Vickers Dutch East Indies Luger

[Herb]

VICKERS DUTCH LUGER

I thought I would post some picture of my newest acquisition, a Vickers Dutch East Indies Luger. As is common with these pieces it is in rather rough shape finish wise with some heavy pitting on the grip straps and the grips themselves are missing some pieces but they are the original ones serial numbered to the pistol. It has an original unnumbered Vickers magazine with the bottom piece release spring but it appears so rusted I'll probably not try to get it apart. The side plate is unnumbered but looking at the pictures in Martens and deVries 'The Dutch Luger' most of them are unnumbered also. Otherwise all the other numbers are matching. I have to assume that it has been partially arsenal refinished as the barrel has a different finish and is dated on the top '1931' According to the above reference the common practice at the time was to replace the barrels every 6 to 7 years due to the harsh climatic conditions of the area.
A little background on the East Indies Lugers. In December 1919 the Netherlands signed a contract for 6,000 M11 (the Dutch designation for the Luger) pistols to be produced by Vickers. These pistols were not ready for delivery until May of 1921. Most of them were delivered without the grip plates which were to be made at the Geweermakersschool in Batavia (Jakarta) probably to save a little money. These Javanese grips had much coarser checkering which detracted from the overall appearance. Exactly 6,000 Vickers Lugers were assembled for the Dutch East Indies Army for this contract. The serial numbers followed the pre-World War 1 deliveries by DWM so the Vickers pistols were numbered from 4182 to 10181 inclusive. These Lugers probably arrived in the Dutch East Indies in 1922. My Vickers is serial numbered 4461 making it one of these pistols.
Most Vickers Lugers have a brass plate affixed to the left frame panel indicating the unit of assignment. As this one has no plate, nor any evidence of ever having one, it was probably one purchased by an officer. In 1942 the Dutch East Indies Army capitulated to the attacking Japanese Army and this Luger was in all probability captured by the Japanese. Where it has been and what stories it could tell before coming into my possession would be of great interest. Here is a web site with some good info on the Dutch East Indies Campaign of 1941-1942,..
http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/
Credit for the above information goes to Martens and de Vries from their book
The Dutch Luger.













In photo #7 is visible the cirlce GS emblem of the Dutch Geweermakersschool

[Edward Tinker]

looks like a good rep piece Herb!


Ed

[George Anderson]

They sure are dogs but they're righteous

[lugerholsterrepair]

Herb, God! What a hunk of junk...Better send it to me for safekeeping. I could keep the beautiful Dutch holster I have here too. If this could only talk it could tell some stories eh?
Maybe someday I will be lucky enough to own one of these with a Dutch holster. I think the holster is a bit more rare than the pistol...Jerry Burney

[Dwight Gruber]

Herb,

Herb, good presentation and research, and a nice Vickers. Thanks very much for taking the time and effort for the presentation.

It is interesting to see that the center toggle piece doesn't have the c/V "view mark" (British inspection stamp).

Are you sure that the side plate isn't numbered on the bottom edge? Mine is.

The barrel date is curious. It is true that the date commonly reflects the date of rebarre, but your gun has all the British proofs underneath the barrel where one expects to find them on the original barrels. I'd ve interested to see the witness mark on this piece.

I am disappointed that this is posted in the Patrons Only forum rather than in the general Foruns where everyone can benefit from your effort.

--Dwight

[Ron Wood]

From what I understand, a barrel date indicates the date of rework, but not necessarily involving re-barreling.

[Herb]

Dwight, you are correct, the bottom edge of the side plate does have a number #45, a mismatch. The center toggle has no proof but the bolt and the rear toggle do have the c/V stamp. I'll get a pic of the witness mark for you . I think Ron might have the answer, the 1933 date may have been a rework date for something else, the side plate maybe? as the barrel does still have it's original stampings even though it definitely has a different appearance and finish from the rest of the slide assembly.
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/witness_mark.jpg

Just barely visible in this photo is the unusual location of serial # on the thumb safety lever, on the inside rather than on the edge.

Ok, I'm completely confused now. Having taken the time to do a little more research in Martens and de Vries I find the following: "Finally, a completely different set of proof marks is (sic) found on the Dutch Vickers Lugers. These pistols were proofed in England, and marked accordingly. At the underside of the barrel, they were struck with the letters "NP" (nitro-proof), the crowned, entwined letters "GP" (the definitive proof mark of the London proof house) and a crowned "V" was also struck on the most of the pistols' principal parts, such as the toggle assembly, breech block and frame.
Underneath a photo on page 163 showing a barrel date of 1925 the caption reads "Most Dutch East Indies Lugers have a small date struck at the top of the barrel. As pistol barrels wore out quickly in the tropical climate, they were replaced every six or seven years. The date signified the year in which the barrel entered service. The earliest year observed is 1914, the latest 1941.
Since this Vickers has the original proof marks on the barrel as well as the date of 1933 on the top of the barrel it must indicate something other than a routine barrel replacement unless there happened to be a quantity of spare barrels that were originally proofed in England, and then serial numbered to the weapon following replacement. The barrels that were made in the Indies were stamped with the arsenel stamp, GS, however there is no mention of there being a supply of original Vickers barrels used for replacements.

[John Sabato]

This message thread was moved at the author's request (Herb) to the general membership forum area from the Lugerforum Patron's discussion area so that the general membership could benefit from this presentation.

[Dwight Gruber]

Herb,

Curious indeed.

The witness mark doesn' t tell much, it is very mismatched. Mine is as well; the barrel is original British without date. It would be useful for other Vickers owners to weigh in with their barrel markings/originality and the characteristics of their witness marks.

"Something other than a routine barrel replacement" occurred to me, although Martens and DeVries are pretty positive about this. I'm not sure that simply swapping out the sideplate would have merited a date.

It is easy to speculate that some spare parts were included in the Vickers shipment (I believe I have read thhis, although cannot find the citation so this should not be considered authoritative). A barrel would have had to have been assembled into a receiver and proof fired in order to receive the nitro proof stamp, I'm not sure this is likely. Martens & DeVries note on p. 86 that the Dutch obtained spare parts from DWM until (possibly) WWI, making most (but not all) the parts required, including barrels, by the mid-30s.

Regarding the placement of the serial number on the thumb safety, remember, these guns were numbered in the Commercial style.

Thanks to you and John S. for moving the discussion.

--Dwight

[Herb]

Dwight, I agree, it's not likely that there was a supply of spare Vickers barrels laying around. As to the number on the safety lever, it's on the inside, not visible in any manner when it is in it's proper location. Here's a better picture of it---
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...fety_lever.jpg

[Hugh]

Here's some pics of my Vickers Luger. It is a mishmash of parts; The frame is #8007 and the trigger & breechblock are 07. The bbl is #4706, & the receiver, middle toggle, rear toggle, & toggle pin are #06. It appears that the first two numbers of the bbl SN have been over stamped, however the witness marks line up and the receiver is stamped 06 on the bottom. The take down lever & sideplate are #08. The grips are "Clark replacements". It comes with two original Dutch mags, one with a replaced wood bottom. It has 1925 rework stamp & doesn't look like a brass plate was ever soldered to the frame.

[Herb]

Hugh, even tho it's mismatched it's in decent shape, I like those mags, mine has the spring rusted away. I had just recieved it the day I took the pictures and have spent many hours cleaning the rust out of and off of it, it looks a little better now with a good coat of penetrating oil on it. From what I've read no Vickers will ever win a beauty contest, even when they were new. I don't really care, it looks pretty to me and fills a big hole in my collection. These babies are really hard to come by. Until I got mine I had only seen one other one, Ralph had it at one of the Reno shows. You can go out and on several days of the month you can find those red cross Lugers and them Kreigerhoffers, but finding a Vickers is another matter. Thanks for the pictures, a decent example.

[Heinz]

Herb and All, Nice posts and interesting thread. It was my impression that Vickers Lugers were assembled from DWM parts and the actual venue for the assembly was not clear. Is this impression correct?

I look forward to a discussion of the witness marks. This may give a clue. I also keep looking for one of these. Ithink it is because the holster and other accessories are so interesting.

[drbuster]

Heinz, Still's Weimar Lugers, page 291, states that most, but not all parts were made by DWM and shipped to England for completion. Certainly, on close inspection of various Vickers pieces, one would also come to the conclusion that various parts, such as the barrel (unique front sight), side plate (narrower or shorter island), the grip safety (different sloping shape of the part that touches the rear grip strap, and a cut out portion on the top) and perhaps even the frame (different milling marks) were Vickers made. One would think that records from the early 1920's would be still available to solve this mystery once and for all, but where are they?

[Dwight Gruber]

Herb,

Martins & deVries assert that all the parts were manufactured by DWM, sending along only guages and machines for "minor operations".

Heinz,

I think in the long run nothing is going to be revealed from witness marks except perhaps sloppy technique. Too many of the guns were rebarrelled, and nothing is really known about Vickers's practice in applying them.

--Dwight

[drbuster]

Dwight, Therein lies the rub. "Experts" like Mike Krause strongly feel that many of the parts were made by Vickers themselves, as (1) they possessed the capability, and (2) subtle but definite variations in machining of various parts, as mentioned in my above post. Probably many of the smaller parts, such as take down levers, pins, safety levers, etc. WERE DWM made. It would be great if someone could come up with Vickers records..they SHOULD exist. As for rebarrelling, I thought this task was accomplished in the Dutch East Indies, far from the Vickers plant. We have no way of knowing whether witness marks were applied consistently. My rebarrelled GS marked Vickers does indeed have witness marks. I wonder if a Forum poll would be of any help.

[Edward Tinker]

I am thinking (memory, since the books are in storage), that Martins has researched it? Memory, which could be wrong, said that he found documents that said that parts were fitted by vickers, and that the fit was not acceptable and that beligium FN was hired to fit them correctly.

I do not know who made parts, but was thinking it also said that DWM made the parts,

Ed

[Herb]

In Martens and de Vries, pages 86 & 87, is the discussion about the parts. In part it says "After the adoption of the Luger pistol, the East Indies Army initially bought all of it's spare parts from DWM. Gradually, however, the Small Arms Arsenal in Bandoeng (Java) started producing Luger parts itself. Continuing they say that around the mid thirties, the Indies Arsenal was capable of making most parts of the Luger pistol, with the exception of the frame, reciever, breechblock, the toggle links, magazine catch, hold-open latch, the magazine safety and some important springs. On page 87 is a list taken from the official army manual of 1935 that shows all of the parts and where they were made.

[Vlim]

"Most Vickers Lugers have a brass plate affixed to the left frame panel indicating the unit of assignment. As this one has no plate, nor any evidence of ever having one, it was probably one purchased by an officer."

Hi, I have to disagree on this point. The pistol clearly shows marks of where a brass plate was attached to it. The plate has been removed. Removal of the plate was done for a number of reasons, one was that certain soldiers took their pistols home with them and removed the plates in an attempt to make identification more difficult.

A nice, honest looking Vickers nonetheless.

[Dwight Gruber]

I've pored through Martens & DeVries and have not been able to find reference anywhere for a FN connectin with Vickers Lugers. As I am familiar with it that assertion rests with European correspondents. I do not doubt their veracity, but so far have not been able to come up with a documented source.

As far as Vickers manufacturing parts, a few comments.

I think it is telling that the parts the Indonesian armorers were unable to make are exactly the complicated, high-strength parts which require extensive tooling and processing, as compared to "small parts". It is this tooling which one needs to search out in the Vickers records or scrap bins. It seems perfectly reasonable (though contrary to Martins & DeVries) that Vickers could make many of the smaller parts with generalized tooling.

I have to question why DWM might send along tooling on this scale for a 6,000 gun contract.

With due respect to Mike Krause, it should be noted (again, Martens & DeVries) that DWM delivered these parts 'in the white', and Vickers performed final finishing work. WAG this -could- account for subtle machining variations. The same could be said for any work FN -might- have done on these pistols. I'll have to break out some guns and do some comparisons.

--Dwight