Pete,
I remembering you graciously pointing out something about a cut at our meeting at the show, But I was still whipped from the long drive to Louisville and was trying to get an idea of the flow and feeling of my first time visit at this show, and I didn't quite get what you were talking about. I reviewed your excellent picture above as well as the picture in Stills book and I don't see a difference in them and my gun. What am I missing?
The bluing on my 1902 gun is not new. There is normal wear in the expected spots. I also showed this gun to Doug Smith and he felt that the gun was authentic except for the grips, which I knew. The attention at Dougs table quickly turned to my HK 'P' code and that gun became the focus of attention there. After reviewing Dougs fine assortment of HK's, I have to agree with his opinion on THAT gun. So I still I still might have been upset because of that to be truely listening to your later opinion.
At the party, later, I did not hear much of the comments about my other HK's because everyone crowded around my display. I only heard a comment by Tom about the side inscription on a different 'P' code HK, which I take some umberage at. But I am stalling on that topic until I purchase a digital camera, which won't happen until after I finish some personal business, including my income tax. Our friends in the government business get mad when they don't get a share of my profits. I don't want a bunch of black helecopters flying over my subdivision, my dog shot and my house burnt down. Those people have a history of that sort of thing.
Anyway, I will comment on the 'side inscripted' HK at a later date when I get that camera and I will post pictures as well as a retort under the HK thread. In the mean time, do not fret. I could not find that picture of 'King Cong' swatting at a huge, dinosaur-like bat over my Lugers. (Hee! Hee!). I won't be altering you avatar - just yet.
Still your buddy, Big Norm
|