View Single Post
Unread 10-22-2002, 04:46 PM   #10
Imperial Arms
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Malta, EU
Posts: 579
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Post

Mauro,

If I understand you correctly, are you saying that a group of pistols could have been sent to a firm such as AWM after the first acceptance of the Artillery Luger in 1913 with this different stock configuration to explore other solutions? If this is the case, I agree with your hypothesis which makes sense in the same manner as other Luger tests such as with the various Swiss tests.

I would also venture to say that the non-reinforced bottom receivers where taken from remaining old inventory to build these Artillery Lugers for other solutions/tests because factories never threw away old parts. In addition, this might also explain why DWM did not need to apply a chamber date to these Artillery Lugers and placed them in a separate serial range.

This is the kind of 'brain storming' I enjoy which might bring back some truth and logic to the Luger society instead of the many 'stories' which can be fabricated. I hope that these strong hypothesis and opinions are explained in your book dealing with long barrel and Artillery Lugers.

Ciao,
Albert
Imperial Arms is offline   Reply With Quote