The M1906 Russian Contract Controversy Strikes Again

[Imperial Arms]

Originally Posted by Edward Tinker

Albert, I just don't understand how your bringing up Sturgess in so many of your postings helps your theories? I don't know the man, never met him and never met you.

The excuse for not finishing your book is that you are gathering together data is an old, lame excuse and one I have seen numerous times after the person has died and the family wonders what to do with this semi-finished manuscript. You have been working on this book for what, 5 years? 10 or is it 15 years? What are you waiting for?

I don't believe some of your theories because you don't provide concrete paperwork or provide documentation from other guns. I have never said that your theories could not be correct, but simply that you base it on conjecture, just as the present theories are based.

If the crossed rifles were a marketing ploy, just as the american eagle was, then that hurts the theory that DWM and the gov'ts were involved in the reason behind the crossed rifles. If you go on the assumption that Bulgaria / Russia, they didn't ask, just as the US gov't didn't ask for the crest on the chamber, as no precise measurements were taken, given or asked for. If you take that into consideration, then the crossed rifles is just a marketing ploy for a 'commercial' market and not some gov't request.

Do you have any idea how many 'geladen' and Geischert marked lugers came to america? Now why would they have new made lugers come to america that had the german language instead of in english? Shouldn't all new made lugers instead have SAFE and Loaded on them? Perhaps because they had a lot more frames and extractors already marked, just as they already had bulgarian extractors marked. DWM simply didn't care, DWM made lots of mistakes or omissions, sales were more important than some precise wording for commercially sold guns to Russia.

Edward, with regards to your point about a so-called 'marketing ploy', you fail to understand the notion of consistency. If the Swiss market received Lugers with a national Swiss cross, the Americans received Lugers with the national US emblem (eagle), the Bulgarians received Lugers with the national Bulgarian crest (raised lions), why would the Russians receive crossed rifles when their national crest was a double-headed eagle with a crown? Furthermore, I guess it would have been easier from the start to leave the safety area unmarked until an order was received. Considering what you say, if this was intended to be a marketing ploy, it is one hell of a confusing one created by DWM! I mentioned this in the original thread a few months ago, but I suppose that your short memory does not go back very far.

If you claim that DWM made lots of mistakes or omissions with regards to foreign contracts, please describe a few others to me. It is possible that commercial sales had a few small exceptions, but not to the extreme of placing (infantry) crossed rifles on a chamber for the Russian civilian market. This would be a marketing ploy without any sense and a waste of money for DWM during production. You make the Germans look like fools when they were more precise than the Americans - and still are! I have no knowledge of DWM or Mauser selling rejects or surplus pistols during the imperial era. It may have happened with the sale of military rifles which were sold in much large quantities, but we could be talking apples and oranges on this different subject.

Excuse me for often writing in excess, but sometimes I have no choice when I try to explain a simple logical theory which is different from the American way of thinking and method of manufacturing. It seems that the Americans are bent on a certain square mentality which other foreigners see as awkward/bizarre. Of course, the Americans are excellent in technology and logistics (in the past and present), but there is still plenty of room for improvement although it often costs more money.

Albert