[Ron Wood]

This is a very interesting thread, and it raises a few questions.

[quote] An expert had confirmed to me that the Baby Luger had a mismatched upper and lower receiverâ?¦.I do not doubt the opinion of the expert who told me about the mismatched upper and lower receiver as well as knowing the entire history of the Baby Luger <hr></blockquote>

I am wondering about the conflict between the expert observation and the documentation, such as it is, that exists. In the 1962 Shooting Times article it states: â?? Serial numbers are not on all parts of it, but they do appear in three places: on the bottom of the barrel and front of the frame, and inside the toggle on the rear portion where the number is actually hidden by the flipping forward of the spring hook arm.â? The article goes on into considerable detail about the construction of the baby Luger, to include the fact that the magazine â??is made in two piecesâ?¦â? which are locked together by â??tiny dimplesâ? [spot welds?], and that the bolt face had been altered or repaired by brazing. It seems to me that if there was a mismatch between the upper and lower parts it would have been mentioned in such a comprehensive article, but there is no indication of a serial number mismatch.

The baby Luger was again the subject of an in-depth article in the 1984 Guns Illustrated annual. It was written after Pat Redmond had acquired the gun in 1981. The Shooting Times article only pictured the baby Luger in profile, but the Guns Illustrated article contains a clear picture of the forward frame and underside of the barrel with the caption: â??The only marks on the baby Luger are the serial number 4, shown here on the bottom of the barrel and front of the frame. The number also appears on the bottom of the center toggle link.â?

So, my question is: how does a gun observed by an expert to be made up from two different guns, pass the scrutiny of Herr August Weiss and be photographed with matching parts?