Japanese "test" luger on Greg Martin Auction
 

The highly questionable Japanese "test" luger discussed on both Forums recently, with a pre-bidding range of 15K-30K got someone to actually buy it for $11,750 including buyer's premium at the GM auction 1-16-11.

Note, for those not familiar with previous discussion, the welded up stock lug area shown in the last photograph. We who examined this piece couldn't figure out why the mechanic who made this just didn't file off the stock lug instead of painstakingly welding it up, buffing and blueing it, amazing!

I have not read either discussion on this Luger, but IMHO, the contours of the rear of the barrel are not to factory specifications. I don't believe for a minute that this gun left the DWM factory in this condition, with this barrel... Just my $0.02

John, there is alot of stuff on this luger that it didn't leave the factory with!

Did DWM ever use three digits for small parts serialization? Reference the rear toggle and side plate. Is it suppose to be a Navy Luger, reference the crown over M markings, heck, throw in a 6" barrel to complete the picture. And the Anchor markings! But no Navy rear sight?

Yes, primarily in the 10xxx to 22xxx range, and not always consistently.

It is also sometimes found in units (I am most familiar with police) when a pistol had the same last two of the serial number in their unit, they were authorized to add a 3rd number.


Ed

German/Chinese Chiang Kai-shek 1936 presentation Luger
 

Just Kidding...but not too far fetched!!! .....It never ceases to amaze me how the never before heard of Lugers suddenly appear!!!....Courtesy of Wikipedia.....Sino-German cooperation in the 1930s

However, Sino-German trade slowed between 1930 and 1932 because of the Great Depression.[12] Furthermore, Chinese industrialization was not able to progress as fast as it could because of conflicting interests between various Chinese reconstruction agencies, German industries, German import-export houses and the German Army (Reichswehr) of the Weimar Republic, all of which wanted to profit from the development. Things did not pick up speed until the 1931 Mukden Incident, in which Manchuria was annexed by Japan. This incident created the need for a concrete industrial policy that aimed to create the military and industrial capability to resist Japan. In essence, it spurred the creation of a centrally planned, national defense economy. This both consolidated Chiang's rule over the nominally unified China and hastened industrialization efforts in China.[13]

The 1933 seizure of power by the Nazi Party further accelerated the formation of a concrete Sino-German policy. Before the Nazi rise to power, German policy in China had been contradictory, as the Foreign Ministry under the Weimar Government urged for a policy of neutrality in East Asia and discouraged the Reichswehr-industrial complex from involving directly with the Chinese government. The same feeling was shared by the German import-export houses, for fear that direct government ties would exclude them from profiting as the middleman. On the other hand, the new Nazi government's policy of Wehrwirtschaft (war economy) called for the complete mobilization of society and stockpiling of raw materials, particularly militarily important materials such as tungsten and antimony, which China could supply in bulk. Thus, from this period on, the main driving force behind Germany's China policy became that of raw materials.[14]
Sturmabteilung and Hitlerjugend in China, invited by the Kuomintang government.
Hitlerjugend in China, invited by the Kuomintang government.

In May 1933, Hans von Seeckt arrived in Shanghai and was offered the post of senior adviser to oversee economic and military development involving Germany in China. In June of that year, he submitted the Denkschrift für Marschall Chiang Kai-shek memorandum, outlining his program of industrializing and militarizing China. He called for a small, mobile, and well-equipped force as opposed to a massive but under-trained army. In addition, he provided a framework that the army is the "foundation of ruling power," that the military power rests in qualitative superiority, and that this superiority derives from the quality of its officer corps.[15]

Von Seeckt suggested that the first steps toward achieving this framework was that the Chinese military needed to be uniformly trained and consolidated under Chiang's command, and that the entire military system must be subordinated into a centralized network like a pyramid. Toward this goal, von Seeckt proposed the formation of a "training brigade" in lieu of the German eliteheer which would propagate training to other units to create a professional, competent army, with its officer corps selected from strict military placements directed by a centralized personnel office.[16]
This Heinkel 111A, one of 11 bought by the Aviation Ministry, later found its way to the CNAC

In addition, with German help, China would have to build up its own defense industry because it could not rely on buying arms from abroad forever. The first step toward efficient industrialization was the centralization of not only the Chinese reconstruction agencies, but also German ones. In January 1934, the Handelsgesellschaft für industrielle Produkte, or Hapro, was created to unify all German industrial interests in China.[17] Hapro was nominally a private company to avoid oppositions from other foreign countries. In August 1934, "Treaty for the Exchange of Chinese Raw Materials and Agricultural Products of German Industrial and Other Products" was signed in which the Chinese government would send strategically important raw material in exchange for German industrial products and development. This barter agreement was beneficial to Sino-German cooperation since China had a very high budget deficit due to military expenditures through years of civil war and was unable to secure monetary loans from the international community. The agreement that led to massive Chinese export of raw material also made Germany independent of international raw material markets. In addition, the agreement expedited not only Chinese industrialization, but also military reorganization. The agreement also specified that China and Germany were equal partners and that they were both important in this economic exchange. Having accomplished this important milestone in Sino-German cooperation, von Seeckt transferred his post to General Alexander von Falkenhausen and returned to Germany in March 1935, where he died in 1936.
Chinese ambassador in Berlin

Finance minister of China and Kuomintang official H.H. Kung and two other Chinese Kuomintang officials visited Germany in 1937 and were received by Adolf Hitler.[18][19] Kung and a Chinese delegation took part in King George VI's coronation in 1937 (Kung was by then vice prime minister, secretary of treasury and president of Central Bank of China). After the coronation they visited Germany, invited by Hjalmar Schacht and Werner von Blomberg.

The Chinese delegacy arrived at Berlin on June 9, 1937. Kung met Hans von Mackensen on June 10 (von Neurath was visiting eastern Europe); during the meeting, Kung pointed out that Japan was not a reliable ally for Germany, as he believed that Germany had not forgotten the Japanese invasion of Tsingtao and the Pacific Islands during World War I. China was the real anti-communist state and Japan was only "flaunting". Von Mackensen promised that there would be no problems in Sino-Germany relationship so far as he and Neurath were in charge of the Foreign Ministry. Kung also met Schacht on the same day. Schacht explained to him that the anti-Comintern pact was not an German-Japanese alliance against China. Germany was glad to loan China 100 million Reichsmark and they would not do so with Japanese.[20]
JU 52 Eurasia airliner in China

Kung visited Hermann Göring on June 11, Göring told him he thought Japan was a "Far East Italy" (referring to the fact that during World War I Italy had broken its alliance and declared war against Germany), and Germany would never trust Japan.[21] Kung asked Göring "Which country will Germany choose as her friend, China or Japan?", and Göring said China could be a mighty power in the future and Germany would take China as friend.

Kung met Hitler on June 13. Hitler told Kung Germany had no political or territorial demands in Far East, Germany was a strong industrial country and China was a huge agricultural country; Germany's only thought on China is business. Hitler also hoped China and Japan could cooperate and Hitler could mediate any disputes between these two countries, as he mediated the disputes between Italy and Yugoslavia. Hitler also told Kung that Germany would not invade other countries, and was also not afraid of foreign invasion. If Russia dared to invade Germany, one German division could defeat two Russian corps. The only thing he (Hitler) worried about was bolshevism in eastern European states, being a threat to German interests and market. Hitler also said he admired Chiang because he built a powerful centralized government.[22]

Kung met von Blomberg on the afternoon of June 13 and discussed the execution of 1936 HAPRO Agreement. Under this agreement, the German Ministry of War loaned China 100 million Reichsmarks to purchase German weapons and machines. In order to repay the loan, China provided Germany with tungsten and antimony.

Kung left Berlin on June 14 to visit the US, and returned to Berlin on August 10, one month after Sino-Japanese War broke out. He met von Blomberg, Schacht, von Mackensen and Ernst von Weizsäcker, asking them to mediate the war.

Peter, with this extensive history lesson, are you trying to tell us that Japan would never have bought any "test" lugers from Germany because the latter would not trade with those "bad guys", the Japanese?

So educate me here gents. Is there, or was there ever, etc, a Luger tested by the Japanese, or is this speculation at best, or downright BS by forgers? Or do we just not know?
dju

David, I believe it's somewhere between "outright fakes" to "we don't know". The only one with any possible authenticity is the 42/1940 Chrysanthemum chamber marked Mauser luger pictured on page 375 of the Mauser Parabellum by Hallock and van de Kant. They call it "a very intriguing Luger pistol". A few of these have turned up. These Mauser pistols are "maybe's" but the earlier alledged Japanese Navy test Lugers are, IMO, outright fakes.

Dr.
There is no stock lug or welded stock lug in the pictures above.

John -

What is different about the contours of the rear of the barrel??? :confused:

(My eyes are not what they used to be)... :rolleyes:

drbuster,I was being a little silly....I just think it is unfair to see these so called rare variations being passed off as original when the evidence suggests that there are many mechanics out there who are creating bogus goods!!......Keeps it interesting though!!

It is interesting that they do not show the pistol "off safe" to see what is under the safety at that position, (although a skilled faker could scrub a German mark and add whatever they wanted there)

Also, would a "Test" pistol have been numbered on all its parts in the commercial fashion?

If truly fake somebody went to an awful lot of trouble, (the small navy acceptance stamps on barrel, receiver and magazine). Has only this one pistol turned up or are there other examples out there?

Rich,

Get out your magnifying glass old man... check the contours of the barrel flange on the blueprint CD you purchased from me (an extract is shown below) and then look at the contours of the actual flange on this gun... The taper on the barrel appears to be non-standard, and the way the taper is smoothed into the flange appears to ME to be too drastic. Not the gentle 6mm radiused curve of a genuine Luger barrel flange.

Not enough of the barrel muzzle is shown to make any further comments on the other end, but if you just compare the flange to one of your original luger barrels, you should see the difference.

As mentioned above, some M1900 lugers have the last 3 digits of serial # on the side plate and rear link. TH

Mike C., examine the thickness of the rear frame area in the last photo. It is much thicker than it should be. When you held this pistol and ran your finger down the rear handgrip, you could feel the obvious bulge there. It may not be so evident in the picture, but believe me it is there!

Questions.

The barrel design difference....Could the barrel be 8mm?

Welded up stock lug.....The Japanese have very small hands. Could welding up the stock lug help to "fill the hand" when the hand is smaller?

Why wouldn't any country who test a firearm have it modified for THEIR specific use?

Numbers....Is the number style consistant with the stampings done with the German manufacturer?

From what I understand of the discussion thus far, no one has proof that it is real and no one can prove that it is faked other than a few markings/design aspects and it's not in someones book.

Hi Duane, There is no plausible explanation for the three Imperial Navy proof marks. The piece is an outright fake. The only questions are: who, when and where. Regards, Norm

Thanks for the response Norme.

The Imperial Seal of Japan consisted of a Chrysanthemum with 16 petals. And it was this "mum" that is found on the receivers of their rifles. (Surrendered weapons had the mum ground off or chisel marked out. Captured weapons will usually have this mark intact.) Plus, the tips of the individual petals were rounded, and not indented as they are in this design. The Imperial Japanes were very strict about how and where this mark was to be used. It's use was even spelled out in their constitution at the time.

The five-petaled flower on the receiver is odd. Does anyone know whether this type of flower blossom was ever used on any Imperial Japanese weapon?

Now look at the anchor behind this blossom. Notice that at the top of the anchor, there is a cross-bar. At the end of the bar that is at the bottom of the picture, you can see there is a hole, apparently for the attachement of a rope or line.

Now look at the top end of this same bar and you will see that this hole is missing. Instead, the "engraving" tapers off into two distinct pointed lines. In my opinion, this lack of quality is not what one would expect from a legitimate DWM produced firearm.

It is also possible that it was simply not filled in all the way with the white paint. In any event there are enough red flags on this one to seriously doubt its authenticity.

the most suspicious thing to my amateur eyes that everytime one of these rare "variations" surface, they're in near mint, museum condition.....c'mon..I mean what are the odds?

' Slim to None"

Norm just brings up ONE of the way out markings that just scream: FAKE!!

Would a filed lug have the same contour as a welded-up backstrap??? :confused:

No, it would be noticeably flatter.

In this photo - front of the frame clearly looks re-machined. Flat is so visible and rails on the frame and slide are not flash with each other. Indicates material being removed.
Is it just me or somebody else see the same.

http://forum.lugerforum.com/attachme...1&d=1295308252


Back of the frame also looks re-surfaced to me.
http://forum.lugerforum.com/attachme...1&d=1295308252

Joe, I tend to think the same thing when I see that "flat" on the front of a frame, but others have pointed out that this phenomenon does appear in some very legitimate version of the Luger. The slide sticking out past the frame also makes me suspicious of a number change... Just my $0.02

What I REALLY like about this particular gun is the ultra craftsmanship of the grips. Notice how really nice and close the fit is on the back of the frame in the photo above? This is Absolutely exquisite hand work by DWM on these grips! They sure "don't make 'em like the used to!" --Do they?

Nice theory Ben, but you have misinterpreted the working engineering. The zip tie holding the breechblock keeps it from coming completely into battery. The breechblock held back would in-turn keep the toggle from fully closing. The slightly open toggle would restrain the slide from coming fully forward so that its front edge would be behind the front of the frame and not sticking out in front of the frame. Watch the Luger animation on our home page a few times & you might see why the relationship of the moving parts would result in this condition.

Also on VOPO refurbs. My P38 has such a flat on the frame front...but it is ground flat, not milled...

I would like to see a good frontal pic of the frame flat/serial area... ;)

Despite all these red flags, some hopeful telephone bidder paid $11,750 for this fantasy luger!

In the new Gortz-Sturgess book set, "Pistole Parabellum" they do list in the index "Japanese" and "Foreign Service 7.65mm P.08s for, (pages) 826, 726"

But when you go to these pages, they have no mention of "Japanese" and have nothing to do with such pistols either. I tried going forward and backward from these two page numbers, and still could not find anything to Japanese Lugers.

So I tried going to the Table of Contents in the front of the set, and looking at those subjects listed around pages 726 and 826 and still drew a blank.

It certainly appears that they intended to have something related to Japanese Lugers, but I have not been able to find it in their book. Maybe it is in there somewhere and I am just overlooking it.

Has anyone been able to find where the Japanese Lugers are actually covered in the Gortz-Sturgess book?

Thanks.

Ron, the only recent reference to Japanese lugers is on page 274-75 of Hallock and van de Kant's Mauser Parabellum, as I mentioned above. I have seen from time to time reference to early Japanese test lugers but always with poor photos, no provenence and you are left to draw your own conclusions (negative).