A. Weiss Baby Luger Threads ???

[Pete Ebbink]

Howard,

There are many reasons why a collector may not chose to post photos of his collection on the forums and gunboards.

In addition to what your friend stated, other reasons may include :

1. Not wanting to broadcast to the world what is in their collections for security reasons.

2. Not wanting to broadcast to the world what they own and what might be subject to some possible taxation in the future.

3. Not wanting to broadcast to the world and certain officials what might be in their collections, especially in States where a form of gun registration may exist and their guns exist "under the radar screen".

4. Not wanting to let some family members or ex-spouses know what they have in their collections.

5. Their possible fear that they may own boosted lugers purchased from high-profile peddlers in the 1970's, 1980, and even the 1990's; knowing that if they profile such guns, their "investment value" may depreciate as other collectors would see their serial numbers and guns' conditions.

6. Many other reasons...

There are many advanced collectors you meet at gun shows that never participate on the Internet and on gun forums; many do not even own PC's.

There are also many advanced collectors you meet at gun shows that are on the forums all the time in a "voyeur" mode...never posting and would never think to share their collections so openly.

[Pete Ebbink]

Dwight,

Here is an informative posting that Ron Wood made on the LF back in 2005; with a differing account of the Carl Wilson Baby Luger :

" The â??Babyâ?� Luger is one of the rarest variations. It is a scaled down â??pocketâ?� version of the Luger. According to Herr August Weiss, there were two constructed, serial numbers 1 and 2, in 7.65mm (.32 ACP) and two, serial numbers 3 and 4, in 9mm Kurz (.380). Again according to Herr Weiss, there may have been enough parts to construct a fifth pistol, but there is no evidence that this was ever done. Herr Weiss probably never actually â??ownedâ?� one of these examples, but they were built under his supervision as DWM Works Manager in 1925-1926. The pistol was designed by Herr Heinrich Hoffman, Chief Engineer of the Pistol Production Department of DWM, and was intended to introduce a pocket pistol that would hopefully compete with some of the other popular pocket autos of the time.

The connection of the best-documented example with Herr Weiss came about with the discovery of serial number 4 by a French gun collector in 1961 in a French estate. The French collector contacted the well known American collector, Carl Wilson. After some negotiation, Mr. Wilson set about to have it authenticated. Herr Weiss was still very much alive, so pictures and correspondence were exchanged. In 1962 the gun was hand carried to Germany for Herr Weiss to examine first-hand. Herr Weiss confirmed that it was genuine and provided a notarized letter of authentication. Mr. Wilson then proceeded with the acquisition and it remained in his collection until 1981. Another prominent American collector, Pat Redmond (now deceased), was the lucky individual that purchased it from Mr. Wilson. I do not know its history after that point. "

[Pete Ebbink]

Ed,

I understand and respect your opinions.

But as a famous architect stated : " God is in the details. "

In my professional line of work, I am paid to look for the tinest little flaws and quality short-cuts taken in projects worth millions of dollars. If you find enough of those little problems, it usually is a symptom of bigger problems.

[Pete Ebbink]

Another Baby Luger photo; taken in the 1978 time frame. Serial number of the gun was not noted by the photographer, unfortunately :

(From the very faint wear spot on the flat of the TD lever just in front of the button and the pattern of loss of wood along the upper part of the left grip high up on the grip strap, it might be possible that this 1978 photo may be the Wilson gun; as compared to the photo scan in my previous posting above from the Walter book. Similar dents in the metal at the front of the frame just above the trigger guard interface.)

[Edward Tinker]

Pete I deleted my remarks, although I figured I left them there long enough for you to read.

details are fine, but if you make forum members uncomfortable, is that being helpful? Be helpful but don't be overlly critical was my point. I don't think we want collectors fearful of posting their items?

[Jan C Still]

Interesting discussion. Many good points made.
However, the numbers of boosted and faked Lugers continues to increase. They are a very serious problem for all Luger collectors particularly beginners or the uninformed. Presently this problem is being mostly addressed by gun show rumors, word of mouth, and anonymous experts. If this problem is not addressed by us, out in the open and on this Forum,(and other forms), then who will. Meanwhile the faked and boosted Lugers continue to be produced and sold to fellow collectors.
Jan

[Pete Ebbink]

Bit of image comparisons between the 1978 Baby photo and a Krause reproduction Baby to see some of the dimensional differences :


/

[Imperial Arms]

The question is, can collectors openly discuss the authenticity or flaws of a Luger without causing other people/collectors to become uncomfortable or angry? If we are restricted in what we write on the forums in order to protect the preying crooks, then there is a likelihood that more fake Lugers will continue to be made and purchased by those collectors with lesser knowledge. Some collectors will say, "who cares, as long as it does not affect me" - is this the right attitude? Unfortunately, some collectors in our society are willing to protect the reputation of those crooks because of 'politics' and personal relationships, and these 'dreamers' who follow and worship those crooks continue to buy Lugers from the crooks based on fantasies hoping that they are buying the 'real deal'. Well, eventually when the truth comes out, it hurts like a mother- ! Who likes to waste their hard earned money because they might be naive? It is sad to see the decline of ethics and honesty in the collectors society and who knows how many collectors will be hurt by such appalling practices?

For the many collectors who do not know, the Baby Luger serial #4 (which was once owned by Pat Redmond) is mismatched even if it might be the only original Baby Luger known to exist. This pistol will NOT function normally because the upper receiver is in .380 caliber and the frame is for a Baby Luger in caliber .32. The combination might be in reverse, but the pistol was mentioned to be assembled from two different Baby Lugers. If one looks carefully at any photo of this Baby Luger, it will be observed that the magazine does not sit perfectly in the magazine well, and it appears somewhat crude for a pistol being made by DWM. A genuine Baby Luger coming out of DWM would have been made to very high standards even if there were prior problems in its design and production.

Before a collector gets all excited about a certain Luger, he should learn about the traditions of Germany and the high standards that were expected from those German factories such as DWM or Mauser. It is a good habit to have suspicion about a Luger especially if it is extremely rare and expensive. It is not surprising that some of these pistols are now being sold by auctions which are a good channel to get them into the market place.

Be ware,
Albert

[Pete Ebbink]

Hi Albert,

What I do find somewhat puzzling about the Baby lugers, from a technical perspective is :

1. All Baby's seem to have no "DWM" on the top of the front toggle link. If these 4 (or 12 or so...) pistols were DWM's attempt to enter a crowded "pocket pistol" market place in Germany and elsewhere in the 1920's and these Baby lugers were to be used as "marketing & salesman" specimens, I would think DWM would certainly add their DWM-logo to such important pistols.

2. The lack of "dicing" of the metal on the flats of the toggle knobs is quite odd. Seems like a dicing pattern would provide more friction to prevent finger/thumb slippage when cycling the toggle action. Even the GL 7-shot Baby luger has full dicing on the more-narrowed toggle knobs.

If DWM was experimenting with less "dicing" to reduce machining time/costs and this new "pattern" shown on the 1920's Baby lugers proved to be a positive experiment, would one not expect to see that carried over into the production means of the regular luger production ?

The 1920's Baby lugers seems to have only a slight pattern of groves placed radially on the edges of the "knobs".

One should note the Swiss Bern folks decided to do away with all dicing on the toggle knobs of their M1929 designs to reduce production costs/time. Once in a while you will run across a M1929 that has had some rudimentary "dicing" added by a Owner or his/her gunsmith...so for some, the smooth toggle knobs were not desirable.

[Pete Ebbink]

Similar photo comparison of the Shattuck Baby luger and a Krause-made reproduction...to see the dimensional differences/similarities :

[Heinz]

Pete, If the "baby" Lugers do represent bench production in the DWM or Mauser factory I think the characteristics that you have commented on would probably be observed. Pieces like this could well have been constrcted from from a draft level blueprint with revisions occuring as prototypes were made. The conclusions would seem to have been "too much work, too expensive for the market."

The situation that would follow is the only way to tell a piece bench made in Weimar germany from a piece bench made in California 50 years later would be very subtle hints in the workmanship and most importantly the provenance.

I think the observations are valuable. However I think we perhaps need a place on the forum to anonymously post such truly one of a kind pieces for observation and comment. If a buyer has a comfortable provenance, they understandably would not want to risk having the value of the piece diminished by a critique that weighed too heavily on their particular piece and consequently their investment. An anonymous posting are would allow a healthy free for all without a great financial risk to the poster.

I am not sure we need that kind of an area for standard factory production pieces but I think it would be beneficial when dealing with prototypes.

[John Sabato]

The only way for such "anonymous" postings to take place would be for the owner/buyer to provide the requisite text and photos to a moderator to be posted... the way the forum is designed, is intended to make "anonymous" postings difficult to impossible... it is what keeps out the majority of the "anonymous" forum troll contributors and what makes the Lugerforum a special place to visit where we are nearly exempt from anonymous flames and personal attacks...

Got something really controversial to display and request comments on? Send the particulars to Ed Tinker or myself and we will assist you to do this "anonymously"

[Heinz]

Thanks John. I think that may be a reasonable course in cases involving prototypes or very rare pieces where the poster is relyiing on provenance but would like to show the piece to the forum without setting his/her investment up in flames. But I think you and ed would make good initial screeners as to wether or not it was appropriate

[Pete Ebbink]

Interesting old discussion exchange between Ron Wood and Albert Beliard back on 10-16-2002 time frame.

Albert's posting :


Ron,

With reference to your post above and based on various expert opinions I have received, I am not saying that the Baby Luger is mismatched in respect to serial number, but it is possibly mismatched physically, mechanically or it has been modified at a later date. Supposingly, there were four Baby Lugers manufactured, the first two in .32 ACP and the next two in .380 and maybe a fifth for parts. Let us put aside what was reported in the 1950/60's because there could have been speech translation and comprehension problems at the time. I have a few questions I would like to ask:

1) Would all the four Baby Luger bottom receivers and magazines be the same for each caliber, or would they be slightly different for each caliber?

2) Would the two Baby Lugers in caliber .380 need to be modified from upper receivers originally made in .32 ACP, and would August Weiss allow such an alteration when it would probably be cheaper and more reliable to make a correctly functioning pistol from scratch? If DWM wanted to compete in the area of small pocket pistols, such as against the Browning pistol, why would they want to produce a pistol in the uncommon .380 caliber when the most popular small cartridge at the time was .32 ACP?

3) With all the tooling, machinery and skilled designers/workmen that DWM had available in the factory, what was the problem in making a proper Baby Luger in the first place instead of producing a pistol which appears crude in manufacture? German engineering would not allow such a pistol to pass inspection! When I handled the Baby Luger serial #4 in Geoff Sturgess's collection in 1990/91, it appeared crude and even the Baby Luger made by Krausewerke was better made than serial #4!

According to what I am mentioning based on various opinions I have received, the Baby Luger serial #4 is open to further debate according to its present physical nature/structure and I am not an expert in this field to make a judgement until a genuine Baby Luger would be compared with it side-by-side. I can accept the fact that serial number #4 is a Baby Luger, but further research and study is required to determine its authenticity.

Albert

__________________
Web Site: Imperial Arms


Ron's reply :

Albert,

You ask some very good questions. Now I am going to do something dumb and take a shot at addressing them. I probably will be shot down by folks who really know what they are talking about, but what the heckâ?¦it wonâ??t be the first time.

1) Would all the four Baby Luger bottom receivers [frames] and magazines be the same for each caliber? Iâ??m guessing they could be. I looked at the dimensional specs for the .32 ACP cartridge vs. the 380. Case lengths are identical. Rim diameter is only .02â?� difference. Then I checked a .32 caliber Browning 1900 magazine against a Walther PPK .380 mag. The difference in thickness is about the thickness of a credit card. I then checked an original DWM 479A .32 cartridge against a new Winchester .380 cartridge. Case and overall lengths are identical. Then I loaded up the PPK mag with .32 cartridges. Worked pretty goodâ?¦a little stagger stacked but nothing that couldnâ??t be compensated for by a proper follower and slight modification of the magazine lips. I think they would feed just fine from that mag with a little tinkering. Looks like frame and magazine compatibility to me.

2) Would the two Baby Lugers in caliber .380 need to be modified from upper receivers originally made in .32 ACP? First of all, I am not really sure why it is assumed that the .380 receivers were originally made for the .32 ACP and not from scratch to begin with. As far as modifying a .32 receiver, other than the barrel change, I am guessing that all that is required is hogging out the bolt face .02â?� and maybe shortening the height of the extractor hook .01â?� since both cartridges have the same rim thickness. Both cartridges are straight sided, so I am guessing that headspacing is accomplished by the chamber and therefore not a problem with a barrel swap and proper chamber reamer.

Would August Weiss allow such an alteration when it would probably be cheaper and more reliable to make a correctly functioning pistol from scratch? As stated above, how do we know the .380 receivers werenâ??t fabricated from scratch? Nevertheless, Herr Weiss probably would have made the modifications considering how little effort would be involved (and the probability that it was intended to create two different caliber prototypes from the beginning). Actually, Herr Weiss would not have to have made that decision since the supervision of the construction of the babies was by Herr Heinrich Hoffmann, Herr Weissâ?? predecessor. Herr Weiss only authenticated #4 as one of the babies produced by Herr Hoffmann.

Why would they [DWM] want to produce a pistol in the uncommon .380 caliber when the most popular small cartridge at the time was .32 ACP? Why did DWM create the 9mm Parabellum and not stay with the 7.65 cartridge? Perhaps it is because the .380 has about 60% more energy than the .32 ACP and would make a more effective pocket pistol?

3) With respect to the manufacturing crudeness of #4, you have the advantage in actually handling the weapon in question. I can only go by the contemporary photos in the aforementioned articles. Externally at least, the construction looks pretty darned good. Mike Krause is a very skilled craftsman and considering that nearly a century has passed, his baby Lugers probably do look a bit better by comparison to the original. It is known that #4 has been subjected to questionable indignities. The brazed bolt face was perpetrated by a person or persons unknown. Whether it was a factory modification or a repair by the former French collector from whom it was obtained, or somebody else, may never be known. By all accounts, #4 has had a hard and checkered history.

I am not defending the authenticity of #4, just presenting some observations. It would be enlightening if the expert would divulge how he/she determined the frame is for a .32. I can think of a couple of ways, but I would like to hear the process from the original source.

Regards
Ron

__________________
If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction


This was the last posting in the thread by Johnny Peppers :

Ron,

Your comments on the minor difference in dimension of the .32 and .380 cartridge are very valid. As in the case of the .32acp Colt Model 1903 and the .380acp Model 1908 Pocket Pistols, the difference was so slight that the magazine well of the Model 1903 was opened slightly to accept the .380 magazine and the Model 1908 was born. No further modification was necessary and the .380 barrel was a drop in fit. The small dimensional difference of the two cartridges would have created no problems for DWM.