LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Pete Ebbink · 08-13-2002, 11:11 PM

Hello Garfield,

Interesting how when we were discussing two (or the same) HK lugers in the R. Gibson book on pages 175 and 179; some totally dismissed my surmising that this alledged "faked/boosted" HK luger could, I repeat could, be explained by the top photos of two lugers beig mixed up on the publisher's cutting table and the side view photos might be the same gun, unaltered, but photographed under different lighting conditions. I think I was dismissed as being "silly".

But now when two photos may appear to show two .45 lugers with different grip angles; the argument that different lighting conditions and/or gun angles are used to support the hypothesis that these photos can only show the same type of .45 model with the same grip angles...photographed differently.

I am not sure I follow the logic here...

And does the vertical length of a grip safety become "shorter" when the gun is rotated away from the camera ?

I have tried this with my 1929 Bern, which has a very long vertical grip safety and I do not think the grip safety gets any "shorter", in a vertical plane, no matter how much I angle the Bern away from camera front...if anything it get longer as the luger is rotated away from camera center.

Then if I rotate my Bern towards the camera, the perceived grip angle becomes more slanted and the grip safety lever gets short.

This, I think, discounts the fact that the M. Reese photo gun was rotated towards the camera and is either perpendicular to the camera or rotated away...with the resulting perception of a less slanted grip angle and a longer grip safety lever than compared to the Aberman photos which seem to be photographed "square" to camera angle.

If I think about this anymore, I think my head will burst...sort of like those little martians in the movie Mars Attacks... [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

Respectfully,

Pete...

08-13-2002, 11:11 PM	#17
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Hello Garfield, Interesting how when we were discussing two (or the same) HK lugers in the R. Gibson book on pages 175 and 179; some totally dismissed my surmising that this alledged "faked/boosted" HK luger could, I repeat could, be explained by the top photos of two lugers beig mixed up on the publisher's cutting table and the side view photos might be the same gun, unaltered, but photographed under different lighting conditions. I think I was dismissed as being "silly". But now when two photos may appear to show two .45 lugers with different grip angles; the argument that different lighting conditions and/or gun angles are used to support the hypothesis that these photos can only show the same type of .45 model with the same grip angles...photographed differently. I am not sure I follow the logic here... And does the vertical length of a grip safety become "shorter" when the gun is rotated away from the camera ? I have tried this with my 1929 Bern, which has a very long vertical grip safety and I do not think the grip safety gets any "shorter", in a vertical plane, no matter how much I angle the Bern away from camera front...if anything it get longer as the luger is rotated away from camera center. Then if I rotate my Bern towards the camera, the perceived grip angle becomes more slanted and the grip safety lever gets short. This, I think, discounts the fact that the M. Reese photo gun was rotated towards the camera and is either perpendicular to the camera or rotated away...with the resulting perception of a less slanted grip angle and a longer grip safety lever than compared to the Aberman photos which seem to be photographed "square" to camera angle. If I think about this anymore, I think my head will burst...sort of like those little martians in the movie Mars Attacks... [img]biggrin.gif[/img] Respectfully, Pete...