[Ron Wood]

I have been reluctant to weigh in on this discussion since feelings run rather strongly on both sides of the argument, however, â??fools rush inâ?¦â?�, etc. While I am not asserting that the piece is authentic, there is a possibility that it has merit. Let me propose the following scenario for folks to chew on:

It is a tool-room prototype â??experimentalâ?� piece presented to the German Navy. Consider the following passage from G�¶rtz and Walter â??The Navy Lugerâ?�:

â??It has been suggested, somewhat implausibly, that the five experimental navy pistols were actually 15cm-barreled Parabellums of the experimental B-suffix five-digit number prototype series. However, they may have had the special back sight of the type now found on Old Model gun number 10005 (probably made about a year prior to the trials), which also has a 17.5 cm barrel and a unique stock with a push-button attachment. It would have been very tempting to consider this gun as a potential navy trial piece had its caliber been 9mm rather than 7.65mm.â?�

The experimental aspects reflected in this #10024 C Luger under discussion/critical review might be the modification of the rear sight from the 5-position tangent sight of the 7â?� (17.5cm) 10000-series pieces to the more practical two position 100-200 navy sight, and cutting back the longer barrel to a more manageable 6â?� (15cm) length. I chose the term â??cutting backâ?� on purpose because that is what I believe is the explanation of the unusual front sight of this Luger. In the enlarged photo of the front barrel band, a small step in the barrel is clearly visible behind the band indicating that band is probably a separate piece that has been fitted and silver-soldered, along with an appropriately elevated front sight block, to the barrel (how many of you know that is the way a Borchardt front sight is fitted?). Vestiges of this modification are apparent in the â??03/â??04 Navy Luger â??fat barrelâ?� configuration with the quite small difference in the diameter of the barrel and barrel band.

The serial number of Luger under discussion bears the upper case â??Câ?� suffix and a chamber monogram indicative of a presentation piece. To continue my flight of fancy, I would suggest that these are an add-on to a tool-room piece. The rational�© for this might be that after the initial presentation of the experimental Lugers, this one was made pretty for presentation to butter-up the old boy, or von T might have said â??gee, Iâ??d like to have one of thoseâ?�.

Again quoting from G�¶rtz and Walter, a translation of the letter from the Secretary of State, Reichs-Marine-Amt, states: â??The pistol will be known as â??Selbstladepistole 1904â??. It corresponds to the model as tested, apart from minor modifications [authors italics]â?�. The modifications mentioned that were made to the rare 1904 Navy Luger are quite likely the ramp style front sight base (to eliminate snagging and ease use with a holster) and the reduction of the bulky dished toggle knobs to a flat-sided configuration, again for duty holster use.

I have presented these arguments not to authenticate the piece but to provide food for thought. This is in no way critical of Harry, but I feel perhaps he may not have the Luger experience or resources to present these considerations. The suggestion by Dr. Fisher that this example be submitted to the scrutiny of a recognized authority such as Charlie Kenyon or Tom Armstrong is certainly in order. I lack the credentials to evaluate this piece, but I would love to be looking over their shoulder if and when this assessment occurs.