navy mags
 

I've seen pictures of early navy lugers with concentric rings on the mags finger grips. Were these used on all the WW! era navy lugers? JL

JL -

No, both concentric ring and standard type wooden bottoms were used on the 1914-type Navy Lugers.

Luke

Actually the concentric ring mags were introduced to differenciate 9MM magazines from 7.65 by a method that could be detected in the dark. This info was given to me by Nico Van Gjyn, who owns a great deal of oriiginal Luger plans, files and correspondence.
The Navy continued use of concentric ring magazines throughout the war, although one occasionally finds matching non-concentric ring mags witha Navy gun. This is far more prevalent in Post-war/Weimar era guns, tho.
There is no documented explanation of which I am aware as to why the Army chose a different magazine plug style.

Tom A

Tom,
I have a great deal of respect for both you and Nico Van Gijn, but I have to say that the explanation that the concentric ring mags were "introduced to differentiate 9MM magazines from 7.65mm by a method that could be detected in the dark" seems a bit odd. There is no difference between 9mm and 7.65 magazines, and Navy Lugers were not made in 7.65mm. It might be useful if one were in possession of a pocket full of magazines, some loaded with 9mm and some loaded with 7.65mm. But that is a somewhat of a stretch to make the point, and the same function could be accomplished by running your thumb over the top round in the magazine.

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the kind words.

Nico has documentation (he has a fantastic collection of old DWM, Walther and Mauser files, drawings and memoranda)that substantiates this point. Seems a bit odd to me also, but that is what the man said was in the files.

Tom A.

I have a great deal of respect for both Tom and Ron. But from my limited background in manufacturing. My understanding of the ego differences betwen the German army and navy as mentioned to me by Heinz and through my readings about Kaiser Wilhelm and 'his' navy. I would tend to think that the German navy would have just wanted to differeniate themselves and their Lugers from the army by wanting concentric circles. But in manufacturing, somebody just grabbed a handfull of the wrong bottoms and other workers just didn't want to waste their time walking back to the correct bin to get the correct wood bottoms. In manufacturing and in war time, the wood bottoms would not be a big thing.
A simular comparision could be made of the Erfurt manufacturing. Proof marks were stamped in some of the stupidest places just to justify jobs for the workers. I still laugh when I see Erfurt proof marks on the grip screws,on the extractor spring and on the magazine wood bottom.
Just my logical thinking. If someone buys me a beer, I will just forget it all after a few tips.
Big Norm

I guess I will have to accept what Nico's documentation substantiates. But I am just skeptical (or hard headed) enough that I would really like to see a copy of the source documents.

Has there ever been any notice of German Naval officers carrying personally purchased 7.65 Lugers?

I agree with Ron that this documentation seems to make little sense. However the reference to documentation is from a very reliable source. The only thing I could think of that would bring in some logical explanation is that in 1904 there were many 1900 model 7.65 Lugers out there and maybe Officers carried them? But I have never heard of that.

However if I do not get to tired tonight I can probably have one on gunbroker tomorrow :-)

Just a thought. Were the magazines made by an outside source as were the holsters or were they made at the DWM and/or Erfurt manufacturing facilities?
Big Norm

Magazines were all DWM manufacture.

Tom A.

Hello Tom A.,

Not to be a pest...but are there some sources for the conclusion that manufacturing was "in-house" at DWM...?

Regards,

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

Hi to all! Mag. shells may have all been from one supplier... but the mag. bottoms were decidedly different! ... they were unique to each manufacture... best to all! till...later...GT

Pete,
you NEVER a pest. You are a highly valued contributer.

G.T. Just how did the magazine bottoms differ between Erfurt and DWM? I have a magazine with a double Erfurt proof marks and no serial number as well as a DWM Artillery with Erfurt proof marks all over it. I have always wondered about what happened there.
Big Norm

Hi Big Norm, The differences between the two are subtle, but they are definitly evident when you see a large cross section of bottoms, over time... If you totally ignored the markings all together, you could still tell by the construction and material unique to each manufacture... These are not hard and fast rules, but are most of the time, evident... first, the Erfurt bottom will usually, or almost always be a darker, dark brown in color... where as the DWM will run anywhere from orange to red to red/brown (most likely they were both/all subjected to dyes)... second, and most obivious, the usual Erfurt bottom has a completely different radius on the external (outside) rim of the knob pieces... is is a sharper shoulder, so to speak, it doesn't have that nice soft radius that the DWM bottoms almost always display... consequently, the dimples on the knobs themselves will appear different.. the Erfurt convcave dimples will look larger, and more crude, because of the small radius edge, and the subsequent sharper shoulder... third, to further exaggerate the image of the knobs, the length (or width, how far it sticks out to the side) of the knob on the Erfurt is usually about .015" to .020" per side longer.... this is really visiable when you have several clips side by side... if you take a dial caliper and measure the heigth of this knob, it is supposed to be approx. .250" on each side finished.. but DWM cut the knobs to .250" then radiused the rim, then plunged the dimple... so, you end up with about .235" per side... whereas the Erfurt will almost always approch the .250" as spec'ed.... On mag bottoms in general, because of wear, parts swaps, replacements etc. there is a huge hazy zone in between, where anything goes, and it is hard to tell. But, there are many, many examples that are constant, and I have seen a lot of them... and that is all my conclusions are based on.. just my observations... remember the above, and tell me what you see after awhile! I'd be interested in what the rest of the forum has experienced in this area! Best to you Big Norm! til...lat'r....GT

Big Norm! This is also just an observation.. but as to your Erfurt proofed mags, I have seen several unnumbered double proofed mags as you describe.. I think, again, my opinion only.. The manufacture was not always the end user... also I think that a lot of guns and mags were numbered up at repair depots and armorers repair stations all the way up to WW2... I was thinking about this the other day, when I realized that the replacement mags that I had seen the most of, forced matched, or numbered to a specific pistol, were the nickle plated, droop winged E/63 mag... of mid 1930's vintage.. most everything spare, I have seen after that.. s/42, 42, E/63, E/655 etc.. remained unnumbered... Either the mags got to a point to where they (Mauser) were better quality.. and the matching (in the field) was redundant, or they just didn't have the time... but I think prior to WW2 it was just as if it were law! Then again, who knows! til..lat'r...GT

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Tom A:
<strong>Magazines were all DWM manufacture.

Tom A.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I did not mean to imply that the mag bottoms were made by DWM; it is generally recognized that these were subcontractor provided.

Tom A.

Hi Tom! I got to thinking afterwords that the navy bottoms were probably made inhouse by DWM, and I don't believe Erfurt would have any reason to procure any of this type... It is pretty much hypothetical at best... but I believe there were very few different manufactures of the magazine tubes... perhaps just one??? I sure would like to know more about their production... be nice to go back in time and visit for a day! best to you! till...lat'r...GT

Gentlemen,
I guess that we will have to agree to disagree on this topic. With respect to TomA, I have to think that since Erfurt had some 96,000 Artillery Lugers scheduled for 1914 production as well as a larger number of army Lugers scheduled, then logic would tell me that there was ample production to justify the manufacture of the magazines at the point of manufacture of the weapons during WW1. But since DWM produced all the navy Lugers, then DWM produced their magazines at their own factory.

This discussion will go into one of my folders along with a previous discussion regarding the "blackening" of the pin that holds the bottom to the spine. In order to keep peace in our family, I will pass on asking a simular question regarding the grips.

After reviewing the venerable Ron Woods comment to the original question about the concentric circles on the wood bottom, I have concluded that the concentric circles may have just been an ego thing between the navy and the army and that a few non concentric bottoms just happened to slip in.
Big Norm

OK, So I stick my "Neeeck" out again !.. <img border="0" alt="[blabla]" title="" src="graemlins/a_smil17.gif" />
Has anyone considered that the serialization of magazines might have been a matter of "Peacetime Property Control", To force regementation and accountability on the Regular Military Troops,
And as such would be quickly abandoned in the rush that occurs in wartime with the influx of irregular troops and high combat losses... :confused:
Just a thought that came to mind.
ViggoG... :rolleyes:

&gt;&gt;Subject: A question
&gt;Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:21:13 EST
&gt;
&gt;Good Morning Nico,
&gt;
&gt;You remember the e-mail you sent me concerning the reason for the
&gt;introduction of the concentric ring magazine to identify 9MM vice 7.65.
&gt;
&gt;Do you have a source document for that? It has been a matter of some lively
&gt;discussion on the Luger forum and some members were curious as to the source.
&gt;
&gt;Thanks
&gt;Tom Armstrong

E-mail traffic from Nico...

I have the blueprints of the magazines designed as M1900 7,65mm, M1904 7,65, M1904 9mm, M1906 7,65, M1908 9mm, M1937 9mm, M1938 Haenel, M1941 Haenel-Mauser and even the post war blueprints of Mauser. So for it is just a matter of comparing. The only differents between the magazine dated 1904 7,65 and the 1904 9mm is the bottom with the concentric rings. So the rings were the 9mm indicator in these early days. Remember the first Naval lugers were 7,65 !!! The dutch contract of 1904/1905 is asking for enlarging of 1mm for the cut in the top that frames the followerbutton. The dutch authorities demand this change as with dirt the hold open device in the pistol was not alway actived after the last round. By changing the cut the button was 1 mm higher in position when the magazine was empty and the holdopen device worked better. The dutch contract of 1904/1905 was ended by the dutch covernment. The pistols became to expensive for army. In 1911 the pistol was bought anyway for the dutch colonial army and in 1928 for the dutch navy. Anyway the germans used the dutch demand by changing production from that moment on. And so the M1906 7,65 and the M1908 9mm have both the 1mm longer cut. This all together proofs that the concentric rings were a 9mm indicator only and the lenght of the cut is for collectors the way to indicate if the magazine was made before 1906. When magazines are produced before 1906 (with the shorter cut) and have a concentric ring bottom and no Naval stamp or serial number then they are prototypes. I have such a not marked magazine with short cut and concentric rings together with the oriiginal blueprint. Nico

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Remember the first Naval lugers were 7,65 !!! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I guess you learn something new every day! I have never seen that in any references. I wonder why?

Nico, The only unmarked concentric circle original DWM mags that I have seen, were installed in M1906 Commerical navies. TH

Hi to all! Some time ago, I wrote a long multi page letter to Mr. Van Gjyn about the possibility of obtaining copies of certain prints concerning P.08 magazines... I went in to detail as to what my intentions were, (to produce a high quality new production mag.) I did not attempt to deceive him in any manner... I went thru all the NAPCA channels to have the letter posted to protect his confidentiality and made evey effort to convey "good intentions" and "good will".... Now, I always respect a persons opinion... I also respect their decisions, and whether I agree or disagree, I will listen to their reasons! But Mr. Van Gjyn did not even show me the courtesy of a contact or refusal letter, none, nada, zip!! Not only do I feel this was a snub, but I believe Mr. Van Gjyn grossly over estimates my abilities! The other side of the coin is, we are currently reverse engineering the "original magazines" and are making headway toward building a quality magazine...our goal is quality like an original, and a more desirable mag. then current repros! it would be quite a bit easier with some drawings to compare our prints with for working tolarences and such... But Oh Well! Such is life! I do appreciate that some of our members do have a line of communication with Mr.Van Gjyn, as is it obivious to all, that the man is a wealth of Luger information....to everyone, that is, but me! best to all! til...lat'r....GT

Ron, the only thing I have ever seen on a 7.65 Navy is a post on Jan Still's forum on 9/17/2003 under "Commercial/Foreign Contract" showing a 1902 Carbine with a Navy acceptance mark. This carbine seems to have been a presentation prize for fencing tournament.

Kenyon's Lugers at Random shows a 1906 commercial Navy 9mm with the concentric rins and notes it is marked 9mm on the bottom. I have been under the impression these ringed and 9 mm marked mags were commercials. I note in Mr Van Gjyn's post he refers to the magazine drawings as 1904 7.65 and 9mm and 1906 7.65 and 9 mm without a navy designation for the blueprint. Perhaps he is making an assumption here.

My hypothesis is the ring may relate to getting a better grip on the mag bottom in wet conditions. How tight do Navy mags fit in their pouches?

If you detected a note of skepticism in my post, you wouldn't be very far off target. Guess I would like to know if any documentation exists on this revelation also. I'm not trying to be difficult here, it is just that suddenly there is information surfacing that is heretofore unknown. I do not object to speculation, I do a lot of it myself, but I like it labled as speculation if it is. I have difficulty accepting anything proffered as fact if it has no precedent, and as a Luger enthusiast that enjoys research and history I delight in the details. The existence of two sets of magazine blueprints dated 1904 clearly labled "7.65mm" and "9mm" is worthy of note, but to draw the conclusion that this was done to be able to tell the difference in the dark is an educated guess. The statement that the first Navys were 7.65mm needs substantiation.

I have to agree with Ron... I would have to see some other type of documentation as to the difference... or one's speculation is as good as anothers.... If the rings denote 9mm, then why would some mag's have both the rings, and the Cal. 9m/m logo also...isn't this a bit redundent??? besides, once they are out of the pistol, whether it be 9mm or .30 cal. it could be loaded with either of the current rounds! I think if anything... it is purely cosmetic, I can't really see an advantage to either... only tougher tooling to make! BTW, I'm over my snit now... best to all, til...lat'r...GT

Not sure if this helps or not...

On pages 22-23 of the "The Navy Luger" book by Gortz & Walter...there is some discussion as to whether it was plausible to consider five (5) 15 cm barreled experimental B-suffixed 5-digit prototypes (which I read to assume were in 7.65 mm...) were actually Navy experimental pistols or not.

Another sentence reads, in reference to gun # 10005 (a 17.5 cm barrelled, 7.65 mm, with a rear tangent-type sight and unique stock attachment with a push button release), as :

"...It would have been very tempting to consider this gun as a potential navy trial piece had its calibre been 9mm rather than 7.65 mm...".

Maybe the conclusion has been accepted by some, including this Dutch collector...

Regards,

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

Just another WAG !!
Is there any thought that the concentric circles are representative of the circular wave pattern so frequently seen on water surface around any disturbance ?
And therefor symbolic of Naval Power ?
ViggoG

Damn!
I really enjoy stirring this pot!

It is amazing what can happen when serious collectors and historians are presented with a "new possibility".

Keep at it, all.

Tom A.

WOW! This topic is getting very interesting. I honestly have no idea why the rings are on some, other than for cosmetic reasons, but some of the ideas mentioned here really make me want to find out the truth about them.

Wow! What a brilliant discussion this is. Maybe I can stir the pot a little bit more. If there was so much controversy about the magazines button activating the hold open during 1904/06, then why did the army wait until 1913 to even add the hold open?
Big Norm

Presumably as a cost cutting measures, the Army elected to eliminate the stock lug that the Navy had adapted, the grip safety, and the hold open. Until the LP08 came along, there was no need for the stock lug, so that was a logical choice for elimination. The grip safety was actually redundant (cavalry troops might argue to the contrary) so it too met a well-deserved demise as a military necessity. However, not knowing when your weapon was empty in a heated disagreement proved to be an embarrassment of significant proportion. So in 1913, sanity reared its head and the hold open was once again recognized for its vital role and returned to its rightful place in the military Luger, where it remained until the end.

Hi,

I agree with Ron that Nico got a bit confused over the Marine Model 1904.

It's a reasonably documented fact that the first German TRIALS were done using the 7.65MM versions, in 1900 - 1902. The 7.65MM was critized and the Germans quickly switched to 9MM and continued their trails (possibly using both 7.65 and 9MM at the same time, although I doubt that) until the adaptation of the Marine Model 1904 in 9mm.

The fact that DWM had both 7.65MM 1904 model magazines and 9mm 1904 model magazines does not prove in any way that the Germay navy adopted or used 1904 7,65mm versions and the conclusion that the concentric circles therefore were used to differentiate between them is complete speculation.

As long as the blueprints with concentric circled magazine bottoms do not show 'Marine Modell 1904' or any other proof of German navy acceptance on them, I tend to disagree with Nico's findings.

A possibility that the concentric circles were left over from an early (trial) attempt to differentiate between them is there, but it is generally speaking a bit weird, since the magazines can be used for both types, a point made earlier.

The 'we are the customer, we are right and we want circles' approach therefore makes the most sense.

Another option is that the concentric circles prevent the bottoms from developing cracks, while retaining a decent grip. Perhaps our wood working experts can comment on this?

Hi Gerben! I think your point is well taken, I have turned many a concentric ringed bottom on the lathe and I've notice a few things that may give your theory support... one is, the knobs are a more uniform size, dimension, because the forming tool plunges in from the end, and dosen't get anywhere near the outside edge... secondly, the outside dia. of the knob is decidedly more robust... as it is quite a bit thicker then the dished knob end... they are with out a doubt, stronger... this additional strength may have been necessary when banging around on a sea going vessel... the regular or standard mag. bottom probably went away on the first ladder! Best to you Gerben! til...later....GT

OK folks, I am going to jump into this with both feet. I consider myself a novice when it comes to this so I ask for patience on this question.
Do the bottoms really need to have a concave surface on them? It would seem to me that these would have worked just as well with out the extra step involved in milling the bottoms out. Was this done purely for cosmetic reasons. Just something else to stir the pot here. By the way, this has been a great topic. Thanks.
Sid.

Hi Strider! I think you're 90% right on.... I don't think it would make any difference at all if the bottoms were dished, convex, ringed, or checkered... just as long as you had something for a little traction! I think the Borchardt(sp.?) had convex knobs on the mag. bottoms...best to you....Til..lat'r....GT

I think the concave surface of the knobs on the mag bottom give a place to provide purchase for the fingertips to pull out a stubborn bulged or damaged mag...

The concentric rings would also serve in a similar manner better than just flat wood surfaces.

I think asthetics also play a role here since with few exceptions, virtually all other semi-automatics had/have a flat bottom flush to the grip magazine... The design of the wood capped mag is just more graceful in appearance, and matches well the elegance of the design.

Just my $0.02

Ron, I know of no documentation on the Luger carbine that appears in the post on Jan Still's forum other than the post itself. The carbine has a C/B and C/U on the left side in the "lazy" position followed by a C/M in the vertical position. My use of the navy reference was based only on that acceptance mark. There is no mention of any other Navy marks on this piece. I did notice on reviewing that post that the stock inlay award plate is dated 1910 so that probably takes it out of the discussion on the magazines anyhow. The devil is allways in the details.

Heinz,
The skepticism that I expressed was in regard to the comment that "the first Navy Lugers were 7.65", not your recollection of the presentation carbine with Navy markings. I also remember that carbine post from Still's forum. It is a beautiful and desirable piece but as you have noted, the only connection to the navy is the acceptance mark which, no doubt, was applied when it was awarded and not because it was a contract item. I remain unconvinced that there was ever an issue Navy Luger in 7.65mm.

Sid, G.T. and John S.,
I think you guys are on track. The concave indentation on the Luger mag is both functional and decorative. It does provide a better purchase for extraction of a stubborn magazine, and it looks better than just a slab sided extension. The convex profile of the Borchardt magazine knobs probably was the inspiration for a more "snazzy" treatment of the Luger magazine bottom, but the convex configuration is a bit more complex to machine and finish than the concave style, plus it can be harder to grasp if you fingers are cold and wet. My guess is that the indentation of the magazine base is to improve grasping the magazine, and the difference in machining of the magazine bases between the "standard" and "Navy" is purely cosmetic.

Based on my close examination of a 1904 Navy Luger #36 which is shown hereunder, it happens to have a standard (9 mm) magazine which is numbered and matching to the pistol. There is no doubt that the magazine is absolutely correct. If my eye sight serves me well, the C/M proof mark on the magazine base COULD be on the left side of the dished base, but I could be wrong because I do not access to the actual photo which is in storage.

http://imperialarms.home.att.net/Ima...s/1904Navy.jpg

I hope this image and information clarifies somes points regarding this interesting discussion.

In regards to the M1902 Carbine with the C/M proof mark, it is not abnormal for a Luger carbine which is DESTINED to a Navy Department for the purpose of a (fencing) prize to be stamped with this proof mark. The proof mark could simply mean in this case 'destination' and not 'issue'. In order to make a reasonable conclusion of an item, consider its originality, provenance and consistency of its details.

Cheers,
Albert