Baby 9mm
 

Hello I'm not very Luger savy but I have owned a couple throught the years,my favorite being a .30 cal DWM that I wish I had not sold.I have a question, on the Ralph E. Shattuck web site there is a picture of Georg Luger's baby 9mm.Has that gun been located?I had always heard that it's whereabouts were unknown even to the Luger family.

Ralph owns that Baby Luger and displays with his collection. Here is a picture I took of it at a recent visit. Clink on this link!

Georg Luger Baby Luger (AKA Seven Shot Prototype)

Thanks Thor.I wonder where the gun turned up.

Jim, I believe he has owned it since the late 1960s time frame. This gun is shown in the old "Lugers at Random" by Kenyon and he said in 1969 it "has only recently been discovered."

I am going by memory here.

Further information added:
The Luger Pistol, revised edition 1962: PG 137; Very few of these pistols were produced, reportedly not more than a dozen...

The previous statement I could not find, there is a letter from Georg Luger JR, that states; ..the holster and magazine that were given by my father, belonged to my grandfather, Georg Luger. They were the only pieces left over from the collection as we naturally had to destroy everything with the coming of the Russians...

And also in the book it states; most of the weapons...had been able to sell.. ...would have confiscated by the Russian Occupation Troops (including selling a model 1906/06 (?) seven shot...)

That the baby Luger turned up from a former GI for sale in the 60's, I remember that from a Guns and Ammo article. I will research this in a few minutes. (could not find anything about this, so that is strictly from memory).

The pistol mentioned above is shown in Kenyon's "Lugers at Random" and is termed a "Seven Shot Prototype", and is essentially the standard Model 1906 with a shorter barrel and grip frame. Also in Kenyon's book is pictured a "Baby" which was chambered in either .380 or .32ACP. The most noteable difference in the Seven Shot and the Baby is the safety. The "Baby" is also pictured in an old issue of Shooting Times when it belonged to Carl Wilson.
I may be off on the serial number, but I believe Simpson Ltd. sold one of the "Seven Shot" pistols serial numbered 10075B within the past few years. Without serial number documentation, how would anyone know which one belonged to Georg Luger?

Johnny, I wonder if Fred Datig could lend any information on this, Kenyon mentions that the holster and spare magazine for Georg's was presented to Fred by Georg Luger Jr many years ago. Here is a picture of one of Krauswerke reproduction of the smaller caliber/frame baby you mentioned with the slider safety.32 Cal Krauswerke Baby Luger

Ralph owns both types of "baby" lugers. I believe Michael Krause used Ralphs to make his "baby" lugers.

It would be interesting to here from Ralph how and from whom here aquired these little beauties. I wanted to ask Ralph at the last WOL feast, but everyone was keeping Ralph extremely busy.

Based on my data gathering, there are four known 7-Shot Prototypes, two in the 10000B serial range (one being the Georg Luger Pistol in Mr. Shattuck's collection) and two in the 55000B(?) serial range (one of which I have examined), all of them being 'GL' hallmarked. The two in the 55000B serial range have crests on the chambers. It is evident with all the 7-Shot Prototypes that the grip and frame were reduced and welded by DWM. It is interesting to note that a few 'GL' Lugers fall in the 55000B serial range (circa 1906/08) including a cased 1902 Luger carbine presented to President Diaz of Mexico shown in the book 'Luger Holsters' by Eugene Bender.

In regards to the 'true' Baby Lugers, it is reported that five were supposingly made in the circa 1920-1926 and serial #4 which is shown in 'Lugers at Random' has the upper receiver of a caliber .380 and a bottom receiver of .32 ACP. It is believed that the first two were in caliber .32 ACP and the next two in caliber .380. It is assumed that serial #5 was never assembled into a complete pistol and was used for parts which probably explains the incompatible parts on serial #4 as well as the likely evidence of machining. A closer examination of serial #4 is required, however, this has not been possible as a result of 'intercontinental' tensions. I have heard of Mr. Shattuck owning a Baby Luger and I wonder if anybody has examined it or asked him about it?

In Charlie Kenyon's book, Luger - The Multi-National Pistol, on pages 60-61; there is a 7-shot baby with a Bulgarian crest that is thought to have been made in the 1908-09 time frame.

Mr. Kenyon concludes "...The author has examined the weapon, is conviniced of its authenticity and is researching its relationship to the Bulgarian contracts placed in early 1910...".

Does anyone know the serial number of this Baby ?

Regards,

Pete... <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

Hello Peter,

I do not know the serial number of the 7-Shot Prototype with the Bulgarian crest, but I heard that it is one of the two in the 55000B serial range. The other one which I have examined has an American crest on the chamber and it appears authentic. Therefore, what I am observing is that the two pistols in the 10000 serial range have no crests and the two in the 55000 serial range have crests on the chambers. Another observation which I made (I could be wrong) was that the two pistols in the 10000 serial range were in 9 mm whereas the two in the 55000 serial range were in 7.65 mm. I shall try to obtain the specific differences between the four pistols.

Thanks, Albert !

Regards,

Pete... <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

I have heard that the seven shot with the Bulgarian crest is serial number 10076B. The pistol sold by Simpson Ltd. was suppose to be 10075B, and the Ralph Shattuck pistol 10077B. I had not previously heard of a 55000B range. I believe the Porfirio Diaz carbine is serial number 55C.

Hello Johnny,

Supposingly, there was an error in the recording of the serial number of the Diaz carbine - it is in the 55000C serial range and this information was given to me by Mr. Kenyon. I made an error in my previous post showing it in the 55000B serial range - sorry. It is highly unlikely that the Diaz carbine can be serial number 55C because there are no other cased carbines recorded with a two-digit serial number followed by a suffix that are hallmarked with a 'GL'. To support my investigation regarding the serial number of the Diaz carbine, there are known a few presentation Lugers that fall in the 55000 with the suffix 'B' or 'C'.

Furthermore, I feel that more accurate information and research is required, especially the serial numbers, to determine the exact quantity recorded and characteristics of each 7-Shot Prototype. I regret that I did note the exact characteristics of the 7-Shot Prototype in the 55000B serial range. All I can remember is that it had an American eagle on the chamber; it was 'GL' hallmarked; and it may have dished toggles but I am not sure. If I were to make any assumptions based on consistencies or patterns, then the Bulgarian 7-Shot should be in the same serial range as the one with the American eagle which I examined. I also noticed that the barrel of the Bulgarain 7-Shot is thinner than the one which was for Georg Luger.

I shall try to get more information about these 7-Shot pistols and post it under this topic.

Albert

Virtually all the pistols in the early 10000, 10000B, and C suffix carbines are different in one way or another. I am not sure that the lack of another two digit C suffix cased carbine would indicate that none could exist. The Diaz carbine is a 1902 and the 55000B would put the range far into the 1906 production run.
I know that some of the other forum members gather serial numbers, and it would be good to hear from them if they have recorded 55000B range pistols.

I've just learned more on this Baby Luger subject in a few days than I had ever known before.As I said in my previous post I don't know that much much about Lugers but I have had an interest in them for years.I am also going to start looking around for another .30 for shooting purposes,they are a fascinating firearm to me.

Johnny,

Firstly, on page 108 of 'Lugers at Random' shows a Model 1906 'GL' Presntation Luger with 'MM' on the chamber serial #10158B. This proves that the 10000B serial range was spread over at least four years or more. Secondly, I own an original first issue 1910 Abercrombie & Fitch sales catalog which lists a 1902 Luger carbine for $45.00. As a small note, it also lists a 1900 Commercial with a 4 3/4" slim barrel in caliber 7.65 mm for $25.00. Therefore, it is not to late in the 55000C (1906 era) serial range for a presentation Luger carbine to be produced by DWM. Obviously, more serial number research is required and I do not discount the 55000 B-C suffix serial range for presentation Lugers around 1906-08

Albert

Albert,
I hope that I didn't give the impression that I thought all the Lugers in the early 10000 and 10000B range were made consecituvely. I agree that they were made over a period of years, and the serial number range was probably set aside for Lugers of special interest. The existence of 10158B which is otherwise a standard '06 Commercial with no proofs, a gold inlay, and GL's initials still does not provide proof of any 55000B range pistols. I would appreciate any information on pistols in this range, as it appears that we both agree that the serial numbers in the 10000 (and B) range were held for special pistols and would indicate no need to jump to the 55000B range.
I also have catalogs from H. Tauscher and Stoger advertising all models of the Luger pistol, but this in no way indicates when the pistols were made. As in the case of the Thompson Sub-Machine Guns, new and unsold Thompsons were still in stock some 20 years after being manufactured.

Johnny,

The only explanation I have for the existence of a few 'GL' Lugers in the 55000 serial range is because they were included in the standard commercial production which was at this mark around 1906. I do not believe that a 'block' was set aside in the 55000 serial range in the same manner as the presentation carbines in the 9100C serial range or the various model Lugers in the 10000 and 10000B serial range. I shall try to obtain the serial numbers of the 'GL' Lugers in the 55000 serial range including the 7-Shot Prototype(s).

Albert

In regards to .380 Baby Luger #4.I have a September 1962 copy of Shooting Times featuring the .380 Baby Luger owned by Carl Wilson at the time.No mention is made of it being a .380 top with a .32 bottom.I wonder if he knew as I do not question the fact that #4 was a composite gun? I had read in another place that it was.I think at the time the article was written he had not had the pistol very long.

Hello Jim,

I am familiar with the September 1962 Shooting Times article featuring the Baby Luger serial #4 which was owned by Carl Wilson and then later by Pat Redmond. An expert had confirmed to me that the Baby Luger had a mismatched upper and lower receiver, and Pat Redmond told be shortly before his death that the magazine was reduced from a standard magazine which shows welding marks. I do not doubt the opinion of the expert who told me about the mismatched upper and lower receiver as well as knowing the entire history of the Baby Luger. Eventually, these facts will need to be further studied, but nothing can be confirmed until the pistol is thoroughly examined again.

Albert

Interesting sentence in Fred Datig's book, The Luger Pistol (Revised edition, 1962 5th. printing) on page 229 :

The sentence reads as "...In the years following the First World War, Mr. Weiss recalls that he supervised the production of, among other things, 12 "Baby" Lugers in caliber .32 ACP., mentioned on Page 137 of this book...".

Mr. Datig went to Germany in the 1950's and met and interviewed both August Weiss and Georg Luger, Jr....

Regards,

Pete <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

Hello Albert,
Thanks for sharing that info.Is it known who owns .380/.32 Baby Luger now?

Jim

Hello Jim,

The collector is known who owns the Baby Luger serial #4 which is in a large collection in the UK, however, there has been some unfortunate problems created between him and various collectors around Europe and the US and, therefore, access to this pistol would be difficult.

Thank you for your inquiry.

Albert

This is a very interesting thread, and it raises a few questions.

[quote] An expert had confirmed to me that the Baby Luger had a mismatched upper and lower receiverâ?¦.I do not doubt the opinion of the expert who told me about the mismatched upper and lower receiver as well as knowing the entire history of the Baby Luger <hr></blockquote>

I am wondering about the conflict between the expert observation and the documentation, such as it is, that exists. In the 1962 Shooting Times article it states: â?? Serial numbers are not on all parts of it, but they do appear in three places: on the bottom of the barrel and front of the frame, and inside the toggle on the rear portion where the number is actually hidden by the flipping forward of the spring hook arm.â?� The article goes on into considerable detail about the construction of the baby Luger, to include the fact that the magazine â??is made in two piecesâ?¦â?� which are locked together by â??tiny dimplesâ?� [spot welds?], and that the bolt face had been altered or repaired by brazing. It seems to me that if there was a mismatch between the upper and lower parts it would have been mentioned in such a comprehensive article, but there is no indication of a serial number mismatch.

The baby Luger was again the subject of an in-depth article in the 1984 Guns Illustrated annual. It was written after Pat Redmond had acquired the gun in 1981. The Shooting Times article only pictured the baby Luger in profile, but the Guns Illustrated article contains a clear picture of the forward frame and underside of the barrel with the caption: â??The only marks on the baby Luger are the serial number 4, shown here on the bottom of the barrel and front of the frame. The number also appears on the bottom of the center toggle link.â?�

So, my question is: how does a gun observed by an expert to be made up from two different guns, pass the scrutiny of Herr August Weiss and be photographed with matching parts?

According to a conversation between a friend of mine and the late Pat Redmond, Pat sold the Baby to Geoffrey Sturgis of England. The amount that Pat indicated he gave Carl Wilson for the pistol and the price Pat sold the pistol for does not indicate that it was an accumulation of parts.

What an interesting thread...

Can someone explain to me how this very historical pistol exists in a collecction in England without having suffered the "deactivation" fate that all of Terry Foley's guns had to undergo (see the Deactivation process in the Member Gallery Album)?

Is there a privileged class of collector in the UK? and if so, what are the qualifications for joining this elite fraternity? Money? Royalty?

I believe Dr. Sturgis has had his collection classified as a "museum", therefore exempt from the insane rules of a private collection. To answer your second question...MONEY. Sturgis seems to have some of the deepest pockets in the collecting fraternity and is gradually acquiring the lion's share of the world's rarest Lugers and other early firearms. In some respects, having a representative examples from the complete evolution of the Luger all in one collection is a fabulous situation. On the other hand, I am deeply concerned that the existence of this collection hinges on the whimsy of government and that the museum status could disappear in a heartbeat. If you want to have nightmares, think of all of these single digit serial number weapons suffering the fate of tacfoley's collection.

I have atached a nice photo of the Baby in Ralph Shattuck's collection; from C. Kenyon's book, Luger - The Multi-National Pistol, on pages 58-59; for those folks that might not have this book. I think it shows some details that the photo posted by Ted Green may not have...

Just to clarify my understanding of this thread :

1. Am I corect in understanding that this Baby is not the same Baby as the Wilson/Redmond/Sturgis pistol ? That is, the Wilson/Redmond/Sturgis Baby is a .380/.32 ACP ?

Am I correct in understanding that all 7-shot Baby's have a traditional thumb safety lever while the other baby's (i.e. .380/.32 ACP) have the Borchardt-type safety lever ?

2. Is the Redmond/Sturgis Baby thought to have been the personal pistol of Georg Luger or is it the Baby in Ralph Shattuck's collection...? Or are both thought to have been owned by GL...?

3. How is such "ownership" provenance by Georg, himself, documented and accepted by the luger collecting community ?

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/ge...ersbaby001.jpg

Regards,

Pete... <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

Ron,

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

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

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

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

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

Albert

Ther are a lot of questions on this variation of .32 and .380 Lugers.I can only assume that Mr. Carl Wilson is no longer with us?

[quote]Originally posted by Wm. Pete Ebbink:
<strong>Just to clarify my understanding of this thread:

1. Am I corect in understanding that this Baby is not the same Baby as the Wilson/Redmond/Sturgis pistol ? That is, the Wilson/Redmond/Sturgis Baby is a .380/.32 ACP ?

Am I correct in understanding that all 7-shot Baby's have a traditional thumb safety lever while the other baby's (i.e. .380/.32 ACP) have the Borchardt-type safety lever ?

2. Is the Redmond/Sturgis Baby thought to have been the personal pistol of Georg Luger or is it the Baby in Ralph Shattuck's collection...? Or are both thought to have been owned by GL...?

3. How is such "ownership" provenance by Georg, himself, documented and accepted by the luger collecting community?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Pete,

In reference to your various questions:

1) The Baby Luger image which you posted is actually the 7-Shot Prototype likely owned by Georg Luger and made between 1902-06. This pistol should not to be confused with the 'true' Baby Luger made between 1920-26 which has the Borchardt style safety.

2) the Baby Luger in the Redmond/Sturgess collection was not owned by Georg Luger. The original owners of the various Baby Lugers are unknown, however, one could have been owned by the master designer or August Weiss at DWM. However, I cannot confirm this fact.

3) I cannot comment on this question because I have never examined the Georg Luger pistol nor have I seen any documentation about it.

I hope this answers some of your questions.

Albert

Albert,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
Ron

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