Question about the book Ã¢??Luger TipsÃ¢?Â

LugerVern · 02-14-2007, 11:31 PM

I picked up a copy of ReeseÃ¢??s book the other day, revised edition.
I noticed he pictures a Navy luger on the bottom of page 45 with the caption 1902 Navy Commercial; this is a typo correct, it should read 1920?

Also what is with the front and rear sights, if you look closely you will notice they are non standard, any thoughts?

I know all books have errors in them and the more experienced collectors have long ago picked this one to death but please indulge my new collector curiosity.

Thanks

Vern

MFC · 02-17-2007, 01:46 AM

The front sight base is taller to match the taller rear sight which is adjustable. 2 position, 100 & 200 meter.
Mike C.

LugerVern · 02-17-2007, 08:51 AM

Thanks Mike

But what I was wanting comment on was the fact that the Navy shown at the bottom of page (45) has unusual sights for a Navy, lower profile than what we expect to see on a Navy but still consisting of an adjustable rear. I have seen 4 such guns, always commercials but this is the first time I could ask the question and use a document as a reference.

Vern

Pete Ebbink · 02-17-2007, 12:53 PM

Vern,

I think the "1902" is a typo as you say and should probably read as "1920".

Lots of DWM-parts guns were coming out of Germany in the 1920's.

Also, USA outfits such as Pacific Arms from SF, CA would give a luger buyer any barrel configuration you wanted in the 1920's.

Least remote but still a possibility...sometimes book authors rely on photos supplied by other collectors and dealers. It is remotely possible the gun in the photo is a 'boosted" gun and the author missed it in his edit of photo materials.

MFC · 02-19-2007, 02:30 AM

Sorry Vern,
I was wondering why a member of the forum since April 2005 didn't know the difference of the Navy sights. My bad.
Mike C.

Ron Wood · 02-19-2007, 11:42 AM

It is a typo, but should read "1906". In the text it refers to the 1906 Navy Commercial.

You are correct that the front sight block on the Commercial model at the bottom of the page is much too low for a Navy and the barrel "band" is too short. It looks more like a standard '06 Commercial front sight than a Navy. I strongly suspect that it was rebarreled and did not come from the factory that way. The '06 Navy is a relatively scarce gun and Mr. Reese may not have seen a genuine piece to know the difference...or pehaps he hadn't counted on a sharp-eyed new collector spotting the difference!

02-14-2007, 11:31 PM	#1
LugerVern User Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Virginia Posts: 563 Thanks: 1 Thanked 34 Times in 27 Posts	Question about the book Ã¢??Luger TipsÃ¢?Â I picked up a copy of ReeseÃ¢??s book the other day, revised edition. I noticed he pictures a Navy luger on the bottom of page 45 with the caption 1902 Navy Commercial; this is a typo correct, it should read 1920? Also what is with the front and rear sights, if you look closely you will notice they are non standard, any thoughts? I know all books have errors in them and the more experienced collectors have long ago picked this one to death but please indulge my new collector curiosity. Thanks Vern

02-17-2007, 01:46 AM	#2
MFC User Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Louisiana Posts: 1,237 Thanks: 183 Thanked 281 Times in 162 Posts	The front sight base is taller to match the taller rear sight which is adjustable. 2 position, 100 & 200 meter. Mike C. __________________ Mike C.

02-19-2007, 02:30 AM	#5
MFC User Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Louisiana Posts: 1,237 Thanks: 183 Thanked 281 Times in 162 Posts	Sorry Vern, I was wondering why a member of the forum since April 2005 didn't know the difference of the Navy sights. My bad. Mike C. __________________ Mike C.

02-19-2007, 11:42 AM	#6
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 7,040 Thanks: 1,106 Thanked 5,257 Times in 1,724 Posts	It is a typo, but should read "1906". In the text it refers to the 1906 Navy Commercial. You are correct that the front sight block on the Commercial model at the bottom of the page is much too low for a Navy and the barrel "band" is too short. It looks more like a standard '06 Commercial front sight than a Navy. I strongly suspect that it was rebarreled and did not come from the factory that way. The '06 Navy is a relatively scarce gun and Mr. Reese may not have seen a genuine piece to know the difference...or pehaps he hadn't counted on a sharp-eyed new collector spotting the difference! __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

02-17-2007, 08:51 AM	#3
LugerVern User Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Virginia Posts: 563 Thanks: 1 Thanked 34 Times in 27 Posts	Thanks Mike But what I was wanting comment on was the fact that the Navy shown at the bottom of page (45) has unusual sights for a Navy, lower profile than what we expect to see on a Navy but still consisting of an adjustable rear. I have seen 4 such guns, always commercials but this is the first time I could ask the question and use a document as a reference. Vern

02-17-2007, 12:53 PM	#4
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Vern, I think the "1902" is a typo as you say and should probably read as "1920". Lots of DWM-parts guns were coming out of Germany in the 1920's. Also, USA outfits such as Pacific Arms from SF, CA would give a luger buyer any barrel configuration you wanted in the 1920's. Least remote but still a possibility...sometimes book authors rely on photos supplied by other collectors and dealers. It is remotely possible the gun in the photo is a 'boosted" gun and the author missed it in his edit of photo materials.