The M1906 Russian Contract Controversy Strikes Again

[Ron Wood]

OK folks, I am enjoying this running discussion on one of my favorite variations. I am digesting once again what has been posted on this forum as well as outside readings. Albert has mentioned a couple of key considerations that had not registered with me before and perhaps are the crux of our disagreement. Please bear with me as I attempt to write my "opus magnum (minimum?)" on this delicious topic. It may take me a couple of days as my thought processes are not as rapid as someone several years my junior, but hopefully they are more deliberate. I will return to this thread when I can compose what I hope will be a meaningful response. "Watch this space for future developments" !

[Imperial Arms]

Originally Posted by Ron Wood

OK folks, I am enjoying this running discussion on one of my favorite variations. I am digesting once again what has been posted on this forum as well as outside readings. Albert has mentioned a couple of key considerations that had not registered with me before and perhaps are the crux of our disagreement. Please bear with me as I attempt to write my "opus magnum (minimum?)" on this delicious topic. It may take me a couple of days as my thought processes are not as rapid as someone several years my junior, but hopefully they are more deliberate. I will return to this thread when I can compose what I hope will be a meaningful response. "Watch this space for future developments" !

I can't wait!

Hereunder are some points to consider:

1. Try to explain with some common sense why the Russian Government/Military would prefer placing vague crossed rifles (infantry) on the chamber instead of their national crest?;
2. If the M1900 Russian Contract is viewed as a legitimate Luger (delivered in 1904 after the M1900/03 Bulgarian Luger contract, why does it NOT have a safety marking like the M1900/03 Bulgarian Luger? The Bulgarian variations show consistency whereas the two 'Russian' variations are inconsistent. I suppose that the DWM 'marketing department' would have suggested safety markings to the Russian Military if they had already placed safety markings on the earlier Bulgarian contract. I believe that would be good business by the DWM factory. Maybe nobody knew a single word of Russian at the DWM factory!;
3. Who in Russia could have been the users of these pistols and how many of these pistols are known to have come out of Russia? I am hearing that the Russians are known to keep pretty good records in their (secret) archives, so how come there is not ONE single Russian collector who can say with certainty that these pistols were Russian contract Lugers? Interestingly, there are records from 1853 of those deluxe engraved Colt revolvers that were presented to Czar Nicolas I from Samuel Colt including other deluxe engraved revolvers to various officers and nobles, so how come not a single record exists of those Lugers delivered to the Russian military? There are at least three Bulgarian collectors who can state that the M1906 model is a Bulgarian Luger;

Good luck, Amigo

[Norme]

Dear Albert, If may address a couple of your points. Firstly, you keep referring to the "Russian Government/Military" ordering these Lugers from DWM. No one I know of has made this claim, yet you keep repeating this assertion over and over again. This is a classic "straw man" debating tactic in which one distorts an opponents position so that it can be refuted. It is unworthy of you. We have always maintained that these pistol were assembled by DWM for the Russian civilian market.
Secondly, it is entirely possible that no one at DWM, at that time, was familiar with either Bulgarian or Russian. Remember, this was some years before the mass Western migration of Eastern Europeans triggered by the war and the Russian revolution.
Best regards, Norm

[Imperial Arms]

Originally Posted by Norme

Dear Albert, If may address a couple of your points. Firstly, you keep referring to the "Russian Government/Military" ordering these Lugers from DWM. No one I know of has made this claim, yet you keep repeating this assertion over and over again. This is a classic "straw man" debating tactic in which one distorts an opponents position so that it can be refuted. It is unworthy of you. We have always maintained that these pistol were assembled by DWM for the Russian civilian market.
Secondly, it is entirely possible that no one at DWM, at that time, was familiar with either Bulgarian or Russian. Remember, this was some years before the mass Western migration of Eastern Europeans triggered by the war and the Russian revolution.
Best regards, Norm

Hi Norm,

If the (fake) M1900 Russian was ordered and tested by the Russian military in 1904 and the 'M1906 Russian' happens to have similar contract features/characteristics (like the M1906 Portuguese Lugers), then it is safe to say that it was a contract order and not for the civilian market. When Charles Kenyon wrote in 'Lugers at Random' that these Lugers were for a contract to Russia, who is now coming up with the ideas that it was for commercial sales instead and for what reason? Were the M1906 Portuguese Lugers for the civilian market? I am not distorting an opponents position - simply look at the pistol and its characteristics speak for themselves.

Sweet dreams,
Albert

[Michael Zeleny]

Originally Posted by Norme

Secondly, it is entirely possible that no one at DWM, at that time, was familiar with either Bulgarian or Russian. Remember, this was some years before the mass Western migration of Eastern Europeans triggered by the war and the Russian revolution.

As a Jewish-owned company, DWM must have had adequate access to polyglots fleeing pogroms since the 1880s. More importantly, Western and Central Europe never suffered from linguistic ignorance. I know of no examples of European lapses comparable to the offerings of Engrish.com, which is what a Bulgarian spelling looks like to a Russian speaker.