Wooden (Mauser C96 Style) Stock for 1913 Artillery

Imperial Arms · 10-22-2002, 04:46 PM

Mauro,

If I understand you correctly, are you saying that a group of pistols could have been sent to a firm such as AWM after the first acceptance of the Artillery Luger in 1913 with this different stock configuration to explore other solutions? If this is the case, I agree with your hypothesis which makes sense in the same manner as other Luger tests such as with the various Swiss tests.

I would also venture to say that the non-reinforced bottom receivers where taken from remaining old inventory to build these Artillery Lugers for other solutions/tests because factories never threw away old parts. In addition, this might also explain why DWM did not need to apply a chamber date to these Artillery Lugers and placed them in a separate serial range.

This is the kind of 'brain storming' I enjoy which might bring back some truth and logic to the Luger society instead of the many 'stories' which can be fabricated. I hope that these strong hypothesis and opinions are explained in your book dealing with long barrel and Artillery Lugers.

Ciao,
Albert

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

10-22-2002, 04:46 PM	#10
Imperial Arms Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Malta, EU Posts: 579 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts	Mauro, If I understand you correctly, are you saying that a group of pistols could have been sent to a firm such as AWM after the first acceptance of the Artillery Luger in 1913 with this different stock configuration to explore other solutions? If this is the case, I agree with your hypothesis which makes sense in the same manner as other Luger tests such as with the various Swiss tests. I would also venture to say that the non-reinforced bottom receivers where taken from remaining old inventory to build these Artillery Lugers for other solutions/tests because factories never threw away old parts. In addition, this might also explain why DWM did not need to apply a chamber date to these Artillery Lugers and placed them in a separate serial range. This is the kind of 'brain storming' I enjoy which might bring back some truth and logic to the Luger society instead of the many 'stories' which can be fabricated. I hope that these strong hypothesis and opinions are explained in your book dealing with long barrel and Artillery Lugers. Ciao, Albert