The M1906 Russian Contract Controversy Strikes Again
 

Hi Albert! Hope you are doing well. Guess you are right, some people never learn. Why would the Bulgarians order a Luger with an obscure chamber marking when they already had both 1900 and 1906 model Lugers with a nice Bulgarian crest? Doesn't make much sense to me, but then I don't know why the Russians chose crossed rifles either.

P.S. If we are going to start up this old friendly discussion again, let's start a new thread and not hjack this one.

Hi Ron,

I wonder if amnesia is slowly creeping up on you since the past discussion on this controversial contract Luger. In regards to the different chamber emblem on the M1908 Bulgarian Infantry Officers Luger, the order was likely placed by Tsar Ferninard I who was the 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. This connection and Bulgaria gaining its independence in October 1908 from the Ottoman Empire makes more sense than compared to a M1906 'Russian Luger' which has no strong meaning/explanation for the crossed rifles (Infantry insignia) on the chamber.

It has also been reported and observed that Bulgaria received a number of deliveries from DWM starting in 1903 with the M1900/03 Bulgarian Luger, and it is safe to say that the M1908 Infantry Officers Luger was probably a special order by the Tsar for some of his important officers which logically explains its different markings and caliber after 1906. So far, all the 'hot air' about the fake M1900, and the M1906 Russian contract is hearsay. In my opinion, the Russians would have had no reason to order a Luger for its national army with obscure crossed rifles on the chamber (plus with Bulgarian safety markings) which ironically has confused Luger experts for many, many years, and no one on the 'Russian side' can give a sensible explanation to this day for such an odd occurrence. This kind of mystery is similar to searching for answers for some illinesses - if a doctor or a scientist cannot give a cause for the illness, just leave the case open or give it an unknown.

By the way, based on some 'detective work' that I had conducted on a deluxe factory engraved M1849 Pocket Colt revolver that was found last year in France, an authority of the subject shared some information with me that the cased Gustave Young deluxe engraved Colt Dragoon revolver serial #12406 in the national Metropolitan Museum (having been offered $6 million before its donation to the museum in 1996) is not one of three presentation revolvers from Samuel Colt to the Sultan of Turkey around the outbreak of the Cremean War in 1853 as documented in one of Wilson's books on the subject of Engraved Colt revolvers. It appears that the truth gives a different sequence of events. Even past and present books written by various authors, including his holiness Geoff Sturgess, continue to make mistakes.

Albert

Albert, I am sorry, your theory is just an opinion and your theory has not convinced me that Russian lugers don't exist.

You have been asked, told and whacked for Always bringing up Sturgess.

Do you have amnesia? QUIT throwing out his name for NO reason? I have no relation or interest in his books, but your comments are out of place most of the time?

When are you going to write a book and put your neck out where folks can chop at it, as you have done for Sturgess' book (did you buy it BTW?) and other peoples books?

Hi Albert, I have a new theory. Tsar Ferdinand cancelled a contract with DWM because of the incident described below (thank you Wikipedia). DWM, stuck with several hundred partially finished Bulgarian Lugers, applied the now famous Mosin-Nagant chamber decoration, and offered them for sale on the Russian civilian market. Rather a neat theory, don't you think? Best regards, Norm


Ferdinand was known for being quite a character. On a visit to German Emperor Wilhelm II, his second cousin once removed, in 1909, Ferdinand was leaning out of a window of the New Palace in Potsdam when the Emperor came up behind him and slapped him on the bottom. Ferdinand was affronted by the gesture and the Emperor apologised. Ferdinand however exacted his revenge by awarding a valuable arms contract he had intended to give to the Krupp's factory in Essen to French arms manufacturer Schneider-Cruseot.[9]

Hi Edward,

As the American phrase goes "some people just don't get it". While the critics cannot accept logical opinions and common sense due to having some kind of complex, they fail to give any strong reason for still believing in the crippled 'Russian theory' - instead, they prefer to believe in fiction from wrong sources that satisfies their ego - it is like playing politics where nothing moves forward. How can the critics imagine that such a mistake could be made by a government? It was NOT DWM who controlled the terms of the order - it was the foreign government military. If it never happened with the the dealings of the Mauser factory, why could something different happen with the DWM factory? I suppose that the discovery of much stronger theories can often lead to disappointment which can be a real heartbreaker! When critics take the 'fifth', their silence or spectulation does not win them any ground. Instead, it shows that their opinions are sinking.

What is wrong with mentioning Geoff's name who seems to still believe in the Russian theory and also other wrong stories? Are you trying to make his knowledge and position untouchable because of the size of his collection, the perception of his knowledge, and the intangable support that he gives to various collectors? No, I have not bought his messed-up books and I do not intend to either - I have sorrow for the trees that it wasted!

In regards to my book on the Mauser C96, I am still gathering information to continue building on the accuracy of the information that I shall provide on the subject. For your information, a solid book on a subject where plenty of information has been lost takes time and plenty of research. I am not a person who just snaps some good pictures and throw it all in a mixing bowl with some text. I do consult with other experts and make every effort to visit them. I prefer to be a 'detective' who examines genuine pieces as well as searching for data from surviving sources which usually takes plenty of time and expenses in traveling. Unfortunately, Geoff has ruined his reputation and integrity and he is paying the price for his mistakes. Those people who want to remain on his sinking ship will also get wet!

Albert

Albert, I just don't understand how your bringing up Sturgess in so many of your postings helps your theories? I don't know the man, never met him and never met you.

The excuse for not finishing your book is that you are gathering together data is an old, lame excuse and one I have seen numerous times after the person has died and the family wonders what to do with this semi-finished manuscript. You have been working on this book for what, 5 years? 10 or is it 15 years? What are you waiting for?

I don't believe some of your theories because you don't provide concrete paperwork or provide documentation from other guns. I have never said that your theories could not be correct, but simply that you base it on conjecture, just as the present theories are based.

If the crossed rifles were a marketing ploy, just as the american eagle was, then that hurts the theory that DWM and the gov'ts were involved in the reason behind the crossed rifles. If you go on the assumption that Bulgaria / Russia, they didn't ask, just as the US gov't didn't ask for the crest on the chamber, as no precise measurements were taken, given or asked for. If you take that into consideration, then the crossed rifles is just a marketing ploy for a 'commercial' market and not some gov't request.

Do you have any idea how many 'geladen' and Geischert marked lugers came to america? Now why would they have new made lugers come to america that had the german language instead of in english? Shouldn't all new made lugers instead have SAFE and Loaded on them? Perhaps because they had a lot more frames and extractors already marked, just as they already had bulgarian extractors marked. DWM simply didn't care, DWM made lots of mistakes or omissions, sales were more important than some precise wording for commercially sold guns to Russia.

Dear Albert, There is no supporting evidence for your Tsar Ferdinand the First* theory, none whatsoever, not in Germany, not in Bulgaria, and not in Minsk. However, even were one to accept this theory, I would point out that, since Minsk is in Russia, these Lugers would be Russian anyway!
*Since there was not to be a Tsar Ferdinand the Second, he should more properly be called simply, Tsar Ferdinand.
Best regards, Norm

Albert,
Thank you very much for starting a new thread for this discussion. I can’t attribute anything I have said now or in the past to amnesia…but there is an argument for senility (advancing years and all that):).

I have acknowledged that your assertions about this model of Luger are well thought out and are both scholarly and plausible. However, they remain conjecture without a shred of evidence to back them up… and I will preempt your objections by stating that there is also not a shred of hard evidence to support my belief that this model has Russian roots.

But to date my unshakeable conviction that this controversial Luger is “Russian” lies with several factors:

I have already mentioned the existence of the two early Bulgarian Lugers with very elaborate and readily identifiable chamber crests. Why abandon this singularly distinctive marking for an ambiguous crossed rifle mark? (Not to mention the fact that you and other detractors have acknowledged that the rifles are indeed Mosin-Nagant. Those rifles only represented 13% of the Bulgarian rifle armament, so it would be an odd choice for a “Bulgarian” Luger)

Next, the safety marking is undoubtedly exactly the same as that found on Bulgarian Lugers. But considering the era it was made, there is a strong argument (in my mind at least :)) that it is also, if not correct, at least understandable in Russian. In earlier discussions about this language anomaly, very well educated and intelligent forum members have roundly rejected any Russian connection based on their present day familiarity with the differences in the Cyrillic spelling in the respective Russian and Bulgarian languages…and I am sure they will still consider me the village idiot. However, long before the controversy on the exact origin of this model arose and I had acquired my Luger, I was curious about the Russian and Bulgarian marking understanding as they existed then. I made copies of the marks that were available in early references and sought interpretation by Russian speaking individuals. My most convincing translation came from an elderly Russian immigrant who had no knowledge of Lugers and not a lot of familiarity with firearms in general. He was alive and literate when these weapons were produced (sadly he has since passed away a number of years ago at the age of 95). He immediately recognized the safety marking as “fire” and gave me the pronunciation of the word, but could not translate the Bulgarian extractor marking. Conversely, he correctly translated the “Russian” extractor as “a charge”. I find it a bit amusing that our current scholars can dismiss the “Russian” extractor marking as the same in both languages, but refuse to accept that at the turn of the century the safety marking would be the same and understood by a Russian. I am inclined to accept the commonality of the Russian/Bulgarian safety marking as interpreted by an individual who was contemporary with the date of manufacture over the well intentioned interpretation by our modern scholars.

John Walter in his writings also indicates that the Cyrillic alphabet was essentially the same for both Russian and Bulgarian languages prior to its standardization and had received the same interpretation that the safety marking was equivalent in both languages. So I am not alone in that thought.

And, getting back to the extractor marking, why in the world would Ferdinand single out this particular example to have a different inscription than the contemporary Model 1906 Bulgarian and the subsequent Model 1908 Bulgarian extractors? It just defies logic. And I hope you won’t tell me it was so that the Russians could understand it since, as you maintain, it was intended for his Bulgarian soldiers in the Russian unit.

This interpretation is my own and not because of influence by any other individual or author. I am capable of developing my own opinions and do not slavishly adhere to someone else’s theory (including yours :)). You and I will remain polarized on this subject, and that is OK.

Well, one thing that always puzzled me about Bulgaria is that it was Steyr-Mannlicher territory due to the cartel agreement between the Loewe Group companies of DWM, Mauser and FN and Steyr-Mannlicher.

Recently I finally found a copy of one of the cartel agreement renewals and was surprised to see that pistols were exempted from the agreement, as were commercial (hunting and sporting) rifles. The cartel agreement only specifically covered military rifle contracts.

Not sure what that brings to the Russian/Bulgarian Luger enigma, but after a bit of reflection perhaps it will reveal itself to me. Thank you for your diligent research. It is great to have an European resource contributing to these discussions.

Ron, thanks :)

It's actually quite simple: If the pistols were covered by the cartel agreement, DWM would not have been enabled, or allowed, to supply luger pistols to Bulgaria, at least not without consent from Steyr-Mannlicher, in the pre-1914 era.

The 1908-1909 time frame is correct, but what that means to us is still up in the air. It helps Albert's case but doesn't hurt the other theories. We have a very very small number of guns that look OK, and many that are obvious fakes.

We know that DWM made very small contracts as small as 300 guns, so a small number of original examples would not be unusual , also both the Russians and Bulgarians are known to make use of items for a long time and a refinished gun is both possible and expected in both cases. So this might explain some of the " fakes" we love to point out.

So here we sit, we haven't found any thing new in a year or so and the best have been at it pretty hard :) ( Albert, Ed, Ron)

This is a great gun to study in detail.
I honestly like the fact that I have not been able to prove them all fake, even though there are times I think they are.
Every hobby needs such an example, it would be boring otherwise.

Vern

So here we sit, we haven't found any thing new in a year or so and the best have been at it pretty hard ( Albert, Ed, Ron)

Hi Vern, Thats not quite true. Since this issue was last thrashed out , the new Görtz/Sturgess book has been published. Dr Sturgess throws his not inconsiderable weight on the side of the Russian commercial theory. I know that this will not impress Albert, but I think it does tilt the scales. Best regards, Norm

Hi Norm,

Your theory might be a neat story, but it is a very long shot. I doubt that DWM would sell pistols destined for the Russian civilian market (via a Russian dealer) which were previously for sale to a foreign country. Do not forget that the introduction of the New Model in 9 mm caliber was the first time that Bulgaria received this pistol directly from DWM. If any part of your theory was to be considered, usually it would be a government who would make such a decision in regards to 'surplus' firearms, such as the case with the M1900 Test trial Lugers being sold to Bannerman.

To the best of my knowledge, the Krupp factory in Essen sold cannons and not firearms. I guess that if the Kaiser had also squeezed his arse, DWM could have lost this small purchase of pistols!

Don't touch me ;)
Albert

Edward,

I mention Geoff in a number of my comments because there are people like you who consider him so important in the collectors society when a number of people do not know what caused his reputation to tumble. His name and reputation has some stains like Ralph which is not as revealing because less is known about Geoff than compared to Ralph. He tries to use his 'holy' position and pompous English background to create a special image of himself, and he prefers to only exposes himself through his various publications which contain a number of errors. He will never admit that he is wrong, so he deserves the attacks that he receives. It seems that the size of his collection which he mainly acquired in one large sweep from Henk Visser in the early 1990's is what impresses collectors, but they should also learn what other rubbish has gone though his hands before saying 'Wow'. If it was not for his wealth and his 'proper' English attitude, I wonder what he would stand for in different times and circumstances?

In regards to my manuscript on the Mauser C96 which I have been working on for about 15 years, you do not need to worry about it never being made into a book - I am still young and in good health, unless your health is going in the opposite direction. I intend to make my book on the Mauser C96 a 'bible' on the subject and I have access to all the finest pieces in the world including to the first two Spur Hammer prototypes. I have learned from various experts how to properly present information based on sound historical facts and traditions, and not make similar errors like on the 'M1906 Russian Luger' and the 'Swiss-Anglo B/L pistols'.

When concrete information is not available, of course, conjecture is all that remains - As thet they say, believe what you want. However, in the case of the 'M1906 Russian Luger' theory, what can the critics provide? NOTHING - Just any excuse or weak opinion to keep it alive.

Considering the the great length of this topic being debated, I am surprised how the critics do not yet understand about the characteristics and differences of a contract and a commercial pistol. Usually, contract pistols need to be made under specific and/or strict guidelines provided by a foreign government. You tell me why the M1906 Russian Contract Luger has these strange markings that has confused collectors for decades? Is this 'curve ball' suppose to happen with a contract Luger (or a Mauser C96 pistol)? How come we do not see these odd occurences with the Portugese Lugers delivered around the same time frame? Just simply learn that the crossed rifles likely mean an infantry connection just like an anchor means navy. Now, you figure out some kind of connection between the infantry emblem on the chamber and the Russian Empire. I believe that the Tsar of Bulgaria being an infantry leader in his nation carries more weight than any empty 'Russian theory'. If you say the DWM made mistakes and omissions, they probably occurred with pistols sold in different commercial markets, but I have yet heard of a serious careless mistake dealing with a foreign contract. And do not forget about that M1902 Russian Luger Carbine with the same (contract) crossed rifles on the chamber!

Albert

You are so immersed in your own world that you have no idea?

I do not know Sturgess and do not care that you dislike him. But I have tried to impress upon you that you need to NOT be a jerk to anyone, and BTW that includes me. As a moderator I feel it is my duty to keep things on an even keel, but you seem to think that means that I don't like you and like Sturgess. The point is sport, that I don't care or not care about either of you (no offense meant), however, since you make snide comments about me and to me..... It makes it hard to respect you. Leave it be and remember I will enforce the rules; one is listen to the moderators and treat others with respect.

Oh, BTW, I could care less about your book and how exciting that you feel it will be the 'bible' of brooms. yawnnnnnn

sorry, but disparaging other authors, who have put in untold hours on research is disrespectful.


Ed

In ref to your comments above; what makes you feel this was a Bulgarian that went to Russia? That falls in line with your theory. Your theory is not proven, so you can't say that the russian commercial theory is wrong, when it would have to rely on your theory being correct, which is not proven?

Edward, you do not seem to understand my response to Norm's comment. I do not see any reason why the DWM factory would decide to sell (Bulgarian) Luger pistols with CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS to a Russian dealer for sales on the commercial market, even if these pistols were assumed to be surplus military firearms. If a Russian buyer would ask what is the reason/purpose of these obscure markings, what would you expect the Russian dealer to say? "Sorry, those Germans f***ed up and decided to sell us these (Bulgarian) pistols as rejects. Why not just offer a standard commercial Luger - which is exactly described in a Russian dealers catalog from 1906 that I have in my archive, the pistol being a M1900 in caliber 7,65 mm. Could this listing in the catalog be the sale/delivery of the M1900 Russian Lugers with the crossed rifles on the chamber? By the way, notice the M1902 carbine with crossed rifles on the chamber!!

Obviously, it is difficult for some collectors to rationalize without fully understanding the culture and traditions of Imperial Germany. Without being racist, Americans will continue to think like Americans and often go along with 'knee-jerk' reactions. The American mentality in regards to the firearms industry is quite different from the German way in the past and the present.

Albert

Albert you aren't German so unsure why you say things like that?

I guess I need to re-read your posts and figure out why you think this way about the Bulgarians (seriously)

Your style of writing is many times difficult to read and figure out, because you put in a lot of extraneous info about 'certain people', about americans, about how people don't get it etc. Reminds me of a couple of lawyer friends that I know, they have been taught their entire lives that if you can say it in 2 paragraphs, then make sure you say it in 6 paragraphs.

Albert is of German lineage. But then, so am I :).

Sure, so are many folks here, I have my great-grandfathers German Military Discharge paperwork from the late 1800's

That is what I mean Ron, Albert makes these "American" comments and he speaks German probably only a bit better than I do :)

Obviously, it is difficult for some collectors to rationalize without fully understanding the culture and traditions of Imperial Germany. Without being racist, Americans will continue to think like Americans and often go along with 'knee-jerk' reactions. The American mentality in regards to the firearms industry is quite different from the German way in the past and the present.

Albert

Hi Albert,
I do understand "the culture and traditions of Imperial Germany". Both my parents grew up in Germany and my three older siblings were born in Berlin. The family spoke German at home and my Mother remained a typical German Hausfrau to the end. However, business is business, and DWM, a privately owned company, was in business to make money. It is not impossible to imagine that if DWM was stuck with a few hundred Bulgarian frames from a production overrun or cancelled contract, that they would seek to recoup their investment by dumping them on the Russian commercial market.
Albert, I've enjoyed our debate, as I'm sure Ron and Ed have, but I urge you to keep it at a scholarly, impersonal level. We will likely never know the truth about these fascinating guns, but along the way, I have learned a lot from you and the others.
All the best, Norm

OK folks, I am enjoying this running discussion on one of my favorite variations. I am digesting once again what has been posted on this forum as well as outside readings. Albert has mentioned a couple of key considerations that had not registered with me before and perhaps are the crux of our disagreement. Please bear with me as I attempt to write my "opus magnum (minimum?)" on this delicious topic. It may take me a couple of days as my thought processes are not as rapid as someone several years my junior, but hopefully they are more deliberate. I will return to this thread when I can compose what I hope will be a meaningful response. "Watch this space for future developments" :) !

Thank you Ron for correcting Edward by informing him that I am a German national (born in Munich, Bavaria). I also have some French blood in my veins from my ancestor who was a General in the Napolean army who stopped over in Malta in June 1798 during Napolean's campaign to Egypt. General Count Augustin Daniel Belliard was the Governor of Egypt during the period.

Unfortunately, my German language is rather rusty due to the fact German was not spoken in my family when I was a young kid growing up in Africa. I used to speak French fluently, but most of it has been lost over the years, except that when I go to visit collectors in France where I am able to practice some of the language.

Cheers,
Albert

Norm, what has not been performed by the critics is deep 'detective' work on this topic. The critics only 'ammo' is a defensive position only stating that the 'Bulgarian theory' is conjecture. It seems that the 'Russian theory' only gives the critics some form of comfort with regards to errors made in the past. If Kenyon agrees with me that the 'Bulgarian theory' has more truth/substance than compared to the old shaky 'Russian theory', what is the problem with the critics believing a much stronger theory? Here is a promenant author accepting a mistake which the critics cannot otherwise handle. It basically means that the critics wish to continue believing in wrong information twisted by other 'experts' when they do not want to look deeper into the culture and heritage of Germany during the imperial era. I agree that 'business is business', but I do think that the Germans would compromise their reputation by selling a foreign government/military a small quantity of surplus firearms during the Imperial era. Such a situation would have placed a large stain on the DWM factory. Whatever a foreign military did with their pistols after delivery is their business.

Albert

What mistake is that??? :confused:

Which wrong information is that??? :confused:

The mistake of identifying the Luger pistol with crossed rifles on the chamber as a Russian Contract Luger. Furthermore, Mr. Kenyon had overlooked the fact that crossed rifles normally refer to an Infantry regiment. If he had recognized this detail when he wrote the book, I suppose that he would have gotten it right as a another Bulgarian contract pistol, especially when these pistols have Bulgarian markings - there is nothing Russian on it! Unfortunately, what we learn today cannot be applied 50 years ago and critics will be critics.

The wrong information which was originally written in the book 'Lugers at Random' about the M1906 Russian Luger that was repeated by other authors in future Luger books.

It would be great to have some contacts in Bulgaria going through the archives there.

About the cartel agreement: One of the first lessons of historical research is to find out whether a particular item that exists today had the possibility to exist in the time frame it was claimed to come from.

With the Bulgarian/Russian luger, the same practice exists. If the cartel agreement between Steyr-Mannlicher and Loewe existed for pistols, then it would be very, very unlikely that any Parabellum pistol was sold to Steyr-Mannlicher controlled areas (like Bulgaria).

So we have established that:
-Mannlicher had the exclusive right to sell military rifles to Bulgaria and Rumania.
-Loewe group had the exclusive right to sell rifles to Serbia and Greece.
-The market for sporting/hunting rifles, pistols and revolvers was open for all players

Which means that
-There was a market for the Parabellum in Bulgaria at the time.
-Loewe/DWM was free to sell Parabellum pistols to any military organization in that country.

Edward, with regards to your point about a so-called 'marketing ploy', you fail to understand the notion of consistency. If the Swiss market received Lugers with a national Swiss cross, the Americans received Lugers with the national US emblem (eagle), the Bulgarians received Lugers with the national Bulgarian crest (raised lions), why would the Russians receive crossed rifles when their national crest was a double-headed eagle with a crown? Furthermore, I guess it would have been easier from the start to leave the safety area unmarked until an order was received. Considering what you say, if this was intended to be a marketing ploy, it is one hell of a confusing one created by DWM! I mentioned this in the original thread a few months ago, but I suppose that your short memory does not go back very far.

If you claim that DWM made lots of mistakes or omissions with regards to foreign contracts, please describe a few others to me. It is possible that commercial sales had a few small exceptions, but not to the extreme of placing (infantry) crossed rifles on a chamber for the Russian civilian market. This would be a marketing ploy without any sense and a waste of money for DWM during production. You make the Germans look like fools when they were more precise than the Americans - and still are! I have no knowledge of DWM or Mauser selling rejects or surplus pistols during the imperial era. It may have happened with the sale of military rifles which were sold in much large quantities, but we could be talking apples and oranges on this different subject.

Excuse me for often writing in excess, but sometimes I have no choice when I try to explain a simple logical theory which is different from the American way of thinking and method of manufacturing. It seems that the Americans are bent on a certain square mentality which other foreigners see as awkward/bizarre. Of course, the Americans are excellent in technology and logistics (in the past and present), but there is still plenty of room for improvement although it often costs more money.

Albert

Ok Albert, let me be really clear.

YOU SAY ANOTHER COMMENT LIKE THAT TO ANY MEMBER AND YOU WILL BE BANNED.

It is simple, quit making comments like this.

I can't wait! :order:

Hereunder are some points to consider:

1. Try to explain with some common sense why the Russian Government/Military would prefer placing vague crossed rifles (infantry) on the chamber instead of their national crest?;
2. If the M1900 Russian Contract is viewed as a legitimate Luger (delivered in 1904 after the M1900/03 Bulgarian Luger contract, why does it NOT have a safety marking like the M1900/03 Bulgarian Luger? The Bulgarian variations show consistency whereas the two 'Russian' variations are inconsistent. I suppose that the DWM 'marketing department' would have suggested safety markings to the Russian Military if they had already placed safety markings on the earlier Bulgarian contract. I believe that would be good business by the DWM factory. Maybe nobody knew a single word of Russian at the DWM factory!;
3. Who in Russia could have been the users of these pistols and how many of these pistols are known to have come out of Russia? I am hearing that the Russians are known to keep pretty good records in their (secret) archives, so how come there is not ONE single Russian collector who can say with certainty that these pistols were Russian contract Lugers? Interestingly, there are records from 1853 of those deluxe engraved Colt revolvers that were presented to Czar Nicolas I from Samuel Colt including other deluxe engraved revolvers to various officers and nobles, so how come not a single record exists of those Lugers delivered to the Russian military? There are at least three Bulgarian collectors who can state that the M1906 model is a Bulgarian Luger;

Good luck, Amigo ;)

Dear Albert, If may address a couple of your points. Firstly, you keep referring to the "Russian Government/Military" ordering these Lugers from DWM. No one I know of has made this claim, yet you keep repeating this assertion over and over again. This is a classic "straw man" debating tactic in which one distorts an opponents position so that it can be refuted. It is unworthy of you. We have always maintained that these pistol were assembled by DWM for the Russian civilian market.
Secondly, it is entirely possible that no one at DWM, at that time, was familiar with either Bulgarian or Russian. Remember, this was some years before the mass Western migration of Eastern Europeans triggered by the war and the Russian revolution.
Best regards, Norm

Hi Norm,

If the (fake) M1900 Russian was ordered and tested by the Russian military in 1904 and the 'M1906 Russian' happens to have similar contract features/characteristics (like the M1906 Portuguese Lugers), then it is safe to say that it was a contract order and not for the civilian market. When Charles Kenyon wrote in 'Lugers at Random' that these Lugers were for a contract to Russia, who is now coming up with the ideas that it was for commercial sales instead and for what reason? Were the M1906 Portuguese Lugers for the civilian market? I am not distorting an opponents position - simply look at the pistol and its characteristics speak for themselves.

Sweet dreams,
Albert

Albert, the pics of the DWM Japanese prototype Luger at www.forgottenweapons.com lends credence to this argument...

Hi Rich, I don't think that posting a picture of this particular gun adds credence to anyone's argument! Best regards, Norm

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...ese+navy+luger

Nice try, Rich. I'll be nice and give your effort an answer. If you read carefully my previous post, I make reference to NATIONAL emblems (Swiss, AE and Bulgarian) - not military units. That so-called japanese prototype is very, very suspicious and that unknown chamber marking seems to be for some navy unit. The infantry, as in the case of the crossed rifles, is NOT a national emblem. It cannot pertain to the Russian empire/nation, so the 'marketing ploy' explanation that Edward had mentioned is also useless.

Albert

Edward,

<Moderated>

Of course, I have made a few mistakes in the past while researching various subjects (i.e. with Mauser C96 pistols), however, when I gain new valid information, I always try to incorporate it very carefully in line with other correct and logical facts. This is exactly what I am doing on this particular subject where the information that I am presenting is in line with historical facts, events and German heritage. Nobody can say that the 'Bulgarian theory' in wrong even though the critics continue to use the 'escape door' of 'conjecture'; however, I can state with a very high degree of confidence that the 'Russian Contract Luger' was NEVER delivered to Russia.

Albert

Norm -

Thanks for the link! :thumbup:

It led to several other links, including posts by Pete Ebbinck and drbuster, both of whom I respect. Plus a PDF document on faked Lugers which was quite interesting, if somewhat suspect as to accuracy. ;)

I've found Still's forum to be so large and segmented that it is a daunting task [for me] to try to keep current with the various and varied threads...A classic case (again, for me) of 'too much information'... :(

<Moderated> = censorship

Oops, I just remembered that I cannot give any advise or suggestions to the forum 'masters'. Probably, it will be taken as being 'rude' and against their way of thinking.

Albert

NO, ALBERT, YOU just got suspended because you are difficult.


Admin

Thank you Albert, I almost feel vindicated............:D:D:D

Harry