1918 Navy Luger In AutoMag...

Pete Ebbink · 05-10-2003, 08:19 PM

A month or so ago in the NAPCA newsletter, AutoMag, Mr. Leo DeValle (spelling...?) wrote up an article about his 1918 Navy luger that he seemed to challenge others to prove it was not a "real" Navy...

As I recall the sentiment from folks here on the Forum in the past was that all 1918 Navies should be held in the highest suspect...

Just wondering if our Navy experts saw this article and have contacted Leo about his 1918...?

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

Navy · 05-11-2003, 01:52 PM

Hi Pete,

I was one of the group of about 5 other Navy enthusiasts who examined this pistol in Louisville a few months ago. Our determination after much examination was pretty much as Leo describes in automag. Additionally, Sam Costanzo has examined the piece and agrees.
Tom A.

lugerholsterrepair · 05-11-2003, 09:43 PM

Tom, Would you be kind enough to elucidate on this interesting subject? I could not get Auto Mag to accomodate my snowbird schedule so lost out on keeping their excellent magazine. Thanks , Jerry Burney

Big Norm · 05-12-2003, 12:35 AM

I went through a bunch of back issue NAPCA magazines and could not find the article. Does anybody know the date and page number?
Big Norm

Pete Ebbink · 05-12-2003, 11:28 AM

Hello Norm,

Sorry I cannot find out the exact AutoMag issue for you.

We are in the process of moving and most gun stuff is packed up already.

But I am pretty sure it was in the April issue...

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

Big Norm · 05-12-2003, 01:34 PM

Pete,
the article is in the April, 2003 magazine page 2. Thanks.

For the benefit of those on the forum who do not get the AutoMag I will give a summery of the article.

After a brief discussion about showing the 1918 navy Luger to Derek Seltzer, both agreed that there was nothing wrong with the gun. It was decided to take the gun to the SOS show in Kentucky so that others could examine the Luger. Everyone there could not see anything wrong with the gun.

A brief description of the gun was then made.
"Although it could still be classified as controversial the agreed findings are as follows: The gun was manufactured in 1918 as a navy, but was not completely assembled due to the abrupt ending of the war. In 1920 the gun was pulled out of storage and was finished being assembled for the commercial market, hence the circle N proof and the original 6 inch barrel. It is serial numbered in the commercial style. The guns serial number is 1262 and is chambered for 9 m/m. It has a concentric ringed navy mag numbered 1257."

I see nothing wrong with Mr Leo Lavallee writing and his logic. This is not, in the true sense, a military issue navy Luger because there are no navy military proof marks on the gun. The gun was assembled during the Weimar Era with commercial markings and placement and only the chamber date designates it as a 1918 Luger. I can only assume that it has the Model 1914 short frame.

Keep in mind though that Lugers of the Weimar Era were notorious for cannibalizing parts from other Lugers for eventual sales on the commercial market.So the search for a navy issued, 1918 P-04 continues.
Big Norm

lugerholsterrepair · 05-12-2003, 04:52 PM

Big Norm, Many thanks for the time and effort. Jerry Burney

Navy · 05-12-2003, 10:24 PM

Norm,
Thanks for passing on the info. Business concerns limited my forum activity today.
Tom A.

Big Norm · 05-13-2003, 03:28 AM

My writing was made easier by the fact that I also have what I call a 1920 commercial navy Luger. It is very similar to the above mentioned 1918 commercial navy Luger except that mine is not chamber dated. On my gun, the receiver is unusual in that the rear hinge pin has a small cap on it and the receiver will not take the large cap hinge pin. The serial numbers are larger than one would expect on the front frame and rear toggle. The bluing is the usual Weimar dipped black and the straw is excellent and original. So, you see, I not only had the article from the NAPCA magazine, I also had a Luger to compare. That all helped.
Big Norm

05-10-2003, 08:19 PM	#1
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	1918 Navy Luger In AutoMag... A month or so ago in the NAPCA newsletter, AutoMag, Mr. Leo DeValle (spelling...?) wrote up an article about his 1918 Navy luger that he seemed to challenge others to prove it was not a "real" Navy... As I recall the sentiment from folks here on the Forum in the past was that all 1918 Navies should be held in the highest suspect... Just wondering if our Navy experts saw this article and have contacted Leo about his 1918...? Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

05-11-2003, 09:43 PM	#3
lugerholsterrepair Moderator Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Arizona/Colorado Posts: 7,766 Thanks: 4,891 Thanked 3,121 Times in 1,432 Posts	Tom, Would you be kind enough to elucidate on this interesting subject? I could not get Auto Mag to accomodate my snowbird schedule so lost out on keeping their excellent magazine. Thanks , Jerry Burney __________________ Jerry Burney 11491 S. Guadalupe Drive Yuma AZ 85367-6182 lugerholsterrepair@earthlink.net 928 342-7583 (CO & AZ) Year Round 719 207-3331 (cell) "For those who Fight For It, Life has a flavor the protected will never know."

05-12-2003, 04:52 PM	#7
lugerholsterrepair Moderator Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Arizona/Colorado Posts: 7,766 Thanks: 4,891 Thanked 3,121 Times in 1,432 Posts	Big Norm, Many thanks for the time and effort. Jerry Burney __________________ Jerry Burney 11491 S. Guadalupe Drive Yuma AZ 85367-6182 lugerholsterrepair@earthlink.net 928 342-7583 (CO & AZ) Year Round 719 207-3331 (cell) "For those who Fight For It, Life has a flavor the protected will never know."

05-11-2003, 01:52 PM	#2
Navy RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Dc 'burbs in Virginia Posts: 2,482 Thanks: 0 Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts	Hi Pete, I was one of the group of about 5 other Navy enthusiasts who examined this pistol in Louisville a few months ago. Our determination after much examination was pretty much as Leo describes in automag. Additionally, Sam Costanzo has examined the piece and agrees. Tom A.

05-12-2003, 12:35 AM	#4
Big Norm RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,864 Thanks: 1 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	I went through a bunch of back issue NAPCA magazines and could not find the article. Does anybody know the date and page number? Big Norm

05-12-2003, 11:28 AM	#5
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Hello Norm, Sorry I cannot find out the exact AutoMag issue for you. We are in the process of moving and most gun stuff is packed up already. But I am pretty sure it was in the April issue... Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

05-12-2003, 01:34 PM	#6
Big Norm RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,864 Thanks: 1 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	Pete, the article is in the April, 2003 magazine page 2. Thanks. For the benefit of those on the forum who do not get the AutoMag I will give a summery of the article. After a brief discussion about showing the 1918 navy Luger to Derek Seltzer, both agreed that there was nothing wrong with the gun. It was decided to take the gun to the SOS show in Kentucky so that others could examine the Luger. Everyone there could not see anything wrong with the gun. A brief description of the gun was then made. "Although it could still be classified as controversial the agreed findings are as follows: The gun was manufactured in 1918 as a navy, but was not completely assembled due to the abrupt ending of the war. In 1920 the gun was pulled out of storage and was finished being assembled for the commercial market, hence the circle N proof and the original 6 inch barrel. It is serial numbered in the commercial style. The guns serial number is 1262 and is chambered for 9 m/m. It has a concentric ringed navy mag numbered 1257." I see nothing wrong with Mr Leo Lavallee writing and his logic. This is not, in the true sense, a military issue navy Luger because there are no navy military proof marks on the gun. The gun was assembled during the Weimar Era with commercial markings and placement and only the chamber date designates it as a 1918 Luger. I can only assume that it has the Model 1914 short frame. Keep in mind though that Lugers of the Weimar Era were notorious for cannibalizing parts from other Lugers for eventual sales on the commercial market.So the search for a navy issued, 1918 P-04 continues. Big Norm

05-12-2003, 10:24 PM	#8
Navy RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Dc 'burbs in Virginia Posts: 2,482 Thanks: 0 Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts	Norm, Thanks for passing on the info. Business concerns limited my forum activity today. Tom A.

05-13-2003, 03:28 AM	#9
Big Norm RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,864 Thanks: 1 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	My writing was made easier by the fact that I also have what I call a 1920 commercial navy Luger. It is very similar to the above mentioned 1918 commercial navy Luger except that mine is not chamber dated. On my gun, the receiver is unusual in that the rear hinge pin has a small cap on it and the receiver will not take the large cap hinge pin. The serial numbers are larger than one would expect on the front frame and rear toggle. The bluing is the usual Weimar dipped black and the straw is excellent and original. So, you see, I not only had the article from the NAPCA magazine, I also had a Luger to compare. That all helped. Big Norm