Wooden (Mauser C96 Style) Stock for 1913 Artillery

Imperial Arms · 10-15-2002, 09:00 PM

I am sure many members have seen the 1913 DWM Artillery Luger serial number #3X which is featured in the book 'Luger: The Multinational Pistol' by Charles Kenyon. The 1913 DWM Artillery with the Mauser C96 style stock is described as being a 'transitional' and/or 'test' model which I have doubts based on my research. A few years ago, I saw in a German collection a large photocopy of the original 1913 blue prints for the Artillery Luger which surfaced from a Bavarian archive showing the standard pistol with an 8" inch barrel; a pigskin holster shown separately; and a standard flatboard stock like a normal Artillery stock. In addition, another source of data explained that the 1913 Artillery was first test fired without a stock which was applied after the tests. I would like to receive the opinions/comments of the forum members as to whether this seldom found Mauser C96 style stock for the 1913 Artillery Luger was intended for commercial production or was it purported to be a 'transitional' stock? I believe the 1913 Artillery with the Mauser C96 style stock was for commercial production because it would have been to much labor and cost to make such a stock for military mass production considering that maybe 50-100 pieces were manufactured. I am sure DWM would have quit production after making a few stocks realizing its expensive cost for military use. I do not believe that a 'fancy' pistol was originally made to show the Kaiser and/or an evaluation board for the sake of obtaining a contract for the Army and then later changing it to a different stock configuration. Why would DWM decide to use a Mauser C96 style stock if they already had success with a similar stock with the 1906 Navy?

Albert

Imperial Arms · 10-15-2002, 11:49 PM

Rick,

That is the type of stock I am making reference to in the image you posted.

Thanks,
Albert

Dwight Gruber · 10-16-2002, 12:18 AM

I don't have the knowledge background to even begin to speculate on Albert's question (although I am greatly interested in what people have to say about it), but Rick, I would -sure- like to see more pictures of that rig!!

--Dwight

mauro · 10-16-2002, 04:07 PM

Hi Albert,
according to Gortz book the holster of this pre-production LP08 is marked AWM/9/14 (AWM, holster number 9,1914). AWM means Artilleriewerkstatten Munchen. AWM was a technical service that perform research for the Artillery in Munchen. My personal opinion is that the 50 test pistol, after the acceptance test, have been sent to this firm in order to continue and improve the solution accepted in 1913. This justify the date of the holster. In my understanding this particular solution (C96 stock and related holster) is a test performed by AWM as a prototype w/o success.
Let me know your opinion.
Ciao
Mauro

Dwight Gruber · 10-17-2002, 01:49 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Rick W.:
<strong>After I thought about this a while, my attempt to share with a picture seemed out of context of the original question. Wrong picture I guess. The gun I pictured was referenced to me as a Bavarian 8".

Rick W.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/crying.gif" border="0" alt="[crying]" /> Spoilsport!! Start a new thread, or something, with it, I'm tantalized and I -really- want to see more!

--Dwight

Edward Tinker · 10-17-2002, 02:49 AM

Bavarian 8 inch! I'd like to see that!

mauro · 10-19-2002, 02:55 PM

Dear friends,
here some others pictures concerning this very rare stock and holster. It is possible to see the stamp AWM/9/14. The meaning of this stamp has been presented in the Reply before. In my book concerning LP08 I state that these items are prototype made by Artilleriewerkstatten Munchen (AWM)after the introduction in service of the LP08 in 1913.
Let me know your opinion.
Ciao.
http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/LP08-01.jpg
http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/LP08-02.jpg
http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/LP08-03.jpg

Imperial Arms · 10-20-2002, 01:08 PM

Mauro,

Thank you very much for your opinion and the three images you supplied in your last post. My questions and comments are for discussion only and not intented to discount your knowledgeable opinions. I would like to refer to the first two paragraphs of page 94 in the 'Multinational Pistol' by Charles Kenyon.

"On June 3, 1913, Kasier Wilhelm II signed an order approving the manufacture of a 'LANGE' or long pistol with shoulder stock. This weapon was to be designated "Lange Pistol '08".

The adoption of this special purpose variation was the result of the successful testing of a small lot of 50 weapons submitted by DWM which employed features as specified by the German military....."

The above paragraph makes it sound like those 50 weapons, with the C96 style stocks, were a pre-pre-production lot, and how can this be the case when the Artillery set/rig you mentioned was made in September 1914? Maybe the Artillery Luger was first designed with a standard stock/holster as we know it, and in September 1914 DWM decided to experiment with 50 separate weapons (without chamber dates) which were sent to AWM with the C96 style stocks?

I would also like to point out the fact that Artillery Luger production had already started production in 1914 at DWM (as well as Erfurt) using the standard stock/holster, so how could the Artillery with the C96 style stock be considered pre-production or experimental? The only major fact that supports this Artillery Luger being pre-production is the rear non-reinforced receiver, otherwise, the date on the leather rig cannot justify pre-production. I can only go as far as saying that these 'pre-production' guns were an alternate or separate trial weapon after the first 1913 trails, maybe to compete with the C96 pistol because DWM used the same idea of the wooden stock from Mauser.

I observed in your third posted image that the leather rig is from a different pistol than the one shown in the book 'The Multinational Pistol' on page 95/96. Who owns this complete rig because it appears older by showing more normal wear/useage on the holster as compared to the one in the 'Multinational Pistol'? Accepting the fact that the pistol and stock on page 95/96 to be absolutely genuine, I have some reservations about the authenticity of the accompanying leather holster which looks to damn mint after 80+ years! There is not one crease mark on the fastening strap; no stains, wear, or discoloration inside the flap; and no green brass residue between the brass studs and the leather which I have seen on ALL leather cases/rigs. Pat Redmond had told me that this leather holster was discovered much later and it did not come together with the pistol and stock which was discovered in Florida probably in the 1960-70's. Can this mean anything suspicious?

I would like to receive the opinions of members on this this forum with reference to the points I have mentioned.

Albert

mauro · 10-21-2002, 04:41 PM

Ciao Albert,
as you know is a pleasure for me to speak w/ you about this kind of topics.
I agree with you that the holster presented on Kenyon's book seems new and this is very suspect.

What I stated in my previous reply is only an hypothesis based on the fact that the year stamped on the holster is 1914 and the AWM is a Artillery army firm that develops solutions for artillery.
In which way to harmonise this condition?
It is usual that army technical firms (AWM, Erfurt, SpandauÃ¢?Â¦) develop new solutions also after gun acceptance. If you look at the history of Swiss Luger, the Swiss army center develops a lot of luger variations that do not reach production: for example different kind of barrel, stock and also a prototype that is very similar to an Arty Luger (prototype number E771 - EidgenÃ?Â¶ssische Waffenfabrik Bern - pp 103 BobbaÃ¢??s book).
Therefore it is realistic that, at the end of acceptance test, some of LP08 used for this purpose were sent to AWM and this army center uses these pistols to check other solutions for particular purposes.

This is only a way to justify a pre-1913 LP08, used in acceptance test, in a 1914 one-of-a-kind military holster.

I give you the book reference in which you can find some others information:

Joachim Gortz Ã¢?? Die Pistole 08 (pp. 172).

Ciao

Imperial Arms · 10-22-2002, 03:46 PM

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

mauro · 10-23-2002, 04:12 PM

Ciao Albert,
you understand my perfectly.
Sometimes my english is not so good to explain in the proper way what I mean.
This topic is explained in my book in the chapter related to the LP08 pre-production and prototype.
Thanks.
Ciao
Mauro

10-15-2002, 09:00 PM	#1
Imperial Arms Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Malta, EU Posts: 579 Thanks: 0 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	Wooden (Mauser C96 Style) Stock for 1913 Artillery I am sure many members have seen the 1913 DWM Artillery Luger serial number #3X which is featured in the book 'Luger: The Multinational Pistol' by Charles Kenyon. The 1913 DWM Artillery with the Mauser C96 style stock is described as being a 'transitional' and/or 'test' model which I have doubts based on my research. A few years ago, I saw in a German collection a large photocopy of the original 1913 blue prints for the Artillery Luger which surfaced from a Bavarian archive showing the standard pistol with an 8" inch barrel; a pigskin holster shown separately; and a standard flatboard stock like a normal Artillery stock. In addition, another source of data explained that the 1913 Artillery was first test fired without a stock which was applied after the tests. I would like to receive the opinions/comments of the forum members as to whether this seldom found Mauser C96 style stock for the 1913 Artillery Luger was intended for commercial production or was it purported to be a 'transitional' stock? I believe the 1913 Artillery with the Mauser C96 style stock was for commercial production because it would have been to much labor and cost to make such a stock for military mass production considering that maybe 50-100 pieces were manufactured. I am sure DWM would have quit production after making a few stocks realizing its expensive cost for military use. I do not believe that a 'fancy' pistol was originally made to show the Kaiser and/or an evaluation board for the sake of obtaining a contract for the Army and then later changing it to a different stock configuration. Why would DWM decide to use a Mauser C96 style stock if they already had success with a similar stock with the 1906 Navy? Albert

10-16-2002, 04:07 PM	#4
mauro FIREARM HISTORIAN AND AUT Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,535 Thanks: 106 Thanked 349 Times in 129 Posts	Hi Albert, according to Gortz book the holster of this pre-production LP08 is marked AWM/9/14 (AWM, holster number 9,1914). AWM means Artilleriewerkstatten Munchen. AWM was a technical service that perform research for the Artillery in Munchen. My personal opinion is that the 50 test pistol, after the acceptance test, have been sent to this firm in order to continue and improve the solution accepted in 1913. This justify the date of the holster. In my understanding this particular solution (C96 stock and related holster) is a test performed by AWM as a prototype w/o success. Let me know your opinion. Ciao Mauro __________________ Mauro Baudino - www.lugerlp08.com www.paul-mauser-archive.com Mauser Company and Firearm Historian - Mauser Parabellum Certification Service.

10-17-2002, 02:49 AM	#6
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,916 Thanks: 1,992 Thanked 4,506 Times in 2,080 Posts	Bavarian 8 inch! I'd like to see that! __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV

10-19-2002, 02:55 PM	#7
mauro FIREARM HISTORIAN AND AUT Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,535 Thanks: 106 Thanked 349 Times in 129 Posts	Dear friends, here some others pictures concerning this very rare stock and holster. It is possible to see the stamp AWM/9/14. The meaning of this stamp has been presented in the Reply before. In my book concerning LP08 I state that these items are prototype made by Artilleriewerkstatten Munchen (AWM)after the introduction in service of the LP08 in 1913. Let me know your opinion. Ciao. http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/LP08-01.jpg http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/LP08-02.jpg http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/LP08-03.jpg __________________ Mauro Baudino - www.lugerlp08.com www.paul-mauser-archive.com Mauser Company and Firearm Historian - Mauser Parabellum Certification Service.

10-21-2002, 04:41 PM	#9
mauro FIREARM HISTORIAN AND AUT Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,535 Thanks: 106 Thanked 349 Times in 129 Posts	Ciao Albert, as you know is a pleasure for me to speak w/ you about this kind of topics. I agree with you that the holster presented on Kenyon's book seems new and this is very suspect. What I stated in my previous reply is only an hypothesis based on the fact that the year stamped on the holster is 1914 and the AWM is a Artillery army firm that develops solutions for artillery. In which way to harmonise this condition? It is usual that army technical firms (AWM, Erfurt, SpandauÃ¢?Â¦) develop new solutions also after gun acceptance. If you look at the history of Swiss Luger, the Swiss army center develops a lot of luger variations that do not reach production: for example different kind of barrel, stock and also a prototype that is very similar to an Arty Luger (prototype number E771 - EidgenÃ?Â¶ssische Waffenfabrik Bern - pp 103 BobbaÃ¢??s book). Therefore it is realistic that, at the end of acceptance test, some of LP08 used for this purpose were sent to AWM and this army center uses these pistols to check other solutions for particular purposes. This is only a way to justify a pre-1913 LP08, used in acceptance test, in a 1914 one-of-a-kind military holster. I give you the book reference in which you can find some others information: Joachim Gortz Ã¢?? Die Pistole 08 (pp. 172). Ciao __________________ Mauro Baudino - www.lugerlp08.com www.paul-mauser-archive.com Mauser Company and Firearm Historian - Mauser Parabellum Certification Service.

10-15-2002, 11:49 PM	#2
Imperial Arms Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Malta, EU Posts: 579 Thanks: 0 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	Rick, That is the type of stock I am making reference to in the image you posted. Thanks, Albert

10-16-2002, 12:18 AM	#3
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,890 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,282 Times in 424 Posts	I don't have the knowledge background to even begin to speculate on Albert's question (although I am greatly interested in what people have to say about it), but Rick, I would -sure- like to see more pictures of that rig!! --Dwight

10-17-2002, 01:49 AM	#5
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,890 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,282 Times in 424 Posts	[quote]Originally posted by Rick W.: <strong>After I thought about this a while, my attempt to share with a picture seemed out of context of the original question. Wrong picture I guess. The gun I pictured was referenced to me as a Bavarian 8". Rick W.</strong><hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/crying.gif" border="0" alt="[crying]" /> Spoilsport!! Start a new thread, or something, with it, I'm tantalized and I -really- want to see more! --Dwight

10-20-2002, 01:08 PM	#8
Imperial Arms Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Malta, EU Posts: 579 Thanks: 0 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	Mauro, Thank you very much for your opinion and the three images you supplied in your last post. My questions and comments are for discussion only and not intented to discount your knowledgeable opinions. I would like to refer to the first two paragraphs of page 94 in the 'Multinational Pistol' by Charles Kenyon. "On June 3, 1913, Kasier Wilhelm II signed an order approving the manufacture of a 'LANGE' or long pistol with shoulder stock. This weapon was to be designated "Lange Pistol '08". The adoption of this special purpose variation was the result of the successful testing of a small lot of 50 weapons submitted by DWM which employed features as specified by the German military....." The above paragraph makes it sound like those 50 weapons, with the C96 style stocks, were a pre-pre-production lot, and how can this be the case when the Artillery set/rig you mentioned was made in September 1914? Maybe the Artillery Luger was first designed with a standard stock/holster as we know it, and in September 1914 DWM decided to experiment with 50 separate weapons (without chamber dates) which were sent to AWM with the C96 style stocks? I would also like to point out the fact that Artillery Luger production had already started production in 1914 at DWM (as well as Erfurt) using the standard stock/holster, so how could the Artillery with the C96 style stock be considered pre-production or experimental? The only major fact that supports this Artillery Luger being pre-production is the rear non-reinforced receiver, otherwise, the date on the leather rig cannot justify pre-production. I can only go as far as saying that these 'pre-production' guns were an alternate or separate trial weapon after the first 1913 trails, maybe to compete with the C96 pistol because DWM used the same idea of the wooden stock from Mauser. I observed in your third posted image that the leather rig is from a different pistol than the one shown in the book 'The Multinational Pistol' on page 95/96. Who owns this complete rig because it appears older by showing more normal wear/useage on the holster as compared to the one in the 'Multinational Pistol'? Accepting the fact that the pistol and stock on page 95/96 to be absolutely genuine, I have some reservations about the authenticity of the accompanying leather holster which looks to damn mint after 80+ years! There is not one crease mark on the fastening strap; no stains, wear, or discoloration inside the flap; and no green brass residue between the brass studs and the leather which I have seen on ALL leather cases/rigs. Pat Redmond had told me that this leather holster was discovered much later and it did not come together with the pistol and stock which was discovered in Florida probably in the 1960-70's. Can this mean anything suspicious? I would like to receive the opinions of members on this this forum with reference to the points I have mentioned. Albert

10-22-2002, 03:46 PM	#10
Imperial Arms Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Malta, EU Posts: 579 Thanks: 0 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	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

10-23-2002, 04:12 PM	#11
mauro FIREARM HISTORIAN AND AUT Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,535 Thanks: 106 Thanked 349 Times in 129 Posts	Ciao Albert, you understand my perfectly. Sometimes my english is not so good to explain in the proper way what I mean. This topic is explained in my book in the chapter related to the LP08 pre-production and prototype. Thanks. Ciao Mauro __________________ Mauro Baudino - www.lugerlp08.com www.paul-mauser-archive.com Mauser Company and Firearm Historian - Mauser Parabellum Certification Service.