Latest acquisition - another 1916 DWM

[Zamo]

Here is my latest find, another 1916 DWM - 4th one over the years. What can I say? My personal Luger forte'. I like that year.


Slight pitting near the muzzle and above the proofs, but otherwise pretty good shape.

Likewise this side, some light freckling, and fading of the straw (with some oxidation there as well), but overall pretty nice.

Insides still in the white, showing very little actual mechanical wear.

More serial numbers.

I always like this little bit of heat treating on the mag hold open (?). Is that what it is? Did they need to harden the working end or something?

I had the seller check the grips for matching s/n, and he told me he couldn't find any stampings at all, which almost prevented me from buying it, but the price was so good, that I thought I'd get it as a shooter.

Low and behold, everything is as it should be, and I can only assume he either didn't have sufficient eyes, or was too lazy to actually take the grips off.

During the obligatory initial examination.

Topside markings.

The end.
The magazine is in very good shape, almost suspiciously so, but is not s/n matched. The wood base looks period, and shows the wear accordingly, but the nickel body looks almost brand new.

I often wonder, if any of the Lugers I get have ever been in the hands of other Luger Forum members, or just how many German Lugers have ended up over here in the States? Has anyone ever made any sort of scientificly based estimate? Anyone here recognize this pistol? I got it from a dealer in Connecticut for a very good price.

The other year I like is 1936, and I just sold my nice 1937 to finance a search for one of those, so let me know if you have one in about this condition you're thinking of parting with.

[drbuster]

Zamo, we always talk here on the Forum of not being able to really "see" a luger via a photograph and having to examine it under ambient light in our own hands. I must say that these photographs depict this 1916 Imperial luger perhaps BETTER than if one had it in his hands! May I ask you what camera do you use to take such graphic photos?

[Zamo]

I am a totally amateur photographer, and if asked the difference between an apature setting and an F-Stop wouldn't have a clue.
I shoot all my shots with a two year old Nikon D-50 digital SLR using it's programed "macro" settings, with a Quantary 18-200 lens and a Nikon SB-600 flash. Totally "Mall" grade stuff.
I'm glad you like them (the pictures), the one downside, is that if you do it right, sometimes the images show more negative aspects of your pistol than you normally see with the naked eye.

[Zamo]

One more thing, I think my successes are largly due to pointing the flash away from the pistol, and letting it bounce off the walls and roof to produce bright ambient light. I think this is were I succeed, and other people fail. If your flash strikes the pistol at close range, all you see is reflection. It took me a while to figure this out. Try it.

[tomaustin]

quality of that production year seems apparent when you hold a really nice one in your hands....good hunting for one

[phatrick88]

Those are some great photographs. You should share with us how you've mastered them (lighting, backdrop, etc) so we can all share our lugers with such clarity!

[A.Mifsin]

Zamo, very nice luger, thank you for sharing with us, as said it is like looking it on your table because the photos are really good.
Alf

[Aaron]

I assume you used a tripod, right?

[alvin]

Excellent piece!

====

My plan was collecting 5 military Lugers (regular 4" models), one for each major maker - DWM, Erfurt, Simson, HK, and Mauser. No more no less.

[Zamo]

Thanks for the nice comments guys, both on my pistol, and my pictures. I wish I was more of an expert on both.
As for the pistol, This is the fourth 1916 DWM I've had while trying to get just the right one, and I am happy with it. It is currently my ONLY Luger! (How's that for fighting the addiction???!!!), I shipped off my last other two to new homes today.
As for the pictures, I wish I could say I was a pro photographer with all sorts of fancy equipment and years of experience and training, but that's not the case. The truth is, I race Vintage Motocross when I'm not collecting firearms, and while not battling on the track, I take pictures of the other riders, and sometimes get some of them posted by a friend on his website. This limited experience has taught me how to compose, crop, brighten, and otherwise enhance my digital pictures.
When I started taking pictures of my modest collection, I took note of what I liked in other peoples pictures, and experimented until I got it the way I liked it. That's why, if you peruse my website, you'll see a lot of this uniform white background under bright light. It works, and I'm too stupid to come up with anything better. I'd like to try a black background one of these days, but haven't been able to find a suitable drop cloth yet.
Here are a couple photos showing "How it's done":
First, wait 'til the wife and kids go to bed, next, peel the dinner table's table cloth back, and fold it over, thus exposing the white side as apposed to the nifty colored dealy-a-ma-bob side the wife picked out last time she was at Yak-mart. This is why you wait 'til she goes to bed, most of my firearms have a bit of oil on them, and more often than not, some of this same said oil mysteriously ends up on the underside of the Mrs.'s tablecloth. I am at a loss to explain this phenominon to her.

*note the high tech lighting...Home Depot's finest track lighting...

Next, compose your shot, by placing your firearm, and maybe some accessories, in either a seeming random arrangement, or uniformly lined up in strict profile, or perhaps, even a jaunty angle...

Now, take your digital SLR camera (the previous two were taken with my 2.0megapixel cellphone camera, note the difference), and using the "auto" macro setting, and with the flash attached and set to bounce just the right amount of light from the ceiling (again, experimentation), snap six or seven shots, fiddling with the flash's power setting, and angle all the while. I use the highest resolution the camera supports, which is 3008x2000 "fine". If I had spent more on the next camera up, I could have gotten better, but I knew most of my images would never be printed, and would almost all stay on a computer screen, so I figured this camera's 6 megapixel capacity was just fine. Larger ones allow you to crop smaller portions, and retain them at a good resolution, but I have been very happy with the D50.
If you're lucky, this "shotgun" approach will yield a few good pics, and you can then crop them, fiddle with brightness and contrast, etc. until you're happy, and then, post them up on the web so that lots of wonderful people you'll likely never meet can enjoy them almost as much as you!

And that, my fine fellows, is EXACTLY how I do it. I'm not kidding about "shotgunning" it, either. My Nikon D50 is about two years old, and the internal counter tells me I've shot exactly 14,225 pictures! I know because it started over again at 10,000, and I was amazed then, and now am up to 4,225. It helps that I have two little boys I take lots of pictures of too. If you're hemming and hawing on the price of a DSLR, take note of this and average the cost out. It was one of the best "tech" purchases I've ever made, and it was about the same as a spendy P.38, or a shooter Luger.
Sorry to run on here, but there were enough questions on this, I thought I'd try and answer them.
Again, thanks for your kind words, and I hope this helps some of you with your future picture taking.
Oh, one more thing, I never, NEVER could have done this with a film camera. Just the cost of 14k pictures would have bankrupted me years ago, even with Costco!

[Aaron]

I can't believe you are getting such resolution with a hand held camera! There is no tripod in your pictures.

[Zamo]

Aaron, there is no tripod in my HOUSE! If there were, I'd hope there would be an MG42 on it...

One of the really cool things about the Nikon D50 (and later models, as well, I assume, as offerings from other mfg.'s) is the very fast imaging speed. Click the button "SNAP" the picture is taken, as apposed to most digital cameras where you click the button...wait...and wait...and then, after waiting, the camera finally takes the image. I've had digital cameras like this, and it is infuriating, especially when you're trying to get an action shot, or while asking someone to hold a pose, or while you are trying to keep the camera still enough without the afore mentioned tripod.

Yeah, that was a good thing to remember. I've had my camera long enough now, that I'd forgotten that hassle. What a pain!