Just an opinion here but I'm with John on this one. The small difference between the grip angles as so nicely illustrated by Ron can easily be explained by camera angles AND the type of cameras used.
I'm willing to bet that the Ordinance photograph was made using a large format view camera with the ability to tilt and swing front and back and possibly even drop the bed. Such camera movements allow the photographer to correct distortions in perspective. e.g., taking a picture of a tall building with a normal camera will show the walls converging as they go higher. A view camera can correct that perspective and show the walls parallel all the way up.
While such cameras can correct distortion, they can ALSO INTRODUCE distortion! In looking at the two photographs, the Ordinance picture appears to me to have distorted the grip in the mag well entrance area when compared to the newer photograph. The flow of the grip into a well-rounded bulge on the bottom front and the smooth curve on the lower back strap aren't there in the Ordinance picture. The smooth grip contour is quite plain in the newer picture.
Why am I so sure of the equipment used by the Ordinance Department photographer? Because the only cameras available in the early part of the 20th Century were box cameras or of the Kodak folding variety with minimal image control and large 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 or larger view cameras. Except for the view cameras, the rest were of essentially "snap shot" quality and the Ordinance Dept. would have demanded better. The chances are that the original negative or plate of the .45 Luger taken by the Ord. Dept. was as sharp as a tack. Repeated copying has degraded the image.
Yes, it's quite possible to distort the grip in the manner seen depending upon the focal length of the lens used and the corrections made by the photographer using the various movements of the camera lens, bed and back.
Just something more to consider when comparing the two pictures.
|