![]() |
my profile |
register |
faq |
search upload photo | donate | calendar |
|
|
#1 |
|
User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 518
Thanks: 0
Thanked 20 Times in 8 Posts
|
__________________
Johnny C. Kitchens |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
RIP
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dc 'burbs in Virginia
Posts: 2,482
Thanks: 0
Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts
|
Hello and welcome to the forum.
Your gun is a Luger only in the sense that an intellectual property lawyer can apply a trademark to something other than that which is generally known. Stoeger purchased the right to use the name "Luger" in the 1920s...since then, they have owned it and applied it to a variety of handguns. Legally, these are all "Lugers" by virtue of the Stoeger trademark. They are Lugers in the sense of bearing the trademarked, brand name only. From a collector's and practical standpoint, these are pieces of crap that should have gone into the scrap metal program decades ago.They were not sucessful commercially as they simply didn't work well and the buying public recognized the canard for what it was. Maybe my bias is showing. Tom A. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 487
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
I have no first hand knowledge of these little .22 pistols but they are a continuation of the Luger story. Since you have one, it deserves a place in a collection. Enjoy! That is what this is about, after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ok.
Posts: 212
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
My Dad had an identical pistol, when I was a kid. I shot it quite a bit, and liked it. It was ammo picky, and jammed plenty often. Worked great with CCI Stingers. I think he traded it on a Ruger "luger" .22 pistol, which was superior. All in all, I liked the Stoeger, and thought it quite cool.
Stevie. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|