Odin stock
 

Just received the Odin stock I bought, and amazingly it fits right up to my Navy with no problems. Since this is a repo and not an original piece, this begs the question of why all the other repos currently on the market will not fit "out of the box", and have to be "fitted'? Obviously the repops can be made correctly, and since none of them seem to be low in cost, the question is, I wonder why they do not? :cool:

You just lucked out, Navy and Artillery stocks were numbered for a reason, they are not always interchangeable.
Norm

Odin stocks were made quite a few years back.
All current repro stocks do not have to be "fitted", only some; neither will all Odin stocks fit all lugers.

I'd say Sarco's repros at $74 or so are pretty low in cost.
An Odin stock, when you can find one, is often 4 or 5 times that cost- if yours was less - you got lucky.

To paraphrase someone:
"Repro stocks fit some lugers all of the time, all lugers none of the time, and probably not your luger !" ;)

Why they do not? They would cost more to make- and still would not fit all lugers. JMHO.

Thanks guys! I was under the impression from reading different info, that the Odin stocks always seemed to fit. My mistake. Your answers bring up another question. What makes the Odin apparently worth more?

Nor do they look the same!

They are nicely made, and usually fit.:evilgrin:

Question.
Since it is a reproduction is it legal to be attached to an original Navy Luger? Or to be legal does it have to be an original stock?

A faithful repro. of a Navy stock on a Navy Luger is OK, but an Artillery stock on a Navy gun is not.
dju

The short answer is for a stock to be "legal" attached to a Navy Pistol, it must be a Navy pattern stock.

There must be a dozen threads with this information here, and with references to the various ATF/BATF/BATFE letters that have been issued that refer to stock use.

Reproduction stocks are approved for use when they satisfy the criteria in these letters, which, abbreviated, is -that they must be of the same pattern and type of the original.

I strongly suggest you research and read these letters for yourself so that you understand the ins and outs of "approval".:thumbup:

Thanks,
I will.

Am I the only one that doesn't really care much for pistol shoulder stocks? And, if not original to the pistol, doesn't care at them at all.:confused:

Stateside, it’s just a legal way to sort of thumb your nose at the NFA ‘34 provisions on SBR’s and the accompanying background checks and taxes among other red tape with it. Lugers are classified as collectible items that are generally exempt from the provisions as long as they were issued with stocks.

I am aware of that. But I'm mostly a pistol shooter, I am just indiferent to "makeshift" carbines. I will appreciate a pistol stock only in the "History context" of it. Meaning, it has to be original to the pistol with the correspondent matching serial number.

Am I the only one that doesn't really care much for pistol shoulder stocks? Probably not but anyone who feels this way may be missing the point. Pistol stocks were an expediency that made a pistol serve two masters. One close for defense and one long for offense. They were an answer to a perceived military problem. How to employ a self defense arm as an offensive weapon to obviate the use of it up close.

That a modern civilian pistol shooter does not care for this double use doesn't surprise me at all. It was purely for military problem solving. Not civilian pistol target shooting.

As I said above, in the original concept I do appreciate them. But I do compete with muzzle loading revolvers at 50 meters in MLAIC.

A stocked Luger extends that to 500 meters.

So do we concur that a stocked pistol is more accurate at the longer distances? Personally I could shoot a handgun better at arms' length, but rested on something solid, because it gets the sights further from my eyes and gives me the opportunity to be more precise.
dju

So do we concur that a stocked pistol is more accurate at the longer distances? Of course! Of that there is no doubt. Military or hunting use does not often/always afford resting on something solid. Also seeing sights is less troublesome for an 18 year old Soldier.

But the reality is..apples and oranges. A pistol is a pistol, until it becomes a rifle.

My interest in stocked pistols stems from it's fascinating historical metamorphosis and it's myriad uses around the World. Carrying a hunk of wood that gives you hundreds of meters more accurate range that you would otherwise have. That my friends is human innovation only surpassed by the invention of the atlytl.

Theoretically. Even with a proper rifle and using open sights I seldom risk more than a 300 meter shot.