Another .45 Luger Question...
 

Wonder if anyone can help :

Observation # 1 : In Lugers at Radom (C. Kenyon) on page # 111 is a nice photo of the .45 luger that belonged to Sid Aberman (serial # 2), at one time. If you hold a ruler flat against the surface of the rear frame and let it extend down to the grip, you can see that the vertical plane of the rear frame surface is just about even with the rear-most portion of the bottom, rear of the grip.

Please also note that the vertical length of the grip safety is somewhat "short" in its vertical dimension.

Observation # 2 : In Luger Tips, revised (M. Reese) on page 52; there is an old photo of another .45 luger. If you hold a ruler flat against the surface of the rear frame and let it extend down to the grip, you can see the vertical plane of the rear frame surface bisects the lower portion of the grip and that a good portion of the grip extends past this imaginary, vertical line. This seems to indicate the photo in the M. Reese book shows a different "model" of .45 luger than the .45 luger once owned by Sid Aberman (serial # 2).

Please also note in the M. Reese photo, the grip safety is much longer in its vertical dimension on this gun than on the Aberman gun.

Here are my questions :

1. Does anyone know what luger serial # was photographed in the photo shown in the M. Reese book ? Who took this photo, originally ?

As I understand, .45 luger (serial # 2) is with a new Owner, after Sid Aberman's death. Another .45 luger is in the Norton Gallery and may be serial # 5 (M. Reese does state he has seen both # 2 and # 5 in person).

2. Don't these two different photographs indicate that there might have been two (2) different models of .45 lugers made ?

Please forgive my ignorance and being a bit obtuse...any help and opinions would be appreciated !!! <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

Pete,
When you asked questions about the 45 luger back in June, you got all the info needed. There are 2 KNOWN guns. These are the ONLY KNOWN guns since the 1950's. Abermans gun and Nortons gun. In that thread Mike Jones told you how other pictures and sightings all came back to the two KNOWN guns. Now someone has told you there were 2 different types.THERE ARE ONLY 2 GUNS KNOWN, not several guns of different styles, 2 identical guns except serial #'s. Since this carbine has surfaced, the stories are getting a little hard to swallow,meaning that for the last 40+ years it has been common knowledge that only two exist. Sure people said they knew of one her or there, but surprise surprise, they never surfaced. as for the difference in pictures of guns,if you have Luger Variations, with the color inserts, look at Abermans gun on page 108, then look at the color picture of Nortons gun, Nortons gun looks bigger,is it really a bigger model, or do you think they just took the picture a little closer? I dont want to start any rumors, im guessing they are identical.

Pete, Since Mike Reese was living in New Orleans at the time that he wrote "Luger Tips", it's a good bet that it's the Norton 45 that he photographed. Also, since the DWM 45 lugers were not standard production pistols, but rather came out of their "custom shop", I would expect some minor differences from gun to gun. Tom H.

Hello Jeff,

I am not familiar with the "Luger Variations" book you mentioned. Who is/was the author ? Is it a Datig book ?

I will try to get my hands on a copy.

Did M. Reese, at some point in time, confirm the gun he shows in "Luger Tips" was/is in fact the Norton Gallery gun ? I did hear he lived in LA at the time; so it might make sense.

But the M. Reese photo does seem to be a much "older" photo. This photo does not match the quality of other photos in his book.

Thanks so much...

Pete

Pete, Luger Variations vol one is the book by Harry Jones. It is an older book 1959, mine is the updated and signed copy from 1975.

On the inside is a color photo of the Norton Luger, it states Norman Lee Photo, Richard W. Norton Jr., Collection and "is in fine condition, "GL" monogramed and has no serial number. Will it operate? In 1960, Norman Lee, Harry and Anne Jones fired this Luger 150 times; it functioned perfectly! Another .45 Caliber Luger is illustrated on page 108; contrary to constantly fabricated stories, there are only two known examples of this impressive over-sized Model". quote and end quote, I can't say for sure these are the only ones, but that is what Jones said in 1975.

Thanks Ed,

I will put this H. Jones books on my buy list...

But now I am even a bit more confused.

M. Reese states in his book that he had seen both serial numbers # 2 and # 5 in person.

If the Norton gun is not serialed, what luger did Reese see when he stated # 5 ?

Does anyone on the Forum know how I might reach Mr. Reese. If you can, please send me a Private Message with this contact info.

Hello Pete,
One of our forum members,Mike Jones, is the son of Harry Jones, The author of Luger Variations. Perhaps you should see if he has copies for sale. I have always found it a great source of info.

Pete,
I tried doing a search but couldn't find anything posted by Mike Jones, but I seem to remember a post by Mike explaining that the #5 .45 Luger was actually the R.W. Norton pistol. Does anyone else remember this?
I have also heard other theories on the magazines for the .45 Lugers. As they would have been fabricated by hand one at the time, they were simply numbered to provide a reference number and not a weapon number. None of the other test Lugers I am aware of which were sent to the US had serial numbered magazines. The Norton .45 Luger is not serial numbered, but has magazine #3.
Unless the Sidney Aberman .45 Luger has had the grip repaired, it too has the dreaded safety lever chip missing from the left grip. The Norton pistol does not have the chipped grip.

Pete,
Go back to your thread of 6-9-2002, Mike Jones had posted on that thread he is user #90. He has a gun shop in Torrance,CA called Collectors Gallery

Hello All,

Trying to recap what has been posted...sorry I do not yet have the H. Jones book :

If the Norton gun is # 5 (or not numbered..) but is "identical" to the S. Aberman gun # 2; then what gun was photographed in the M. Reese book ?

The gun photographed in the M. Reese book definitely has a different grip angle than the Aberman gun (and also the Norton gun)...

Am I wrong about my perception of this M. Reese gun photo ? It sure seems to show a gun that is different in its grip angle than is shown on the Aberman gun.

I am still a bit confused...(some may say this is my permanent state... [img]biggrin.gif[/img] )

If you compare two photos of a particular item, or similiar items, taken at different times, different settings, with different cameras, in different lighting, different conditions, etc., etc., and then imply that the items seem not to be similiar, or not the same; well, what would you expect? What is it that you are suggesting? Certainly, you have something in mind. Or, perhaps, you are correct: you are simply confused.

Pete,

The Norton gun is definitely unnumbered, but has a magazine that is numbered 3. This was confirmed to me by the curator of the museum last year.

Another thing about comparing published photos is that sometimes during the editing or printing process...photos get adjusted and lose their height and width ratio just so that they will fit into a particular place on a page... This can happen either digitally (if done today) or photographically (if they were published a long time ago.

As an example of distortion, If you look closely at the large version of the photo that is included in the .45 caliber Luger article on our General Information page (you have to click on the small version to see the large version), you can see that the taper of the barrel is somewhat distorted... this must have occured during the digitizing process.

Pete
Reportedly Ralph Shattuck was contending at the Kansas City Gun Show that there are two issues (variations?) of .45 Luger and that quite a number of .45 Lugers have recently surfaced.
I am confused, you seem to have excellent communication with Mr. Shattuck, why dont you ask him your questions about the .45 Lugers directly. Are your posts concerning the .45 Lugers intended as some form of communication between Mr. Shattuck. you and this Forum?
Jan

Hello Jan and Garfield,

No. I am really not interested in the .45 luger carbine issue...that will play out on its own, eventually.

I am just trying to understand if the grip angle on the .45 luger (non-cabine variety) that was photographed in the M. Reese book does or does not have a much more "slanted" grip angle than the Aberman gun and/or the Norton gun.

I thought this was a very simple question this beginner was trying to ask...

Does anyone know what gun is shown in the Reese photo ?

Does anyone agree that the grip angle is "different" ?

Very simple questions, don't you think...?

Pete:

Alright, for the purpose of this discussion, let us assume that, when compared, the two pictures, each depicting a 45 cal luger, leave one with the impression that the grip angles are different.

So? Where does that take us? For the reasons previously stated by John S and myself, the pictures, or what they depict, is not a valid premise on which to base your arguement that the grip angles of the two lugers are not identical.

Never mind, I jumped to conclusions again.

Hello Garfield,

Interesting how when we were discussing two (or the same) HK lugers in the R. Gibson book on pages 175 and 179; some totally dismissed my surmising that this alledged "faked/boosted" HK luger could, I repeat could, be explained by the top photos of two lugers beig mixed up on the publisher's cutting table and the side view photos might be the same gun, unaltered, but photographed under different lighting conditions. I think I was dismissed as being "silly".

But now when two photos may appear to show two .45 lugers with different grip angles; the argument that different lighting conditions and/or gun angles are used to support the hypothesis that these photos can only show the same type of .45 model with the same grip angles...photographed differently.

I am not sure I follow the logic here...

And does the vertical length of a grip safety become "shorter" when the gun is rotated away from the camera ?

I have tried this with my 1929 Bern, which has a very long vertical grip safety and I do not think the grip safety gets any "shorter", in a vertical plane, no matter how much I angle the Bern away from camera front...if anything it get longer as the luger is rotated away from camera center.

Then if I rotate my Bern towards the camera, the perceived grip angle becomes more slanted and the grip safety lever gets short.

This, I think, discounts the fact that the M. Reese photo gun was rotated towards the camera and is either perpendicular to the camera or rotated away...with the resulting perception of a less slanted grip angle and a longer grip safety lever than compared to the Aberman photos which seem to be photographed "square" to camera angle.

If I think about this anymore, I think my head will burst...sort of like those little martians in the movie Mars Attacks... [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

Respectfully,

Pete...

Well Pete, if I get my scanner working again (got a new computer desk and it messed my "system" up by placement. Anyway, if I get my scanner working, I'll scan in all the .45 pics I can find and put them side by side and such, see how they look.

Identical serial #'s and matching imperfections shown in two pictures of two guna in the same book are not "alleged" grip angle and safety length differences shown on two pictures of two guns found in different books. You are comparing apples to oranges. One thing for certain, while this type of speculation may stimulate your imagination it is not going anywhere.

<img src="graemlins/wave.gif" border="0" alt="[byebye]" /> Pete,

I looked in all my books that have pictures of the 45 Luger. All of them except for Reese show a picture of the Aberman gun, and credit the photo to him or as it being a picture of his gun. The picture in Reese's book looks like a poor reproduction of an old picture. His picture is the only one that shows a magazine beside the gun instead of a cartridge or nothing at all. I can find no credit for the photo in Reese's book, it would be interesting to know where he obtained it. There does definitely seem to be a difference in the shape of the backstrap and the curve at the rear of the butt. I have no answer for you. [img]frown.gif[/img]

OK boys and girls, cinch up your knickers, here goes Ron Wood on a flight of fantasy again.

Mike Reese was the Luger Editor for Guns and Ammo in the mid 1970â??s. He started a feature in August 1973 that showcased a different variation of Luger each month. In February of 1974 his topic was the .45 Luger. The photo he used in this article was Sid Abermanâ??s #2. When Mike consolidated these feature articles into â??Luger Tipsâ?� in 1976, he chose to substitute the photo that Pete Ebbink is questioning now. Where did he get this photo? The answer is found in Scott Meadowsâ?? book â??U.S. Military Automatic Pistols, 1894-1920â?� on page 383, and in J. Howard Matthews outstanding work â??Firearms Identification, Volume II page 387. The photo is from the archives of the Ordnance Department. You can see the caption under the following picture I took from Meadowsâ?? book â??Ordnance Department photograph of the .45 caliber Luger tested in 1907â?�. Matthews has a similar caption.

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/Medows.jpg

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/JMatthews2.jpg

I have taken the Aberman Luger and the Ordnance photo and placed them side-by-side. Granted, the angles of the photos are very slightly different and I have had to do a bit of scaling to make them appear about the same size, but neither of these factors are enough to significantly alter the grip angle and perspective.

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/AngleComp.jpg

Ball's back in play, where do we go from here?

Sorry Garfield, I guess I don't understand why Petes talking about the .45's is pointless or seems to bother you?

It is just another "angle" he is trying to explore?

Another difference between the two photos is the rear of the toggles. The Kenyon book shows the rear of the toggle protruding beyond the frame. The Reese book shows the toggle flush with the frame.

It would be nice to compare the Norton and Aberman guns. Maybe if I asked nicely......

Ron:

Excellent research!

Pete:

Appears that you have a very valid point. There are significant differences between the two photos regarding the angle and shape of the grip and the size and shape of the safety.

Now, what does it all mean?

First of all, my thanks to Ron Wood for taking the time to research and post...!

I do not know what conclusions can be made here. If the Ordnance gun shown in the Meadows/Mathews/Reese photo was serial # 1 and side-by-side with serial # 2 (the Aberman gun), can we conclude that GL made two, slightly different .45 lugers for the US Trials ? I also recall reading somewhere that serial # 1 was thought to have been destroyed in 1914...

Tom Heller's post about custom-shop prototypes being a bit varied makes sense to me.

I make Japanese shoji screens and window coverings as a hobby. Each are hand-built and no two are quite alike. With each creation, I learn a bit more and build the next a bit differently...

Beyond that, I do not think any more can be concluded (i.e. total nubmer of .45's made, how many of each "model", etc...).

Appreciatively,

Pete...

<img src="graemlins/wave.gif" border="0" alt="[byebye]" /> Excellent post. Ron! Thank you for going to the trouble. Thanks to Pete for bringing this up and sticking to his guns (pun intended) amid all the flack he encountered. <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

Ron,

In Michael Reese's Luger of the Month In Febuary 1974 the gun shown is the Norton Gun notice the crown N proof.

I have detailed photos and measurements of both of the known .45 Lugers and they are identical.

Regards,
Mike

Thanks Mike. I suspected that might be the case since Reese lived in closer proximity to the Norton gun, but I was going on the info that I had from a long time ago. Thank you for setting the record straight.

Great research Ron, and a great post... This kind of information exchange is what makes this forum great.

I think the differences in grip angles is small enough that it can be attributed to distortion introduced during the camera capture of the images and during publishing...

I would like to add my $0.02 about the differences in the size of the exposed grip safety... I think it may be that the grip safety spring may not have exposed the pressure piece completely in one of the photos and that they are in fact the same size... just showing less in one photo... I make this assumption on the physical location of the safety bar (at the sear) which also appears to be not completely engaged in the same photo.

Comments on this aspect are certainly invited.

My thanks to you all for a lively and informative discussion.

John
I think that the variances between the two photos are too great to attribute to photographic distortion alone. The grip on the ordnance photo is definately longer, at a more pronounced angle and more square at the heel of the butt. The grip safety on the Aberman photo is fully exposed and if the ordnance gun safety is only partially exposed (which I doubt), futher exposure would only serve to enhance the difference rather than reduce it. As much as I dislike doing so, I am afraid I must respecfully disagree with you on this one.

Your informative rebuke is gracefully accepted Ron. As I stated in my post, my conclusions were based strictly on assumptions on my part.

It would be interesting to be able to compare these guns side by side... Perhaps if one of the well known and distinguished authors that post here (this is a very strong not to go unnoticed hint Jan) approached the owners of these two pistols, there might be a book that would sell very well on this forum in the comparison of the physical and technical aspects of these two famous guns... What would the owners get for their cooperaton? why notoriety of course... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just an opinion here but I'm with John on this one. The small difference between the grip angles as so nicely illustrated by Ron can easily be explained by camera angles AND the type of cameras used.

I'm willing to bet that the Ordinance photograph was made using a large format view camera with the ability to tilt and swing front and back and possibly even drop the bed. Such camera movements allow the photographer to correct distortions in perspective. e.g., taking a picture of a tall building with a normal camera will show the walls converging as they go higher. A view camera can correct that perspective and show the walls parallel all the way up.

While such cameras can correct distortion, they can ALSO INTRODUCE distortion! In looking at the two photographs, the Ordinance picture appears to me to have distorted the grip in the mag well entrance area when compared to the newer photograph. The flow of the grip into a well-rounded bulge on the bottom front and the smooth curve on the lower back strap aren't there in the Ordinance picture. The smooth grip contour is quite plain in the newer picture.

Why am I so sure of the equipment used by the Ordinance Department photographer? Because the only cameras available in the early part of the 20th Century were box cameras or of the Kodak folding variety with minimal image control and large 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 or larger view cameras. Except for the view cameras, the rest were of essentially "snap shot" quality and the Ordinance Dept. would have demanded better. The chances are that the original negative or plate of the .45 Luger taken by the Ord. Dept. was as sharp as a tack. Repeated copying has degraded the image.

Yes, it's quite possible to distort the grip in the manner seen depending upon the focal length of the lens used and the corrections made by the photographer using the various movements of the camera lens, bed and back.

Just something more to consider when comparing the two pictures.

thanks for the backup on my thinking Doubs, I do have some photographic history in my curriculum vitae but hardly enough of a credential to spout the history of the camera...

I don't think anyone can dispute that the two photographs differ in a manner that is noticeable to the naked eye... Unless a new comparison is made by modern methods, we will never be able to resolve what the differences are between them...

thanks again...

Gotta hand it to you guys, you don't give up easily! [img]smile.gif[/img] I had assumed that the camera used was a large format bellows camera with a photographic plate. I had also assumed that since the photo was an archival record, it would have been taken with some precision, backlighed on a copy stand (no shadows, although this could have been accomplished several ways). Also there is no apparent distortion on the remainder of the weapon as well as the magazine beside it. The magazine is to scale and probably was photographed in the same frame as the gun. A lot of assumptions there, but I am inclined to give credit to the old Army photographers who I think were professional enough not to deliberately distort an archive photo. (I don't give up easily either [img]biggrin.gif[/img] )

With my limited knowledge of photography I would still conclude that unless both pistols were photographed with the same camera and lens from the same position and distance, no conclusions can be drawn. The focal length of the lens in relation to the film size plays a large part in the perspective of the object being photographed. A wide angle lens positions the rear node of the lens much closer to the film plane, and invites distortion if everything is not kept absolutely parallel and perpendicular. The reference given to the building is one of the best examples. As the camera and lens is moved away from perpendicular with the building, the more severe the angle of the building appears. If the camera position is moved to an elevation where it is then perpendicular with the building, the converging lines of the building which gives the appearance of the building standing at an angle goes away. As long as all lines go through the center of the lens the distortion is virtually non-existent, but as the lens is tilted either up or down the change in the angles become more apparent.
As I doubt the two known .45 Lugers will every come together to be photographed, we will probably just to have to live with our own theories.

See Mike Jones' post above concerning detailed photos and measurements of the two known .45 Lugers.

touche! Ron [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

[quote]Originally posted by Ron Wood:
<strong>See Mike Jones' post above concerning detailed photos and measurements of the two known .45 Lugers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ron, I took note of Mike's message before and it would seem that the two known existing .45 Lugers were made to identical specs. What we don't know is if the actual Test Luger, serial number 1, was also made to the same specs or if serial number 2 and any subsequent .45 Lugers were modified to some degree. My best guess is that serial number 2 was an exact duplicate of the Luger used during the testing. My reading indicates that serial number 2 Luger was submitted to the Ord. Dept. in the event that an unforeseen breakage or damage during testing made the original Test Luger unusable for continuation. In my estimation (opinion) it's unlikely that modifications would have been made in any test back-up pistol unless they were so minor as to not change test results in any way. The lower grip configuration and grip angle just might fit the requirement of being mods that didn't negate the completed tests.

That's why the Ord. Dept. photograph is so important. What we don't know is the level of training of the photographer or his attitude on the day the picture was taken. We don't know exactly what camera or lens or the size format the Photographer used. The manner in which the picture was taken isn't known. Even a print made from the original plate or negative may not answer the questions to everyone's satisfaction.

I believe view camera pictures of an early grip-safety Luger without the stock lug would go a long way toward answering the questions. Finding someone willing to devote the time and resources is another matter.

Doubs
I think such an effort with a view camera would be enlightening, but I'll bet we won't have a stampede of offers to do it! <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

Gentlemen,
I am sitting at my computer reading this thread, it is very amusing to say the least. You are going back and forth concerning yourselves about picture format, the state of the photographer when he took the picture, angle of the grip. enough already. Mike Jones was kind enough to share his fathers records on the 45's. what part of identical doesnt anybody understand.You can bet Harry Jones took out his calipers and went through those guns inside and out, part by part. I saw him do it at a couple of gun shows,he was meticulous, I can only imagine how much time he spent on those two guns in his home.You guys should thank Mike for settling your arguement, identical. thanks Mike.