Albert,
Thank you very much for starting a new thread for this discussion. I can’t attribute anything I have said now or in the past to amnesia…but there is an argument for senility (advancing years and all that)
.
I have acknowledged that your assertions about this model of Luger are well thought out and are both scholarly and plausible. However, they remain conjecture without a shred of evidence to back them up… and I will preempt your objections by stating that there is also not a shred of hard evidence to support my belief that this model has Russian roots.
But to date my unshakeable conviction that this controversial Luger is “Russian” lies with several factors:
I have already mentioned the existence of the two early Bulgarian Lugers with very elaborate and readily identifiable chamber crests. Why abandon this singularly distinctive marking for an ambiguous crossed rifle mark? (Not to mention the fact that you and other detractors have acknowledged that the rifles are indeed Mosin-Nagant. Those rifles only represented 13% of the Bulgarian rifle armament, so it would be an odd choice for a “Bulgarian” Luger)
Next, the safety marking is undoubtedly exactly the same as that found on Bulgarian Lugers. But considering the era it was made, there is a strong argument (in my mind at least
) that it is also, if not correct, at least understandable in Russian. In earlier discussions about this language anomaly, very well educated and intelligent forum members have roundly rejected any Russian connection based on their present day familiarity with the differences in the Cyrillic spelling in the respective Russian and Bulgarian languages…and I am sure they will still consider me the village idiot. However, long before the controversy on the exact origin of this model arose and I had acquired my Luger, I was curious about the Russian and Bulgarian marking understanding as they existed then. I made copies of the marks that were available in early references and sought interpretation by Russian speaking individuals. My most convincing translation came from an elderly Russian immigrant who had no knowledge of Lugers and not a lot of familiarity with firearms in general. He was alive and literate when these weapons were produced (sadly he has since passed away a number of years ago at the age of 95). He immediately recognized the safety marking as “fire” and gave me the pronunciation of the word, but could not translate the Bulgarian extractor marking. Conversely, he correctly translated the “Russian” extractor as “a charge”. I find it a bit amusing that our current scholars can dismiss the “Russian” extractor marking as the same in both languages, but refuse to accept that at the turn of the century the safety marking would be the same and understood by a Russian. I am inclined to accept the commonality of the Russian/Bulgarian safety marking as interpreted by an individual who was contemporary with the date of manufacture over the well intentioned interpretation by our modern scholars.
John Walter in his writings also indicates that the Cyrillic alphabet was essentially the same for both Russian and Bulgarian languages prior to its standardization and had received the same interpretation that the safety marking was equivalent in both languages. So I am not alone in that thought.
And, getting back to the extractor marking, why in the world would Ferdinand single out this particular example to have a different inscription than the contemporary Model 1906 Bulgarian and the subsequent Model 1908 Bulgarian extractors? It just defies logic. And I hope you won’t tell me it was so that the Russians could understand it since, as you maintain, it was intended for his Bulgarian soldiers in the Russian unit.
This interpretation is my own and not because of influence by any other individual or author. I am capable of developing my own opinions and do not slavishly adhere to someone else’s theory (including yours
). You and I will remain polarized on this subject, and that is OK.