LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Pete Ebbink · 12-17-2006, 12:56 PM

Interesting old discussion exchange between Ron Wood and Albert Beliard back on 10-16-2002 time frame.

Albert's posting :

Ron,

With reference to your post above and based on various expert opinions I have received, I am not saying that the Baby Luger is mismatched in respect to serial number, but it is possibly mismatched physically, mechanically or it has been modified at a later date. Supposingly, there were four Baby Lugers manufactured, the first two in .32 ACP and the next two in .380 and maybe a fifth for parts. Let us put aside what was reported in the 1950/60's because there could have been speech translation and comprehension problems at the time. I have a few questions I would like to ask:

1) Would all the four Baby Luger bottom receivers and magazines be the same for each caliber, or would they be slightly different for each caliber?

2) Would the two Baby Lugers in caliber .380 need to be modified from upper receivers originally made in .32 ACP, and would August Weiss allow such an alteration when it would probably be cheaper and more reliable to make a correctly functioning pistol from scratch? If DWM wanted to compete in the area of small pocket pistols, such as against the Browning pistol, why would they want to produce a pistol in the uncommon .380 caliber when the most popular small cartridge at the time was .32 ACP?

3) With all the tooling, machinery and skilled designers/workmen that DWM had available in the factory, what was the problem in making a proper Baby Luger in the first place instead of producing a pistol which appears crude in manufacture? German engineering would not allow such a pistol to pass inspection! When I handled the Baby Luger serial #4 in Geoff Sturgess's collection in 1990/91, it appeared crude and even the Baby Luger made by Krausewerke was better made than serial #4!

According to what I am mentioning based on various opinions I have received, the Baby Luger serial #4 is open to further debate according to its present physical nature/structure and I am not an expert in this field to make a judgement until a genuine Baby Luger would be compared with it side-by-side. I can accept the fact that serial number #4 is a Baby Luger, but further research and study is required to determine its authenticity.

Albert

__________________
Web Site: Imperial Arms

Ron's reply :

Albert,

You ask some very good questions. Now I am going to do something dumb and take a shot at addressing them. I probably will be shot down by folks who really know what they are talking about, but what the heckâ?¦it wonâ??t be the first time.

1) Would all the four Baby Luger bottom receivers [frames] and magazines be the same for each caliber? Iâ??m guessing they could be. I looked at the dimensional specs for the .32 ACP cartridge vs. the 380. Case lengths are identical. Rim diameter is only .02â? difference. Then I checked a .32 caliber Browning 1900 magazine against a Walther PPK .380 mag. The difference in thickness is about the thickness of a credit card. I then checked an original DWM 479A .32 cartridge against a new Winchester .380 cartridge. Case and overall lengths are identical. Then I loaded up the PPK mag with .32 cartridges. Worked pretty goodâ?¦a little stagger stacked but nothing that couldnâ??t be compensated for by a proper follower and slight modification of the magazine lips. I think they would feed just fine from that mag with a little tinkering. Looks like frame and magazine compatibility to me.

2) Would the two Baby Lugers in caliber .380 need to be modified from upper receivers originally made in .32 ACP? First of all, I am not really sure why it is assumed that the .380 receivers were originally made for the .32 ACP and not from scratch to begin with. As far as modifying a .32 receiver, other than the barrel change, I am guessing that all that is required is hogging out the bolt face .02â? and maybe shortening the height of the extractor hook .01â? since both cartridges have the same rim thickness. Both cartridges are straight sided, so I am guessing that headspacing is accomplished by the chamber and therefore not a problem with a barrel swap and proper chamber reamer.

Would August Weiss allow such an alteration when it would probably be cheaper and more reliable to make a correctly functioning pistol from scratch? As stated above, how do we know the .380 receivers werenâ??t fabricated from scratch? Nevertheless, Herr Weiss probably would have made the modifications considering how little effort would be involved (and the probability that it was intended to create two different caliber prototypes from the beginning). Actually, Herr Weiss would not have to have made that decision since the supervision of the construction of the babies was by Herr Heinrich Hoffmann, Herr Weissâ?? predecessor. Herr Weiss only authenticated #4 as one of the babies produced by Herr Hoffmann.

Why would they [DWM] want to produce a pistol in the uncommon .380 caliber when the most popular small cartridge at the time was .32 ACP? Why did DWM create the 9mm Parabellum and not stay with the 7.65 cartridge? Perhaps it is because the .380 has about 60% more energy than the .32 ACP and would make a more effective pocket pistol?

3) With respect to the manufacturing crudeness of #4, you have the advantage in actually handling the weapon in question. I can only go by the contemporary photos in the aforementioned articles. Externally at least, the construction looks pretty darned good. Mike Krause is a very skilled craftsman and considering that nearly a century has passed, his baby Lugers probably do look a bit better by comparison to the original. It is known that #4 has been subjected to questionable indignities. The brazed bolt face was perpetrated by a person or persons unknown. Whether it was a factory modification or a repair by the former French collector from whom it was obtained, or somebody else, may never be known. By all accounts, #4 has had a hard and checkered history.

I am not defending the authenticity of #4, just presenting some observations. It would be enlightening if the expert would divulge how he/she determined the frame is for a .32. I can think of a couple of ways, but I would like to hear the process from the original source.

Regards
Ron

__________________
If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

This was the last posting in the thread by Johnny Peppers :

Ron,

Your comments on the minor difference in dimension of the .32 and .380 cartridge are very valid. As in the case of the .32acp Colt Model 1903 and the .380acp Model 1908 Pocket Pistols, the difference was so slight that the magazine well of the Model 1903 was opened slightly to accept the .380 magazine and the Model 1908 was born. No further modification was necessary and the .380 barrel was a drop in fit. The small dimensional difference of the two cartridges would have created no problems for DWM.

12-17-2006, 12:56 PM	#34
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Interesting old discussion exchange between Ron Wood and Albert Beliard back on 10-16-2002 time frame. Albert's posting : Ron, With reference to your post above and based on various expert opinions I have received, I am not saying that the Baby Luger is mismatched in respect to serial number, but it is possibly mismatched physically, mechanically or it has been modified at a later date. Supposingly, there were four Baby Lugers manufactured, the first two in .32 ACP and the next two in .380 and maybe a fifth for parts. Let us put aside what was reported in the 1950/60's because there could have been speech translation and comprehension problems at the time. I have a few questions I would like to ask: 1) Would all the four Baby Luger bottom receivers and magazines be the same for each caliber, or would they be slightly different for each caliber? 2) Would the two Baby Lugers in caliber .380 need to be modified from upper receivers originally made in .32 ACP, and would August Weiss allow such an alteration when it would probably be cheaper and more reliable to make a correctly functioning pistol from scratch? If DWM wanted to compete in the area of small pocket pistols, such as against the Browning pistol, why would they want to produce a pistol in the uncommon .380 caliber when the most popular small cartridge at the time was .32 ACP? 3) With all the tooling, machinery and skilled designers/workmen that DWM had available in the factory, what was the problem in making a proper Baby Luger in the first place instead of producing a pistol which appears crude in manufacture? German engineering would not allow such a pistol to pass inspection! When I handled the Baby Luger serial #4 in Geoff Sturgess's collection in 1990/91, it appeared crude and even the Baby Luger made by Krausewerke was better made than serial #4! According to what I am mentioning based on various opinions I have received, the Baby Luger serial #4 is open to further debate according to its present physical nature/structure and I am not an expert in this field to make a judgement until a genuine Baby Luger would be compared with it side-by-side. I can accept the fact that serial number #4 is a Baby Luger, but further research and study is required to determine its authenticity. Albert __________________ Web Site: Imperial Arms Ron's reply : Albert, You ask some very good questions. Now I am going to do something dumb and take a shot at addressing them. I probably will be shot down by folks who really know what they are talking about, but what the heckâ?¦it wonâ??t be the first time. 1) Would all the four Baby Luger bottom receivers [frames] and magazines be the same for each caliber? Iâ??m guessing they could be. I looked at the dimensional specs for the .32 ACP cartridge vs. the 380. Case lengths are identical. Rim diameter is only .02â? difference. Then I checked a .32 caliber Browning 1900 magazine against a Walther PPK .380 mag. The difference in thickness is about the thickness of a credit card. I then checked an original DWM 479A .32 cartridge against a new Winchester .380 cartridge. Case and overall lengths are identical. Then I loaded up the PPK mag with .32 cartridges. Worked pretty goodâ?¦a little stagger stacked but nothing that couldnâ??t be compensated for by a proper follower and slight modification of the magazine lips. I think they would feed just fine from that mag with a little tinkering. Looks like frame and magazine compatibility to me. 2) Would the two Baby Lugers in caliber .380 need to be modified from upper receivers originally made in .32 ACP? First of all, I am not really sure why it is assumed that the .380 receivers were originally made for the .32 ACP and not from scratch to begin with. As far as modifying a .32 receiver, other than the barrel change, I am guessing that all that is required is hogging out the bolt face .02â? and maybe shortening the height of the extractor hook .01â? since both cartridges have the same rim thickness. Both cartridges are straight sided, so I am guessing that headspacing is accomplished by the chamber and therefore not a problem with a barrel swap and proper chamber reamer. Would August Weiss allow such an alteration when it would probably be cheaper and more reliable to make a correctly functioning pistol from scratch? As stated above, how do we know the .380 receivers werenâ??t fabricated from scratch? Nevertheless, Herr Weiss probably would have made the modifications considering how little effort would be involved (and the probability that it was intended to create two different caliber prototypes from the beginning). Actually, Herr Weiss would not have to have made that decision since the supervision of the construction of the babies was by Herr Heinrich Hoffmann, Herr Weissâ?? predecessor. Herr Weiss only authenticated #4 as one of the babies produced by Herr Hoffmann. Why would they [DWM] want to produce a pistol in the uncommon .380 caliber when the most popular small cartridge at the time was .32 ACP? Why did DWM create the 9mm Parabellum and not stay with the 7.65 cartridge? Perhaps it is because the .380 has about 60% more energy than the .32 ACP and would make a more effective pocket pistol? 3) With respect to the manufacturing crudeness of #4, you have the advantage in actually handling the weapon in question. I can only go by the contemporary photos in the aforementioned articles. Externally at least, the construction looks pretty darned good. Mike Krause is a very skilled craftsman and considering that nearly a century has passed, his baby Lugers probably do look a bit better by comparison to the original. It is known that #4 has been subjected to questionable indignities. The brazed bolt face was perpetrated by a person or persons unknown. Whether it was a factory modification or a repair by the former French collector from whom it was obtained, or somebody else, may never be known. By all accounts, #4 has had a hard and checkered history. I am not defending the authenticity of #4, just presenting some observations. It would be enlightening if the expert would divulge how he/she determined the frame is for a .32. I can think of a couple of ways, but I would like to hear the process from the original source. Regards Ron __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction This was the last posting in the thread by Johnny Peppers : Ron, Your comments on the minor difference in dimension of the .32 and .380 cartridge are very valid. As in the case of the .32acp Colt Model 1903 and the .380acp Model 1908 Pocket Pistols, the difference was so slight that the magazine well of the Model 1903 was opened slightly to accept the .380 magazine and the Model 1908 was born. No further modification was necessary and the .380 barrel was a drop in fit. The small dimensional difference of the two cartridges would have created no problems for DWM.