Navy Toggle Question
 

When was the larger flange on the rear toggle pin used? Do you ever see circumstances where the standard pin was used in 1916?

Thanks,

Dan

Dan, The large rimmed rear toggle axel was used on Naval Lugers from 1908 on. Tom H.

Dan,

I don't have an answer to that question, but I am still curious about a related question I posted earlier on the same subject.

What was the reason for the larger flange on the Navy Lugers? Could it have served the same purpose as the Mauser bump on later Lugers?

Since the larger flange was not common to any of the other WW-I DWM Lugers, the inclusion of this part in the Navy version was an added-cost item, a fact which would lead one to suspect that the German Navy actually included the larger flange in their specification to DWM.

How about it Navy Collectors, does anyone know the history of this?

I LOVE IT HERE ! ! ! !

Hi Dan,
I'm not a big Navy collector, but I think the bigger headed rear connecting pins started in 1916 and were ONLY used on the 1916 and 1917 dated models. You should never see a 1916 or 1917 Navy with a small, or normal size pin. Take care -- Bill Munis

Dan,

As I mentioned earlier, I don't know the answer to this question, but I have another data point.

In a discussion with a 30+ year dealer yesterday, I asked the same question. He gave me the same answer that (MauserLugers) Bill Munis provided above.

[quote]Originally posted by MauserLugers:
<strong>Hi Dan,
I'm not a big Navy collector, but I think the bigger headed rear connecting pins started in 1916 and were ONLY used on the 1916 and 1917 dated models. You should never see a 1916 or 1917 Navy with a small, or normal size pin. Take care -- Bill Munis</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bill
I only have one Navy, a 1908, but it has a larger flange. Sorry about the duplicate of your post, I am going through a learning curve with the new format.
larry

Hey Larry,

This new forum has a great new feature! You are allowed to edit your own postings. If you make a mistake, just click on the icon with the pencil and paper above the post with the mistake and it will put you in edit mode.

Deleting posts can only be done by one of the forum moderators... Posts will generally not be deleted unless they violate the terms of service or Forum Decorum rules.

I will let you edit your second post for the practice...

This new forum software is head and shoulders above what we were using...

best to you...

Luke, I have always believed that the large flange Navy Lugers were designed this way to serve the same purpose as the Mauser Bump on the upper receiver... to keep the axle from slipping out when in the most extreme position.

I came to this conclusion based on examination of the design engineering and not from any published data...

just my $0.02

Hi,
Did some checking and Tom Heller was correct. The 1906's have the small headed rear connecting pins and the 1908, 1916, and 1917's all have the larger headed rear connecting pins. You can find a small pin in the 1908's or 1914's, as they still fit, but that is not what they were issued with. --- Later -- Bill M

I have not seen one, but from previous posts there are a few 1918 dated Navy Lugers being found. It would be interesting to see it they too have the large head axle pin.

Hi members what a great new site...In answer to the question, my 1918 dated Navy does have the large headed axle pin.......Leo

Hello Luger11, welcome to the site, although I live in Washington State, I have flown into Mass., on many occassions this last year (corp HQ is there), welcome to the forum!

Ed

[IMG] http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/Trigger.jpg[/IMG] This is the trigger on an early 1906 Navy with the serial number upside down. Apparently DWM did not consider it serious enough to change it.

Anyone have an idea as to why the image didn't open?

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny Peppers:
<strong>[IMG] ]http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/Trigger.jpg[/IMG] ....</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sure!! OK you have an extra "]" after "/IMG]]" so - if you'd deleted that to read "/IMG]" - you would'a seen this
[img]biggrin.gif[/img] :
http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/Trigger.jpg

Huh? I don't see the extra bracket ] anywhere. If there is one, where did it come from as I did a copy from the old forum and a paste here.

[IMG] http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/Trigger.jpg[/IMG]

This is exactly what I am seeing with no extra bracket. Hod did you see it?

Johnny, I don't see it either, unless I put my mouse over the "image" wording and then I see a [ on one side and I guess it shouldn't be there?

You could edit your own post and see it then, and if you take out the [ it should show up correctly.

The edit is the pencil and paper above that post icon thingy.

Hello Johnny,

From what I recall on the old Forum threads, are 1918 Navy lugers to be regarded with some "suspect" ?

IMHO, 1918 chamber dated Navy military lugers, if there are any, are VERY suspect.

John
Thanks for the help. Sorry I took so long to get back with you but have been out of the US for awhile. Really like the new format. I am not a computer savy person and so I am struggling to learn the new process.
Thanks
larry

After reading the exchange about small versus large pin flanges, I would like to ask a question :

Can such things as the size of the rear pin flange be so "black & white" ?

Is it possible, that in the frentic production schedule at DWM during 1916-1917 (during war years), regular Navy parts bins became empty and to keep production numbers up, the folks at DWM utilized other parts rather than not make their production quotas ?

I ask this question not to defend the luger in question or the seller.

I have been reading other Forum threads about serial number stamps on a trigger being stamped "upside" down, some military guns with commerical serial number stampings, and some parts "double stamped". Recently a Forum thread is discussing the size of the date stamp on 1916 versus 1917 Navyies, with folks citing examples of both and to the contrary. With these examples, the folks in the luger factory decided to pass the gun down the line.

I have a Swiss luger that is all "white" on its interior surfaces, except for the front well where the locking bolt runs through. All the Swiss books say this front well should be in the white as well. I surmise the factory worker that was brushing the rust blue solution on maybe let some chemical drip into this front well. Certainly not factory spec's, but the luger was not rejected and was pass down the line, anyways.

Is it possible in 1917, during the dire years of WWI and the German war machine screaming for lugers, that some Navies were made with the "wrong" type of rear pin flange size ?

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

Pete, what you say is alway "possible" but I doubt it. The Navy probably would have rejected a delivery that did not meet all of its specifications. I've seen one example of a standard PO8 with no Naval proofs, that was set up for the large rimmed axel pin. This one probably would have been accepted by the Army. Tom H.

Pete,
You state that the Swiss Navy Luger thread was deleted/censored by you as moderator because â??I do not want the forum to be used to possible degrade the buyers guns value and likewise to impune the sellers reputation.â?� John S. and John D. commended your action. This policy favors the seller and I could not disagree more.

Fakes/replicas are a serious business to most collectors. Private E- mails between long time collectors and new collectors concerning the 1916-1917 dated Navy Lugers have been circulating. They leave no question that these Lugers are replicas. It is not a matter of speculation or a gray area. It is apparent that large numbers of these fake Navy Lugers were made.

Experienced collectors establish that the correct 1916-1917 dated Navy Lugers have the large flange pin with their postings on this thread. Apparently you give no credit to the long time collectors that posted on this thread and were not on the routing list for these private E-Mails. If you gave credit to long time collectors or were on the routing list, perhaps you would not be excusing these fake Lugers with wild speculation about â??the German war machine screaming for lugersâ?� or â??frenetic productionâ?� or â??regular Navy parts bins being emptyâ?�.

Private E-Mails that trash a dealer or a luger do a disservice to both the dealer and Forum members. It is not fair to the dealer because he has no opportunity to defend himself and its unfair to the rest of the members because they will not know about the bad dealers or the bad Lugers.

Its my opinion that private E-Mails (concerning bad dealers and faked Lugers) should eventually be made public to benefit all the Forum members.
Jan C. Still

Hello Jan,

I was not "privy" to the private e-mails that you mentioned that circulated, off-Forum, about the Navy rear axle pin flange size; so I certainly do not know what the other "experts" had to say.

The only replies that I recall on the Forum expressed by Johnny Peppers, Tom Heller, and Bill Munis confirmed large flanges should only be seen on 1916-1917 Navies. I certainly did not mean to "dismiss" their opinions with my follow-up posting.

I also know the original poster received the info. (both on-Forum and off-Forum) he was asking to help make a buy/keep decision regarding the luger in question.

In my most recent posting I was just trying to ask if it were possible, just possible if some small flanged 1917 Navies got out ?

With my manfuacturing engineering background in the world of real-time computer aided manufacturing (CAM) techniques in factory settings in 2002 with literally hundreds of vendors and company employees trying to make "just in time" manufacturing work; I have a keen appreciation for those typical SNAFU's showing up and leaving all on the factory floor total stumped when something that is supposed to be there, isn't. Usually on those days, you use what is at hand (typically upgraded parts) to get the order out.

My question was just surmising if a factory in a country at war with most of the European continent over 80 years ago (without the use of CAM manufacturing controls) might have had those days on their factory floor from time to time.

Tom Heller's reply, that he has seen a P-08 with no Navy proofs but with the large "Navy" axle pin, may lend support to my speculation that such days at DWM may have occured on some rare occassion...

Respectfully,

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

Pete, I don't rule out the possibility that the PO8 that I say with the large flange rear axel, might have been a Weimar of a 1916 or 1917 Navy (don't still have this pistol). Also, the large flange pin usage started with the M1908 Navy, not the P04/14. Tom H.

Jan,
You are right about the many fake Navy Lugers out there. They are made from donor 1920 Commercial Lugers because of the same serial number style & placement. Navy barrels & rear toggles were manufactured recently to put on 20 Commercials (which are relatively cheap & easy to find in nice condition.) Then Navy proofs are added to the left side of the receiver, a chamber date is added (usually 1916), a fake Navy mag is added, etc.

I can assure you that all of the top dealers know about these guns because they have been offered to us in quantity by the maker at very tempting wholesale prices. And they look nicer than most real Navy Lugers, because real ones are usually pitted from sea spray.

This forum has picked up on the easiest way to identify these guns, look at the flange on the rear toggle pin. The fake Navy Lugers still have the smaller flanged pin that fits into the smaller flanged receiver from the donated 1920 Commercial. Also look for the recently added chamber date & Navy proofs. And the rear sight adjustment button is fire blued with very sharp serrations.

Many of these guns have ended up in the hands of novice collectors (I see the damage done on a regular basis.) I know several people who have stopped collecting after getting stung. They were only sold by a few dealers, but they sold a lot of them. It would not look right for me as a dealer to name names. But I beleive the collectors on this forum have the right to expose the people who have knowingly tried to take advantage of them.

The bad guys rely on the good guys keeping quiet.

Good post, Brad.

Only down side, all of these bogus Navys will now be reworked to install a large flange rear toggle pin. [img]frown.gif[/img]
Luke

It is too bad that the folks who manufactured these bogus parts for installation on 1920 commercial guns couldn't just stick to manufacturing the parts for a reasonable price instead of using deceptive practices to fleece unsuspecting newcomers...

I would love to have a Navy "type" rear toggle and a 6 inch barrel with the correct front sight base just so that I could create a "shooter" class Navy Luger at a price that wouldn't empty my retirement fund and I wouldn't even care if both the barrel and rear sight/toggle parts were neatly and permanently stamped "Made In The USA"

Having spent two years in manufacturing engineering, I think it is a crying shame to have spent the time and effort necessary to engineer and set up a production line to produce so few parts when they could have done the Luger shooters of world a real service and made a "reasonable" profit doing it.

I can only hope that AIMCO will take this hint and produce both a Navy and an Artillery model Luger in their product line including the original type rear sights... If they make them out of stainless steel, there is no way that their parts could turn up on a forgery of an original Navy...

Just my $0.02

John,
You are absolutely right. For the amount of time & effort it takes to make these guns, the guy could be making something else and earning honest money.

Some people would rather be taking advantage of someone. I have never understood this psychology. [img]confused.gif[/img]

I'm sure we all have lots of stories, but it is amazing to me the amount of work people do, to do something illegal and if they spent half their time and energy into legal pursuits, they'd be well off! [img]confused.gif[/img]

As Brad points out, most dealers will not handle these bogus Navy Lugers . . . . . but a few do.