navy mags

Heinz · 02-10-2004, 09:44 PM

Ron, the only thing I have ever seen on a 7.65 Navy is a post on Jan Still's forum on 9/17/2003 under "Commercial/Foreign Contract" showing a 1902 Carbine with a Navy acceptance mark. This carbine seems to have been a presentation prize for fencing tournament.

Kenyon's Lugers at Random shows a 1906 commercial Navy 9mm with the concentric rins and notes it is marked 9mm on the bottom. I have been under the impression these ringed and 9 mm marked mags were commercials. I note in Mr Van Gjyn's post he refers to the magazine drawings as 1904 7.65 and 9mm and 1906 7.65 and 9 mm without a navy designation for the blueprint. Perhaps he is making an assumption here.

My hypothesis is the ring may relate to getting a better grip on the mag bottom in wet conditions. How tight do Navy mags fit in their pouches?

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

02-10-2004, 09:44 PM	#18
Heinz User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Greenville SC Posts: 1,004 Thanks: 377 Thanked 411 Times in 180 Posts	Ron, the only thing I have ever seen on a 7.65 Navy is a post on Jan Still's forum on 9/17/2003 under "Commercial/Foreign Contract" showing a 1902 Carbine with a Navy acceptance mark. This carbine seems to have been a presentation prize for fencing tournament. Kenyon's Lugers at Random shows a 1906 commercial Navy 9mm with the concentric rins and notes it is marked 9mm on the bottom. I have been under the impression these ringed and 9 mm marked mags were commercials. I note in Mr Van Gjyn's post he refers to the magazine drawings as 1904 7.65 and 9mm and 1906 7.65 and 9 mm without a navy designation for the blueprint. Perhaps he is making an assumption here. My hypothesis is the ring may relate to getting a better grip on the mag bottom in wet conditions. How tight do Navy mags fit in their pouches?