[Ron Wood]

I have no idea what the second set of numbers represent...it seems odd that 7019 would have been reported as stolen in 1910, but I guess it could have happened.

Actually, I don't have 6761 in my records, I have 6760 and 6762. However, there is something strange about that entry too. People have searched the Army archives (Michael Reese and Scott Meadows to name two)and only 9 recorded 1900 Test Luger serial numbers can be found in the official records and correspondence...and 6761 isn't one of them. The only 1900 Test Lugers that can be linked to a specific unit are those listed in correspondence from 2nd Lt. Orlando G. Palmer of the 7th Cavalry, Cuba...NOT Troop B of the 6th Cavalry. Interestingly enough, one of the Lugers reported by Lt. Palmer was 6167, so maybe Springfield transposed the numbers, but the unit is still wrong.

I think that Springfield's data base is a work in progress, with much more accurate data being available for the more common types of US military arms. At a minimum, you would think they would have included the Test Lugers sold to Francis Bannerman in their lookup table, since the numbers are listed in another location on their website. The Luger data is sketchy and, I believe, based on less than hard documentation and facts. It is this same website that lists the serial number range of the US Test Lugers as being from 5800 to 7800. These numbers have not been substantiated by any historical records that I know of and have not appeared in any other document or publication that I have read. When I asked a representative from Springfield about the origin of this range, he could not provide a reference but he is a nice guy and said he would try to locate it. On two subsequent calls, the reference still has not been found and it was alluded that perhaps a "Luger authoriy" had told them that information. A name was mentioned, but he was not certain of that either, so I will not pass it on.

I am not putting down Springfield's herculean effort to catalog and document US military arms. For a large part they have done a tremendious job. But don't take their Luger data to the bank.