in the face of civil disturbance, revolution and military defeat.

Born on 26 February 1861 in Vienna, Ferdinand was the youngest son of Prince Augustus I of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. He was elected prince of Bulgaria on 7 July 1887 by the national assembly as successor to Bulgaria's first ruler, Alexander I, who had abdicated in 1886.

His dynastic position was not however recognized by the major powers, a source of ongoing irritation to Ferdinand. At the time of his election as prince he had been serving in the Austro-Hungarian army as a lowly junior officer.

For all that Ferdinand was the nominal ruler of Bulgaria, until 1894 policy was dominated by the Bulgarian Prime Minister, Stefan Nikolov Stambolov. With the spectacular fall from grace of Stambolov in 1894 however, Ferdinand took the opportunity to assert himself over domestic affairs.

Marriage to the Bourbon princess Maria Louisa of Parma in April 1893 helped Ferdinand gain partial recognition from the major European powers, as did the entrance of his young son Boris to the Greek Orthodox Church in February 1896.

This latter event aroused the interest of Russia, who made diplomatic noises regarding rapprochement with Bulgaria. Finally, in March 1896, Ferdinand's position as Bulgarian ruler received international recognition.

Never a man to let pass a golden opportunity, Ferdinand declared Bulgarian independence of the Ottoman Empire on the eve of Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and proclaimed himself Tsar of Bulgaria on 5 October 1908 (celebrated on 22 September). The Declaration of Independence was proclaimed at the Saint Forty Martyrs Church in Turnovo. It was accepted by Turkey and the other European powers.

As imperialistic as any other Balkan ruler, Ferdinand championed the formation of the Balkan League of 1912, consisting of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro. Their aim, as a loose alliance, was to dismember European Turkey for their own disparate ends. Thus the First Balkan War of 1912-13 came about.

Despite finishing up on the winning side Ferdinand's territorial ambitions were frustrated when the allies failed to agree on a sharing of the Turkish spoils. This resulted in an alliance being formed by Greece and Serbia against Bulgaria, later joined by Turkey and Romania: cue the Second Balkan War of 1913.

Defeated and bruised by events in the Balkans, and having set himself against the other Balkan powers, the seeds were sown for Bulgaria's subsequent entry into the First World War with the Central Powers.

Bulgaria began the war as a neutral; however, once Ferdinand was as sure as he could be that the Central Powers were in the ascendancy - given the lamentable French lack of success of the Western Front and the Anglo-French humiliation in Gallipoli, as set against sweeping German victories in the east - he finally threw in his lot with Germany. He hoped for (of course) territorial gains as a consequence of a successful war, chiefly in Macedonia.

It was a fatal mistake. Germany proved by far the dominant ally in the partnership, and exploited Bulgarian natural and military resources to the full. Despite initial military successes against Serbia, success in the field quickly dried up and he found his popularity on the wane.

Having survived revolution in Bulgaria towards the close of the war, Ferdinand was finally forced to abdicate by the Allies in early October 1918 in favour of his son Boris III, having surrendered to the allies in late September.

Ferdinand chose to live thereafter in Coburg, Germany. He died there on 10 September 1948 having lived to the ripe age of 87; a better fate than numerous other deposed monarchs.

During my research, the most exciting piece of military news about Tsar Ferdinand I was his position as Chief or Honoury Guard of the 54th His Majesty the Tsar of Bulgaria's Minsk Infantry Regiment (54-i Pekhotnyi Minskii Ego Velichestva Tsarya Bolgarskago polk) which was part of the Russian 14th Infantry Division, 8th Army Corps, 1st Brigade with its headquarters in Kishinev till 15th October 1915. Each infantry regiment was made up of four battalions, each of 4 companies, except non-Siberian rifle regiments which had only two battalions. This regiment was not only made up of Russian soldiers and officers, but also of Bulgarian officers including those of very high rank even reaching the rank of General. With the presence of both Russian and Bulgarian officers in this regiment, it is likely that these Luger pistols were ordered by the Tsar for the regiment which he commanded with the purpose of the pistols having ‘bilingual’ characteristics. In terms of the (safety) indicators on this new model Bulgarian Parabellum, the major focus still remained on the safety marking ‘ОГЪНЪ’ in the Bulgarian language (started on the M1900/03 Parabellum), and the lesser focus was the extractor marking word ‘ЗАРЯДЪ’ (noun meaning ‘charge’) which was spelt and pronounced the same in the Bulgarian and Russian language. Observing the difficulty of reading the small text on the extractors, it is plausible that this marking was added by a Bulgarian arsenal instead of the DWM factory.

In regards to the presence of crossed rifles on the chamber on this particular Luger, it was common for the insignia of infantry regiments to be represented by crossed muskets or rifles (including those of American infantry regiments). If you examine closely the portrait image hereunder, you will notice a small symbol with crossed rifles which seems to have a credible connection to the infantry and it probably gives a sensible meaning to the crossed rifles on this Bulgarian Parabellum Luger which is now on a ‘paved road’ for receiving a new identity.

Moreover, there is mounting proof of this Luger pistol being of Bulgarian ‘nationality’ in view of the fact that at least three more pistols with crossed rifles exist in Bulgaria. Two of these Lugers are in private hands which have been in the country before the rise of some local Bulgarian collectors as well as before the beginning of the ‘Russian theory’. The other one, which was snatched away since a number of years, used to be housed in an 3rd Motorized Infantry Blagoevgrad Division museum in the town of Blagoevgrad (old name Dupnitsa) located in the southwest region of Bulgaria. I am trying to obtain the serial numbers of the two pistols in private hands which might be difficult. It is not a fluke that the pistol shown at the being of this thread has a Bulgarian holster (with an officers name inside the flap) even though this type of holster was issued in another period.

Based on my research and discussions with various collectors in Europe, I could never figure out why any knowledgeable person/collector from Russia could not correctly and quickly identity this Luger if it was originally delivered to Russia for commercial sales or for an army test/contract. Giving some flexibility to the history and movement of these Luger pistols, there is a good chance that some of these Lugers went into Russia with Russian officers returning from service in Bulgaria. Subsequently, a couple of these pistols some how surfaced out of Finland and Norway by means of smuggling when many Russian citizens decided to search for a better life in those Scandinavian countries. If any of these Bulgarian Lugers happened to have a Russian Tula proof mark, it can easily be mentioned that this proof mark was applied by a Russian arsenal during the time the pistol was in Russia. When we notice the large quantities of surplus army guns and equipment that has been coming out of Bulgaria since many years, this huge amount of surplus inventory probably explains how 15-20 of these Luger pistols were able to ‘sneak’ out of Bulgaria and the surrounding region.

In an attempt to date the delivery of these pistols to Bulgaria, I reckon that these pistols were mainly given or awarded to officers in the 54th Minsk Infantry Regiment shortly after Bulgaria gained its independence in October 1908, and it is also likely that they were received as well by officers of other Bulgarian regiments if we presume that approximately 1,000 of these pistols were delivered from DWM based on the serial number range of those genuine pistols which have been recorded. In the same vein, the offering of these pistols from the king could have been seen as a way to commemorate the Bulgarian independence from the Ottoman Empire. In view of the fact that these pistols are original new model M1906 Parabellum Lugers made by the DWM factory in caliber 9 mm, I am confident that these pistols were delivered after those Bulgarian Lugers in caliber 7,65 mm which were converted into caliber 9 mm by a Bulgarian Arsenal..

Many collectors still take the view that the lowest and highest surviving serial number of a military or organizational contract may reflect an estimate of the quantity of guns made or delivered which is most often not the case. We collectors want to see production and sales in a categorized and sequential way which is illogical and usually the real procedures are different. In almost every weapons factory in imperial Germany, there were manufacturing procedures which involved accuracy and repeatability tests, failure rates and rejects, which resulted in the actual acceptance rate to usually be lower than those delivered/received. The random selection and assembly of the remaining guns from the stock for the contract probably lead to large number gaps in the serial range spread causing collectors today to miscalculate the actual number of guns produced and delivered while there remains a limited availability of accurate archive records. It is possible that only 300-400 of these pistols were delivered to Bulgaria for the officers of various regiments even though the serial range spread can be observed from around 200 to 850. As a comparable example, why is the M1906 Portuguese Royal Navy Luger rig serial #147 which used to belong to Admiral Hypacio de Brion under King Carlos I happen to fall around the middle of the serial range for this first contract when it would be expected that an Navy admiral should have received a pistol in the first 1-10 pieces delivered? I have concrete proof that this rig used to belong to the admiral because I bought it directly from the family (great-grandson) in Lisbon.

It is difficult to determine whether these Bulgarian pistols were made before, after or during the same time of the two Portuguese Navy contracts in 1908 considering that both contracts had there own 1-3 digit serial range and each contract had an ‘organizational’ emblem on the chamber and not a national coat of arms. In fact, the two Portuguese Navy contracts have an organizational emblem (the crown anchor or the R.P anchor) because the national coat of arms for King Carlos I was completely different. Realizing that DWM had more sales with Bulgaria than compared to Portugal prior to 1907/08, it is possible that those original 9 mm caliber Bulgarian Lugers were made and delivered before the two Navy contracts to Portugal.

According to the ground-breaking information which I have uncovered that will probably end the long-standing glamour the ‘Russian Luger’, I propose that we collectors give it a new identity as a M1908 Bulgarian Infantry Officers Luger instead of its previous label as a ‘Russian Luger’ which was created from guess-work and insufficient information. Of course, there will be some collectors who will strongly maintain that a (M1900) Russian 7,65 mm Luger Parabellum with the crossed rifles on the chamber will be “legitimate and unquestionable Luger variations” as stated on the web site of ‘Land of Borchardt’ (LOB):

“The fact that eight M1900 Russian Parabellums have been identified is irrefutable testimony to its existence, and when the next noted Luger author picks up the pen for the next chapter in Luger history, hopefully, will acknowledge and recognize the Model 1900 Russian Parabellum as a legitimate and unquestionable LUGER VARIATION…It seems certain from looking at the table that the 1900 Russian Parabellum is a genuine Luger variation”

LOB has steered off course with the use of rambling stories, sketchy quotations and using comparative images of Mosin-Nagant rifles in an attempt to authenticate the ‘M1900 and M1906 Russian Luger’, while my article simply scores strong sensible points that the crossed rifles above the chamber have a direct link to an infantry regiment (organization). LOB wants to some how squeeze in and justify the ‘M1900 Russian Luger’ as the predecessor of the contract ‘M1906 Russian Luger’ which he and others believe were tested by the Russians in 1904 at Oranienbaum (“Test Oranienbaum 1904”). Whatever LOB is trying to say, how could such ‘Russian Lugers’ in the serial range 11,000-12,000 be received after the true M1900/03 Bulgarian Lugers in the 20,000 serial range which were actually delivered to Bulgaria in 1903? This irregular ‘back-to-front’ sequence of events places a big question mark on a ‘M1900 Russian Luger’ with crossed rifles above the chamber (even if it was allowed to be redefined as a ‘M1900 Bulgarian Officers Luger’ without any safety markings). Based on a (1906) Russian dealer’s catalog that I have in my archive, it is plausible that the Russian Army had decided to ‘test-run’ a few M1900 Lugers, but these pistols were very likely ordinary commercial models in caliber 7,65 mm as depicted in the catalog. If we accept that Portugal first received a few M1900 Commercial Lugers, the same could have occurred with Russia, but these Lugers were not delivered as contract Lugers.

Unfortunately, a small group of foolish Luger collectors want to praise themselves as authorities by writing strange articles with no credit, and in the same fashion they try to legitimatize certain Lugers in their collection by scrutinizing and comparing every micro detail and measurement that usually causes them to make unfounded mistakes because they prefer to reply on ambiguous stories from other sources who act in the same way!

The various strong theories, opinions and information which I have explained in this article can be read in the way that the existence of the ‘cross-rifle’ Luger pistols has a low probability under a ‘Russian theory’, whereas extremely high probability under a ‘Bulgaria theory’. It will be interesting to observe in the future how this new information will affect the value of the M1908 Bulgarian Infantry Officers Luger from the perspective of prestige, desirability, rarity and its historical background seeing that the once occupied space of the ‘Russian Luger’ will likely become void.

Finally, by taking a quote from a forum member and applying some humour to it: "I guess, the Russian Lugers will be with us for a long long time" – my modest reply is “the Russian Luger is quickly fading away”.

Written by: Albert Beliard
Important contributions from Nick Stanev
E-mail: imperialarms@att.net

Albert, thanks for taking the time to post your well written and researched history lesson and attempting to assign the 1906 "Russian" luger to a "Bulgarian" variant with strong Russian connections. In my view, this is all a matter of semantics. True, it is likely that there never existed a formal Czarist Russian luger contract, nevertheless these lugers appear to be genuine (except, of course, for the documented fakes!) and whether they were "official" or just made available for Bulgarian officers to purchase, along with their Russian comrades, makes little difference to me, a century later. I have no trouble viewing these crossed rifle marked DWM pieces as Bulgarian-Russian, rather than purely Russian. Your treatise should stimulate much further discussion. Thanks again, Albert, for your efforts and putting forth your theory.....after all, it COULD be absolutely true!

Well as the owner of SN 591, a well documented Russian, what can I say?

Sounds pausible. Cannot find any lapse of logic.

But in the overall scheme of things, it does not take anything away from from the value of the piece as a collectible item with a place in history.

JMVHO.

Albert

I like the time frame, the "Russian Lugers" have the same type of frame as the Portuguese M2 and that is I believe the last time it was used. They were issued in 1909. The Portuguese Navy's that came in 1910 have the newer style frame.

So the frame style and the Bulgaria independence in October 1908 go hand in hand.

I have also noted some close similarities in machine marks between the Portuguese M2 and several Russians so yes, you could say you have both documentation and physical evidence to support your theory as to their dated production.

Very intersting post you presented to us!

Vern

Thank you for thaking the time to research and post this info. I will probably never own a Bulgarian-Russian but I love to learn.

Charlie

Albert,
this is very interesting. Thanks for posting.
BTW, does somebody know if the Romanian army had Lugers, too? They were German allies until Fall 1944, then they switched sides.

'Russian Luger' on Life Support
 

I suppose that there will be some collectors who will find it difficult to let go of the 'Russian Luger' and they will continue to dig for traces of information 'to keep it on life support' such as trying to determine if the roll-die for the crossed rifles have Russian rifle characteristics - who cares about the make/model of the crossed rifles when the probability that the 'Bulgarian theory' has a 70/30 advantage over the 'Russian theory'? In my rational opinion, I am simply looking at this rifle emblem as one which has very strong connections to the Infantry and it does NOT make this Luger any more 'Russian' than to its likely 'nationality' of another Bulgarian Luger variation. To try and magnify a small emblem on a chamber which has insufficient and inaccurate details is futile. The directions of lines (on the magazine) and the shapes of curves (on the rifle stock) will lead to no where. I do not think that the Bulgarian and Russian officers in those various regiments were ever debating (over some Vodka shots) the type of rifles on the chamber! It is amusing how collectors will 'pile up the chips' in an effort to shift the balance with regards to the markings on this Luger - Bulgarian safety marking, a bilingual extractor marking, so therefore it all rests on the emblem on the chamber to determine if it is more Bulgarian than Russian!

Can somebody tell me if the anchor on the Portuguese Navy Lugers is from a Portuguese, Spanish, German or French ship? Why not carefully examine the curvature and height of the points which could tell us the origin of the anchor?!

Cheers (over four Vodka shots :biggulp:),
Albert

Ron, you will need a (1911) Bulgarian military manual for your Luger and not a commercial one in Russian language! :p Maybe we can now discuss a trade for a very rare manual that will be compatible for another Luger in your collection of which I have a duplicate. :p

Like those who can't relinquish the "Black Widow"??? :D

A very interesting theory you put forth...Thank You for sharing!!! :thumbup:

Albert,
Your posting here is a duplicate of the one on Jan Still's forum. While it is germane to the discussion there its relevance on this forum is ambiguous and possibly confusing since there is no context for it. It would be much better to keep discussions on track and not fire off random broadsides. I would much prefer to maintain a scholarly atmosphere rather than devolving into silly and meaningless analogies (points on an anchor?...please). As I indicated on Jan's forum, your carefully crafted theory requires a reasoned response and it will come in due time.

Cheers (and still sober :))
Ron

Hello Ron,

Your reason is right that it is a duplicate which may cause some confusion, so I shall treat both discussions separately on each forum. Nonetheless, my post continues to have some meaning to this subject where LOB's reference and comparisons to large Mosin-Nagant rifle diagrams was going to extremes in order to authenticate the M1900 and M1906 'Russian Lugers' as contract Lugers delivered to Russia.

As you probably agree with me, a roll-die used at the DWM factory will not hold all the secrets to a particular Luger such as the case with the 'Russian Luger'. If there was ever a Luger pistol which had crossed canons on the chamber, could anybody say to which country it was delivered, besides the emblem/symbol having a connection to the artillery?

Albert

Your assumption that I agree with you on anything you assert is premature and should wait until I have appropriately responded to the entire premise (which may take a couple of days, I am old and slow:)). Hang in there...I will respond, but not in a piecemeal fashion to repeated snippets of shooting from the hip. You are mounting a crusade and I do not choose to duke it out on momentary minutiae.
Ron

Albert

Do you have anymore information?

A picture of that " 54th His Majesty the Tsar of Bulgaria's Minsk Infantry Regiment" with some luger holsters on some men would be helpful.

Many have researched the Russian lugers, some tiny bits have surfaced from the guns themselves but never enough to put the debate to an end.

As good as your theory is ( and it is a good one) I think your going to need just a little more to satisfy the critics.

You have tied known history,opportunity and production time frames together, but as good as it is, its just not quite enough .
When I put it all in front of me, I like what I see, I just can not get all the puzzle together.

For example, using your new information, and twisting it around just a little I could make a case for this being a Russian Luger being ordered because there where Bulgarians also present.

You see, we have not broken the Russian link, so the Russian Luger hangs on.

I think that is what is bothering people.

If you have anything else please bring it out.

thanks

Vern

Hello Vern,

I do not have an image of the Russian '54th His Majesty the Tsar of Bulgaria's Minsk Infantry Regiment' since it was a Russian regiment containing a number of Bulgarian officers including the Tsar of Bulgaria who was the honoury guard of that regiment.

Based on strong evidence, these Bulgarian Lugers were ordered from DWM by the Tsar of Bulgaria and issued by him and his commanders; not the other way around via Russia because there was no previous large contract(s) to Russia, and the previous information presented by other writers still remain weak. If you comprehend well my article, there is still a Russian link according to the mixture of officers in this Russian regiment, but the primary emphasis still stands on this Luger pistol initially being delivered to Bulgaria. The 'identity' of the 'Russian Luger' was created because authors at the time were 'near-sighted' about many factors and they did not quickly realize that the crossed rifles can have straight-forward ties to an infantry organization. If some authors did not realize this, what's wrong with throwing in a Luger of mysterious nature and give it the grand name 'Russian Luger'?

Based on my strong knowledge and expertise with Imperial Lugers (and Mausers), I can say with a high degree of confidence that there was no Russian contract, but the Russian Army probably 'test-run' a few M1900/02 Commercial model Lugers (without crossed-rifles on the chamber).

Of course, all it takes is a little amount of hope from the critics to keep the 'Russian theory' alive, and these critics probably have other motives and agendas on their mind. Sometimes it is money and followers of these critics who cannot accept common sense or change. I am prepared to challenge any critic and accept defeat if any one can give me a better theory that makes sense/logic - and please, I do not want to hear about those outlines and the position of the triggers on the crossed Mosin-Nagant rifles! That is beating a dead horse.

Only time and further indepth research will give a proper answer which I am willing to undertake. Someday, I plan to go to Bulgaria to do some 'hunting' and see what I discover.

If one reviews sales of German pistols to that region during the period of 1898-1914, the DWM factory was selling Lugers to Bulgaria while the Mauser factory sold a small contract of Mauser C96 pistols to Turkey from whom the Bulgarians gained their independence in 1908. And both factories were owned by the Loewe family! Quite an interesting piece of German arms sales!

Albert

Having a Bachelors in History and Doctorate in Law, I concede that Your both right. The Bible, written in many hands, dialects and Historical significance are each correct by those who follow them. I commend Albert in His deep seated resaerch, seemingly logical conclusions and vigor of a young schoolboy. Whose Right? Everyone, For in a Democrasy each has a Right to their own conclusions, assertions and beliefs. In the end, We are all correct if in our hearts soals and logic we beleive in what we assert while realizing there often is more than one answer.

While everyone of us has our own way of thinking and drawing our own conclusions, one of the reasons for writing this detailed article is to make us seriously consider other avenues of thinking besides what has been stated in various books and articles from the past. If collectors wish to keep the title of the 'Russian Luger' to satisfy their ego, so it shall be.

While LOB was researching and writing his article on the 'Russian Lugers', I am very surprised that LOB was unable to piece together the puzzle of the 'M1906 Russian Luger' when he already owns a Bulgarian instruction manual from 1911 which has the heading "Rules for the Training and Operation of the Infantry - Part 1 - Description and Observation of the Specification of the Weapon: The Automatic Pistol Parabellum". The word 'Infantry' should have given him the clue to the meaning of the crossed rifles. Instead, he vomits all this various nonsense including the matching to Mosin-Nagant rifles!

Albert

Democracy in action~~~

Yes, of course, collecting has too much damn 'politics' involved which allows those 'minorities' to spill so much s*** which is inaccurate or baseless!

Albert

Albert,
help me out a little here....why would a Russian Luger be worth more than Bulgarian ?

with all your research on the history of the Bulgarian Infantry Unit these Lugers were made for, and the theory that only about 300 of these guns were made......as a collector I think your theory would make them worth more.......so I'm not sure money would be the motive for keeping the Russian Luger alive.

Hello James,

The 'Russian Luger' would usually be worth more than a (M1900/03) Bulgarian Luger because Russia was once recognized as an adversary of the US and this notion made it more desirable and valuable. Now that the identity of the ‘Russian Luger’ is on ‘life support’ and it is being considered as another Bulgarian variation, I suppose that its importance will change, but I cannot determine in what direction. In some cases, the limited mentality of some collectors will see Bulgaria as a country of less importance and prestige than compared to Russia, and this factor can have a bearing on value.

Collecting has so any invisible forces and it is not a matter of simple economics (i.e. supply and demand) which determines value. My guess of only 300 M1908 Bulgarian Infantry Officers Lugers delivered to Bulgaria is only an estimate based on those Lugers delivered to Portugal in 1907-08. I still consider this Luger very rare with an incredible history behind it (more exciting than the previous ‘Russian theories’ in my opinion), and I believe that its value will be unaffected. In my personal preference, I love those Lugers with strong history instead of those Lugers based on mystery and ‘catchy’ names. We all know that ‘politics’ and money plays a game in the collectors club (including the business side with auction houses), so we will need to wait and see what happens when the next ‘Russian Lugers’ appear for sale.

My next difficult task will be to research the Bulgarian archive records to determine if there is any account of these specific pistols.

Thank you for your questions and input.

Albert

This post and the scholarship behind it remind me of a discussion my pal George Anderson and I had several years back. It could be loosely summed up as "The conventional wisdom developed and sometimes manufactured by collectors over the years is in liklihood substantially flawed if not completely incorrect."

I believe this to be the case particularly among American collectors who are not internet savvy.

You could not imagine the things "older" folks say when looking at my lugers for sale case at gunshows.
Tom A

Phoenix Rises From The Ashes
 

To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of the demise of the Russian Luger are greatly exaggerated!

Albert has done a fine, and to much extent plausible, analysis of the origin of the Model 1906 Luger with the crossed rifle chamber inscription. I would like to pursue his lines of reasoning.

The lengthy historical account of Tsar Ferdinand I and his military connections is quite well done. When I first started to read it I immediately thought of the highly detailed “histories” furnished by some gun sellers to hype their fabulous wares. But that is not the case here. We did have to wade through quite a bit of background to get to the noteworthy connection of Tsar Ferdinand I with the 54th His Majesty the Tsar of Bulgaria Infantry Regiment. The Imperial era pretty much marked the end of military knighthood and the age of warrior kings. Nearly every crowned head in Europe was the honorary/titular “commander” of one military unit or another. Probably at the top of the heap was Crown Prince Wilhelm of Germany, “commander” of the 1st Leib Hussar Regiment, and his sister Princess Victoria Louise, “commander” of the 2nd Leib Hussar Regiment. The actual commander of the Hussars was Field Marshall August von Mackensen, who earned his rank. (Sorry about the digression…the Leib Hussars and old Mack are favorite subjects of mine!) Anyway, such honorary commands were largely an excuse to get dressed up for ceremonial occasions and few, if any, of these honorary leaders had much actual “field” command duty. So Tsar Ferdinand’s active involvement in procurement of a special lot of Lugers for Bulgarian officers in the 54th is speculative at best.

Regarding the use of a national crest on Lugers of the Imperial era, let’s take a look at the crested examples. The Swiss, Bulgarian and American Eagle Lugers do indeed sport likenesses of their respective national crests. However, the contract Lugers of Germany, Portugal (CI, M2, Royal Navy, R.P. Navy) and Bolivia, while bearing chamber markings, do not have a national emblem. The Dutch, Brazilian and Mexican contracts have no chamber markings. So across the board, the use of a national crest on a contract Luger appears to be an exception (or at least the minority) rather than the rule.

Now let’s address those pesky rifles. In the light of the foregoing paragraph, there is no reason indeed to associate the crossed rifle Lugers with a particular nation based on the presence of the rifles alone. As has been discussed, it is most likely that the crossed rifles indicate intended use by infantry. However, reluctant recognition of the type of rifle, albeit still with reservations, favors identification as Mosin-Nagant. A number of people, me included, have no hesitation in this identification. So one would wonder why Tsar Ferdinand would choose a rifle that only constituted 13% of the total long arms inventory to be the insignia on the chamber of Lugers intended for the Bulgarian officers. The type of rifle notwithstanding, why would he choose to arm his officers with this variant when he had at least 4,450 lovely Lugers with the national crest on hand? I have difficulty in visualizing Tsar Ferdinand pandering to the Russians by equipping his officers with a Luger that would not be readily identified as Bulgarian, particularly since he already had the aforementioned Bulgarian Lugers.

We arrive at last at the lynchpin about which much of the Bulgarian connection revolves: the Cyrillic markings. It has long been acknowledged that the safety marking on the crossed rifle Lugers is Bulgarian. Reasons for this have ranged from “unknown” to “…it is possible that the order from Russia gave the wrong markings, or else the German die cutter and inspector had tangle with something equivalent to out Tennessee Corn (the liquid type) and stamped the frames with the wrong die. Being from Tennessee, I am inclined to accept the latter reason” (a bit of tongue in cheek by Harry Jones in 1959)! John Walter in Luger, an illustrated history of the handguns of Hugo Borchardt and Georg Luger , 1875 to the present day (1977) stated that “The surviving ‘Russian’ weapons are actually of modified Bulgarian type, owing to the non-Russian safety marks”. In his later book The Luger Book (1986), this notion is amended to; “It is popularly believed that the surviving Russian guns are of ‘Bulgarian’ type, owing to subtle differences between the two languages. However, as linguists have now pointed out, there was no difference at all between Russian and Bulgarian until the former was modernized in the early 1902s.” He was off by a few years on the date of the standardization of the Russian alphabet, and obviously he was referring to the safety markings as having “no difference at all” as there were certainly considerable differences between the two languages! This explanation of the identical safety markings was provided to me independently by an older Russian gentleman who indicated the word was the same in both language and meant “fire”. This was long before either he or I was aware of Walter’s writing (my earliest exposure to the Russian Luger and its markings was via Harry Jones’ book Luger Variations (1959)). Much later (a couple of years ago) I received further reinforcement of this notion from a student of Russian who did translation work. I showed him examples of Russian and Bulgarian Model 1906 Lugers. He quickly identified the Russian extractor as “a Russian word meaning “a charge”. It is pronounced "zar-yad". It's actually written in old Russian (pre-1917)”. He was unable to decipher the Bulgarian extractor marking. Then looking at the safety markings, he thought for a moment and stated “Actually, the markings on the Russian safety are in Bulgarian. As far as my Bulgarian goes, it is pronounced as uh-go-n (with soft "n" at the end) both in Russian and in Bulgarian”. Not a lot of authority in that pronouncement, but it does suggest that the safety marking is sufficiently bilingual for a modicum of recognition, even for a non-Bulgarian speaker. Another troublesome aspect, to me, regarding the two different extractor markings is why in the world would Tsar Ferdinand abandon the logical “ПЪЛЕНЪ” (loaded) marking already present on the Bulgarian Lugers and substitute “ЗАРЯДЪ ” meaning “a charge”? (I have always felt was a dumb thing to write on an extractor anyway, everybody else marks the extractor “loaded” in their respective languages)

The enigma of a Bulgarian marking on a Russian Luger may very likely end up to be as “norme” has postulated. The Bulgarian frames very well could have been leftovers in anticipation of additional sales. DWM is notorious for not throwing anything away, to wit, the Swiss and Brazilian “proofed” barrels found on some American Eagle Lugers. The end recipient, who still remains unknown, may have been satisfied with the approximate ‘bilingual’ safety marking if the price was right. That is a stretch I know, but not totally out of the realm of possibility.

So in summary, I find no compelling reason to proclaim the Russian Luger is now Bulgarian. I do not feel that this is an “ego” thing; I just believe that the preponderance of “evidence” favors a Russian connection. The evidence on either side of the argument is all circumstantial; there is no “smoking gun” (pardon the pun) that conclusively comes down on one side or the other. The collector community still needs to weigh what has been discussed and decide which camp to support. Unless and until something truly definitive is discovered, the controversy will live. But as for me…it’s Russian!

I thank you all for enduring this epistle, and I particularly thank Albert. He has provided much food for thought and intellectual stimulation. Let us choose up sides without acrimony!

Sincerely,
Ron Wood

Ron
As I stated on Jan's forum your response is well thought out, and as usual , well written. This is how we all learn. We all need to be reminded to respect the opinions of others. When we do we all gain. Bill

What most I know of Lugers comes from my old "Lugers at Random" book.,so I am just a novice here compaired to the rest of this forum so I hope my question is not behind the times. I was reading through my book "Lugers of Ralph Shattuck" today looking for something that caught my attention about the Russian Lugers. On page 20 of his book he list 2 variations of the Russian Luger. A 1900 Model ( of which he states only two are known to exist, one of which he owned) and the 1906 Russian which I take is the hot topic on it's being Russian to start with. The 1900 Russian he has pictured does show the crossed rifles as does the 1906, but the 1900 does not show a marked saftey. Does these two 1900 Russian with Crossed Rifles lend any truth the 1906 Russian story? This may have been addressed in this series of post as I might have missed it. Did these 1900 Russians have anything to do with the Bulgarian debate? Seems much of this debate is based on the Bulgarian script. Was this script of these 1900 Russian Lugers? This is a fantastic forum in which I learn much (along with Jan Still's) and the manner of this topic does great credit to this forum.
Thanks,Bill

Being a Model 1900, the two Russian Lugers with crossed rifles have no safety or extractor markings that would provide a tie to either Russia or Bulgaria. The only link to Russia that I am aware of are the Mosin-Nagant rifles on the chamber. I have personaly examined a fairly well worn example a number of years ago (don't think it was one of the two mentioned by Shattuck). It had a very odd marking on the left side of the receiver consisting of a small sans-serif upper case "W" over a larger "backward" upper case "Q" (the "tail" of the Q came out the left side). It also had a rather long (about 10 digits) number stamped or pantographed on the bottom of the barrel that looked like it might be a museum accession number. Unfortunately, I have lost both the serial number and the barrel number over the years.

The Experiment – Can you identify this Luger Pistol?
 

Bearing in mind the useful input and facts that have been mentioned in this marathon discussion, I wish to present a simple experiment which will further dilute the beliefs of those critics who want to have faith in the ‘Russian theory’ instead of the logical and strong ‘Bulgarian theory’:

There is an experiment where three rather intelligent men from the US, Russia and Bulgaria are examining three Luger pistols displayed on a table in an attempt to quickly identify each pistol’s ‘nationality’, namely a M1906 AE Commercial, a M1906 Bulgarian and a ‘M1906 Russian’ Luger. Of course, the American and Bulgarian man will quickly identify the Luger sold/delivered to their home country as a result of each pistol having certain clear national and language characteristics (i.e. the coat or arms or state/national emblem on the pistol’s chamber as well as the safety marking in the correct language on each gun). However, it is very likely that the Russian man will be baffled because the ‘Russian Luger’ does not follow the same pattern/relationship as compared to the other two Lugers. Then, an observer of the experiment decides to speak out and tell the Russian man (and maybe the uncertain American) that it is a ‘Russian Luger’ – he will become even more confused because there is absolutely nothing on the exterior of the pistol which will ‘jump out’ and say to him “I’m a Russian Luger”. If it has taken collectors and historians over 60 years to reach only this far regarding the mystery of the ‘Russian Luger’, how could it be explained that a Russian man (past or present) would be unable to tell us (present collectors) that it is a ‘Russian Luger’ in less than 60 seconds?!

If this ‘identity’ puzzle would have been the actual situation, the DWM factory would have screwed up in a big way by sending a contract of mis-marked and confusing Lugers to Russia – and, moreover, an order from the Russian government would have not requested for a safety marking in the Bulgarian language. I am sorry to disappoint those critics that such a grave mistake by the DWM factory would have NOT occurred when there was no other foreign contract with the same irregularities. Everything was marked in a certain way for a reason, and although the DWM factory (and Mauser factory) did not throw away any parts in inventory, nobody at the DWM factory would have decided to shuffle through a pile of upper receivers and (Bulgarian) frames and make the careless suggestion “let us try and put together some new model Lugers with Bulgarian markings for the Russian government/forces who we hope will become a very important customer (like the Swiss)”.

Ironically, there are collectors who simply accept uneducated and inaccurate information like a parrot which has been written or spoken in the past regarding the notion of ‘old Russian text’ to explain the text/word on the safety marking and extractor when in fact both words are actually 100% BULGARIAN, and the Bulgarian word ‘ЗАРЯДЪ’ on the extractor happens to have the same translation/meaning in the Russian language. Based on the language and the interpretation of the historical events mentioned in my first article, there are obviously very strong ties to a Bulgarian ‘nationality’ instead of a Russian one.

So, for the ‘drowning’ collector who wishes to continue believing a ‘Russian theory’, the only ‘floating object available in the water’ is whether or not the model of the crossed rifles on the chamber are Mosin-Nagant (M-N) rifles – not much of a ‘life-saver’ for a ‘Russian theory’ (for those English critics, a Life-Saver used to be (or is) a circular multi-colour sweet/candy with a hole in the middle, and this ‘plain-flavour’ theory has – a big hole!). If the critics want to rely heavily on the accuracy of the outline of the crossed rifles on the chamber believing that they are M-N rifles, my question is why are the fixed bayonets missing on this (organizational) emblem? And do not tell me that the roll-die maker/designer at the DWM factory had to exclude the fixed bayonets on the M-N rifles in order to preserve or enhance the rest of the details on the rifles. If the ‘Bulgarian theorists’ give the benefit of the doubt to the ‘Russian theorists’ regarding the M-N crossed rifles, a logical explanation of the crossed rifles on the chamber is to express thanks to the Russians for selling 50,000 M-N rifles to Bulgaria – in secret – who was preparing for war against the Turks. And what better way to say "thank you for the M-N rifles!" by adding M-N rifles on the Luger pistols intended for issue to both Bulgarian and Russian officers in the ‘54th His Majesty the Tsar of Bulgaria's Minsk Infantry Regiment’ which was part of the Russian 14th Infantry Division, 8th Army Corps, 1st Brigade in addition to the same pistol being issued to other officers in Bulgarian infantry regiments! Without putting much weight on the importance of the type of rifles on the chamber, I am 95% confident that it simply represents an infantry connection in the Bulgarian Army.

With reference to Ron’s post #142, point #2 (on the Jan Still Forum), he agrees (with my theory) that “it (the crossed rifles) most likely indicates an infantry unit connection”, and towards the end of his article (post #179), he states “But as for me…it’s Russian!”, then according to his way of mistaken thinking, he is saying that this Luger was delivered to an infantry unit in Russia which is incorrect because there are no records or information at all which reveals such a national Russian link, especially if the Bulgarian safety marking is not ignored.

For those critics who still do not yet understand the ‘Bulgarian theory’ which has been presented, it explains that these contract Lugers were delivered to Bulgaria and not Russia. Considering all the various points which have been raised in this discussion, not one single part of the ‘Russian theory’ can challenge the Bulgarian position because there was no previous contract between DWM and the Russian government, whereas there was a few thousand Luger pistols sold to the Bulgarian Army since 1903 – every thing about the ‘Russian theory’ is ‘bla-bla’ and inconsistent, and the Russian government was never mentioned in DWM sales records as a buyer. I cannot imagine the Russian government accepting to issue any firearm to their officers with Bulgarian markings. Therefore, trying to maintain its identity as a ‘Russian Luger’ is extremely weak.

So, after weighing all past and present valid opinions and contributions, I believe that there is a majority of collectors who will likely accept the ex-Russian Luger as a M1908 Bulgarian Infantry Officers Luger which was a contract Luger that was sold and delivered to Bulgaria and any other ‘Russian theory’ to satisfy ones imagination (or ownership) still remains sketchy at best. If any critic can present a stronger case based on persuasive information and data instead of making queries, step-up to the firing squad.

Respectfully,
Albert

Ron, where do you want your ashes spread? ;) :D

Re: Model 1908 Bulgarian Infantry Officers' Model
 

Okay, I have some questions:

Assuming the pistol has been misidentified for years, but also assuming that at least some of them are legitimate DWM creations, would the relative rarity of this variation still result in it being a very desirable collector's item?

In other words, in terms of collector desirability, can one expect that it is still just as valuable as it was when it was misidentified?

If there were just as many legitimate "Russian Lugers" as there are now "Model 1908 Bulgarian Infantry Officer's Model Lugers" is it reasonable that the collector value is still the same?

In my opinion, if you can overlook the issue of whether it is Russian or Bulgarian, everything else is still the same; i.e., it is still exotic; it is still rare; a few of them seem to be authentic; and, very few of them are in decent condition.

It would seem to me that all these factors would indicate that the value has not changed, and that only the name has changed.

Does this sound "far fetched"?

Thanks,

Hello Ron,

Thank you for your very good question. Indeed, it is still a very desirable collectors item, and it is my opinion that the collectors value will be unaffected. In fact, now that we have added some realistic 'substance' to this previous mislabelled Luger, I reckon that it will have MORE appeal than the fuzzy ex-Russian Luger. In my opinion, the value of a collectors item is not in its 'wow-factor' (such as the size and power of a country), instead its value and desirability should be based on the combination of its historical background (i.e. arms build-up and the involvement in conflicts/wars) coupled with the meaning of its markings to a countries nationalism and armed forces (i.e. take for example the value of the Swiss Lugers which were delivered to a tiny country with a small army). I am willing to pay for knowledge and history instead of 'fairy-tales'.

Thanks,
Albert

Well, although thought out, it is another theory to me, albeit a good theory.

The nationality of the markings is not a good basis; as the american eagle was a marketing tool, NOT a national marking. This is obvious because many commericial lugers came to america without AE's on them.... It was never a requirement by the US gov't for the eagle.

Also, the example of the markings being for a unit is plausible, but not definiative.

Some examples of how guns were not marked to country>
One good example is the luger for the Dutch. Few of the lugers ended up in the home country, most were for the colonies. dutch guns are not marked differently than other contract guns, except for the "Rust" marking.

Brazilian lugers aren't marked except for the circle B and that is not definitive either.

Overall, I think your theory is plausible, but not convincing to me. I will gladly look forward to further research or provenance to show either way.


Ed

Yes, we need to put the issue of the 1900 Russian to rest, it now hangs over this new theory like a black cloud. We cannot have it both ways.

I get the feeling we are close but haven't opened the last door yet.

I bet there are yet some surprises around the corners.

Vern

Vern, folks still say 1920 commericial; and that was a change probably 20 yrs ago.

Besides, IMHO I haven't heard anything definitive that makes me feel that "anything" is decided?


Ed

Like The Romans said. RES IPSA LOQUITOR. 'Let The Facts Speak For Themselves'

Eric,
Unfortunately there are no "facts", only theories, guesses and assumptions. There is no documented evidence one way or the other. Ya kinda got to make your own decision on what is what. I still hold out for Russian:).