Regarding Concentric Circled On Navy Mags
 

I have always wondered why only the navy lugers shared this unique feature. If it was there for naval conditions only, it seems equally useful for use in the muddy and wet trenches of WW1~ Eric

Every service has its peculiarities and vanities. It is not unusual to see branches add silly things to weapons and gear, just so they can call it their own.

I submit that it may have been functional by design. Perhaps to allow better grip with a sailor's wet hands?

John, I would agree but it seems everyone had wet hands especially in that war~ It was a good idea! The Swiss Seems to have designed the best~ They probably wore gloves!!!

Since the Navy adopted the Luger four years before the Army did, one could make the case that this was an instance of the Army "adding a silly thing so they could call it their own". In reality I'm sure that this was done to simplify high volume production.
Norm

And maybe the finest~

Given that the Navy adopted the 9mm Parabellum in 1904, the concentric ring mags were probably a carry-over from the commercial 9mm pistol which were the first to use the concentric ring magazine.

While on the subject, Please remind me whats the tiny hole is for?

So you can press the follower button out.

Close. Initially it was used to stake the follower button to the follower. Later it could be used to press the follower button out.

Ron you never cease to amaze me!! Eric TKS

This was covered in Napca years ago and again on this forum as well. Originally the concentric circles showed a mag to be 9mm and there was also a very slight difference in at least one dimensional aspect. This was proven by factory drawings. The Navy was the first to adopt the 9mm caliber and with the guns came the 9mm concentric mags. So the navy guns and Concentric became associated. But in the beginning it was for 9mm identification, not Navy identification. Earliest Commercial 4" Lugers were shipped with concentric mags marked 9mm as well. Because in those days the concentric meant 9mm not Navy.

Is it possible that the naval manufacturer or supplier of magazine parts was different than the Armies, and so the wood worker did them as he was taught? Or were all magazines and parts made by or subcontracted to the same manufacturer?

David, although possible in the strictest sense, it is unlikely to the highest degree. As fastidious as the Germans were about specifications, any subcontractors were held to strict guidelines and configurations, so they did not produce things willy-nilly based on their whims! In systems with interchangeable parts, this is also important. My impression is that although holsters had many different makers, the parts for the guns themselves were produced mostly in-house. Precision rod stock for pins, carbon steel flat stock for springs, probably came from suppliers... I'd say Chris has made a good call on the situation. Geo. Anderson's observations and advice are very highly regarded, as well!

Very Very Good! Germans love uniformity~~ In my Ludwaffe handbook they even dictate how to fold their cloths correctly! No such thing as individuality and I am sure that uniformity applied to every aspect of Nazi daily life~There is a reason for every thing the produced within regulations and retentiveness. A hundred luger holster makers and all the same except for a few different models. I would of course defer to my friend, Jerry!

Do all Navy Mags have the concentric rings, or do some exist that do not have rings?

Yes, There were those without the rings.

I read somewhere (I believe it was in an article by Kokalis in SGN) that the full dish was meant to reflect light to make the mags easier to find if you dropped them. It sounds a bit far fetched to me, so is there any documented truth to this?

Olle, Yup! That's the reason. Imagine losing a magazine in the dark. A highly reflective disk may reflect moon or starlight..just enough to let you spot it. Pretty smart innovation in my opinion.

Yeah.. In a way. Highly reflective parts on military firearms would be a no-no in my book, but maybe it was ok back then?