Another .45 Luger Question...

[Pete Ebbink]

Wonder if anyone can help :

Observation # 1 : In Lugers at Radom (C. Kenyon) on page # 111 is a nice photo of the .45 luger that belonged to Sid Aberman (serial # 2), at one time. If you hold a ruler flat against the surface of the rear frame and let it extend down to the grip, you can see that the vertical plane of the rear frame surface is just about even with the rear-most portion of the bottom, rear of the grip.

Please also note that the vertical length of the grip safety is somewhat "short" in its vertical dimension.

Observation # 2 : In Luger Tips, revised (M. Reese) on page 52; there is an old photo of another .45 luger. If you hold a ruler flat against the surface of the rear frame and let it extend down to the grip, you can see the vertical plane of the rear frame surface bisects the lower portion of the grip and that a good portion of the grip extends past this imaginary, vertical line. This seems to indicate the photo in the M. Reese book shows a different "model" of .45 luger than the .45 luger once owned by Sid Aberman (serial # 2).

Please also note in the M. Reese photo, the grip safety is much longer in its vertical dimension on this gun than on the Aberman gun.

Here are my questions :

1. Does anyone know what luger serial # was photographed in the photo shown in the M. Reese book ? Who took this photo, originally ?

As I understand, .45 luger (serial # 2) is with a new Owner, after Sid Aberman's death. Another .45 luger is in the Norton Gallery and may be serial # 5 (M. Reese does state he has seen both # 2 and # 5 in person).

2. Don't these two different photographs indicate that there might have been two (2) different models of .45 lugers made ?

Please forgive my ignorance and being a bit obtuse...any help and opinions would be appreciated !!! <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

[edgedealer]

Pete,
When you asked questions about the 45 luger back in June, you got all the info needed. There are 2 KNOWN guns. These are the ONLY KNOWN guns since the 1950's. Abermans gun and Nortons gun. In that thread Mike Jones told you how other pictures and sightings all came back to the two KNOWN guns. Now someone has told you there were 2 different types.THERE ARE ONLY 2 GUNS KNOWN, not several guns of different styles, 2 identical guns except serial #'s. Since this carbine has surfaced, the stories are getting a little hard to swallow,meaning that for the last 40+ years it has been common knowledge that only two exist. Sure people said they knew of one her or there, but surprise surprise, they never surfaced. as for the difference in pictures of guns,if you have Luger Variations, with the color inserts, look at Abermans gun on page 108, then look at the color picture of Nortons gun, Nortons gun looks bigger,is it really a bigger model, or do you think they just took the picture a little closer? I dont want to start any rumors, im guessing they are identical.

[Lugerdoc]

Pete, Since Mike Reese was living in New Orleans at the time that he wrote "Luger Tips", it's a good bet that it's the Norton 45 that he photographed. Also, since the DWM 45 lugers were not standard production pistols, but rather came out of their "custom shop", I would expect some minor differences from gun to gun. Tom H.

[Pete Ebbink]

Hello Jeff,

I am not familiar with the "Luger Variations" book you mentioned. Who is/was the author ? Is it a Datig book ?

I will try to get my hands on a copy.

Did M. Reese, at some point in time, confirm the gun he shows in "Luger Tips" was/is in fact the Norton Gallery gun ? I did hear he lived in LA at the time; so it might make sense.

But the M. Reese photo does seem to be a much "older" photo. This photo does not match the quality of other photos in his book.

Thanks so much...

Pete

[Edward Tinker]

Pete, Luger Variations vol one is the book by Harry Jones. It is an older book 1959, mine is the updated and signed copy from 1975.

On the inside is a color photo of the Norton Luger, it states Norman Lee Photo, Richard W. Norton Jr., Collection and "is in fine condition, "GL" monogramed and has no serial number. Will it operate? In 1960, Norman Lee, Harry and Anne Jones fired this Luger 150 times; it functioned perfectly! Another .45 Caliber Luger is illustrated on page 108; contrary to constantly fabricated stories, there are only two known examples of this impressive over-sized Model". quote and end quote, I can't say for sure these are the only ones, but that is what Jones said in 1975.

[Pete Ebbink]

Thanks Ed,

I will put this H. Jones books on my buy list...

But now I am even a bit more confused.

M. Reese states in his book that he had seen both serial numbers # 2 and # 5 in person.

If the Norton gun is not serialed, what luger did Reese see when he stated # 5 ?

Does anyone on the Forum know how I might reach Mr. Reese. If you can, please send me a Private Message with this contact info.

[edgedealer]

Hello Pete,
One of our forum members,Mike Jones, is the son of Harry Jones, The author of Luger Variations. Perhaps you should see if he has copies for sale. I have always found it a great source of info.

[Johnny Peppers]

Pete,
I tried doing a search but couldn't find anything posted by Mike Jones, but I seem to remember a post by Mike explaining that the #5 .45 Luger was actually the R.W. Norton pistol. Does anyone else remember this?
I have also heard other theories on the magazines for the .45 Lugers. As they would have been fabricated by hand one at the time, they were simply numbered to provide a reference number and not a weapon number. None of the other test Lugers I am aware of which were sent to the US had serial numbered magazines. The Norton .45 Luger is not serial numbered, but has magazine #3.
Unless the Sidney Aberman .45 Luger has had the grip repaired, it too has the dreaded safety lever chip missing from the left grip. The Norton pistol does not have the chipped grip.

[edgedealer]

Pete,
Go back to your thread of 6-9-2002, Mike Jones had posted on that thread he is user #90. He has a gun shop in Torrance,CA called Collectors Gallery

[Pete Ebbink]

Hello All,

Trying to recap what has been posted...sorry I do not yet have the H. Jones book :

If the Norton gun is # 5 (or not numbered..) but is "identical" to the S. Aberman gun # 2; then what gun was photographed in the M. Reese book ?

The gun photographed in the M. Reese book definitely has a different grip angle than the Aberman gun (and also the Norton gun)...

Am I wrong about my perception of this M. Reese gun photo ? It sure seems to show a gun that is different in its grip angle than is shown on the Aberman gun.

I am still a bit confused...(some may say this is my permanent state... [img]biggrin.gif[/img] )

[Garfield]

If you compare two photos of a particular item, or similiar items, taken at different times, different settings, with different cameras, in different lighting, different conditions, etc., etc., and then imply that the items seem not to be similiar, or not the same; well, what would you expect? What is it that you are suggesting? Certainly, you have something in mind. Or, perhaps, you are correct: you are simply confused.

[John Sabato]

Pete,

The Norton gun is definitely unnumbered, but has a magazine that is numbered 3. This was confirmed to me by the curator of the museum last year.

Another thing about comparing published photos is that sometimes during the editing or printing process...photos get adjusted and lose their height and width ratio just so that they will fit into a particular place on a page... This can happen either digitally (if done today) or photographically (if they were published a long time ago.

As an example of distortion, If you look closely at the large version of the photo that is included in the .45 caliber Luger article on our General Information page (you have to click on the small version to see the large version), you can see that the taper of the barrel is somewhat distorted... this must have occured during the digitizing process.

[Jan C Still]

Pete
Reportedly Ralph Shattuck was contending at the Kansas City Gun Show that there are two issues (variations?) of .45 Luger and that quite a number of .45 Lugers have recently surfaced.
I am confused, you seem to have excellent communication with Mr. Shattuck, why dont you ask him your questions about the .45 Lugers directly. Are your posts concerning the .45 Lugers intended as some form of communication between Mr. Shattuck. you and this Forum?
Jan

[Pete Ebbink]

Hello Jan and Garfield,

No. I am really not interested in the .45 luger carbine issue...that will play out on its own, eventually.

I am just trying to understand if the grip angle on the .45 luger (non-cabine variety) that was photographed in the M. Reese book does or does not have a much more "slanted" grip angle than the Aberman gun and/or the Norton gun.

I thought this was a very simple question this beginner was trying to ask...

Does anyone know what gun is shown in the Reese photo ?

Does anyone agree that the grip angle is "different" ?

Very simple questions, don't you think...?

[Garfield]

Pete:

Alright, for the purpose of this discussion, let us assume that, when compared, the two pictures, each depicting a 45 cal luger, leave one with the impression that the grip angles are different.

So? Where does that take us? For the reasons previously stated by John S and myself, the pictures, or what they depict, is not a valid premise on which to base your arguement that the grip angles of the two lugers are not identical.

[crgkstnr]

Never mind, I jumped to conclusions again.

[Pete Ebbink]

Hello Garfield,

Interesting how when we were discussing two (or the same) HK lugers in the R. Gibson book on pages 175 and 179; some totally dismissed my surmising that this alledged "faked/boosted" HK luger could, I repeat could, be explained by the top photos of two lugers beig mixed up on the publisher's cutting table and the side view photos might be the same gun, unaltered, but photographed under different lighting conditions. I think I was dismissed as being "silly".

But now when two photos may appear to show two .45 lugers with different grip angles; the argument that different lighting conditions and/or gun angles are used to support the hypothesis that these photos can only show the same type of .45 model with the same grip angles...photographed differently.

I am not sure I follow the logic here...

And does the vertical length of a grip safety become "shorter" when the gun is rotated away from the camera ?

I have tried this with my 1929 Bern, which has a very long vertical grip safety and I do not think the grip safety gets any "shorter", in a vertical plane, no matter how much I angle the Bern away from camera front...if anything it get longer as the luger is rotated away from camera center.

Then if I rotate my Bern towards the camera, the perceived grip angle becomes more slanted and the grip safety lever gets short.

This, I think, discounts the fact that the M. Reese photo gun was rotated towards the camera and is either perpendicular to the camera or rotated away...with the resulting perception of a less slanted grip angle and a longer grip safety lever than compared to the Aberman photos which seem to be photographed "square" to camera angle.

If I think about this anymore, I think my head will burst...sort of like those little martians in the movie Mars Attacks... [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

Respectfully,

Pete...

[Edward Tinker]

Well Pete, if I get my scanner working again (got a new computer desk and it messed my "system" up by placement. Anyway, if I get my scanner working, I'll scan in all the .45 pics I can find and put them side by side and such, see how they look.

[Garfield]

Identical serial #'s and matching imperfections shown in two pictures of two guna in the same book are not "alleged" grip angle and safety length differences shown on two pictures of two guns found in different books. You are comparing apples to oranges. One thing for certain, while this type of speculation may stimulate your imagination it is not going anywhere.

[Hugh]

<img src="graemlins/wave.gif" border="0" alt="[byebye]" /> Pete,

I looked in all my books that have pictures of the 45 Luger. All of them except for Reese show a picture of the Aberman gun, and credit the photo to him or as it being a picture of his gun. The picture in Reese's book looks like a poor reproduction of an old picture. His picture is the only one that shows a magazine beside the gun instead of a cartridge or nothing at all. I can find no credit for the photo in Reese's book, it would be interesting to know where he obtained it. There does definitely seem to be a difference in the shape of the backstrap and the curve at the rear of the butt. I have no answer for you. [img]frown.gif[/img]