Wooden (Mauser C96 Style) Stock for 1913 Artillery

Imperial Arms · 10-20-2002, 02:08 PM

Mauro,

Thank you very much for your opinion and the three images you supplied in your last post. My questions and comments are for discussion only and not intented to discount your knowledgeable opinions. I would like to refer to the first two paragraphs of page 94 in the 'Multinational Pistol' by Charles Kenyon.

"On June 3, 1913, Kasier Wilhelm II signed an order approving the manufacture of a 'LANGE' or long pistol with shoulder stock. This weapon was to be designated "Lange Pistol '08".

The adoption of this special purpose variation was the result of the successful testing of a small lot of 50 weapons submitted by DWM which employed features as specified by the German military....."

The above paragraph makes it sound like those 50 weapons, with the C96 style stocks, were a pre-pre-production lot, and how can this be the case when the Artillery set/rig you mentioned was made in September 1914? Maybe the Artillery Luger was first designed with a standard stock/holster as we know it, and in September 1914 DWM decided to experiment with 50 separate weapons (without chamber dates) which were sent to AWM with the C96 style stocks?

I would also like to point out the fact that Artillery Luger production had already started production in 1914 at DWM (as well as Erfurt) using the standard stock/holster, so how could the Artillery with the C96 style stock be considered pre-production or experimental? The only major fact that supports this Artillery Luger being pre-production is the rear non-reinforced receiver, otherwise, the date on the leather rig cannot justify pre-production. I can only go as far as saying that these 'pre-production' guns were an alternate or separate trial weapon after the first 1913 trails, maybe to compete with the C96 pistol because DWM used the same idea of the wooden stock from Mauser.

I observed in your third posted image that the leather rig is from a different pistol than the one shown in the book 'The Multinational Pistol' on page 95/96. Who owns this complete rig because it appears older by showing more normal wear/useage on the holster as compared to the one in the 'Multinational Pistol'? Accepting the fact that the pistol and stock on page 95/96 to be absolutely genuine, I have some reservations about the authenticity of the accompanying leather holster which looks to damn mint after 80+ years! There is not one crease mark on the fastening strap; no stains, wear, or discoloration inside the flap; and no green brass residue between the brass studs and the leather which I have seen on ALL leather cases/rigs. Pat Redmond had told me that this leather holster was discovered much later and it did not come together with the pistol and stock which was discovered in Florida probably in the 1960-70's. Can this mean anything suspicious?

I would like to receive the opinions of members on this this forum with reference to the points I have mentioned.

Albert

10-20-2002, 02:08 PM	#8
Imperial Arms Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Malta, EU Posts: 579 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts	Mauro, Thank you very much for your opinion and the three images you supplied in your last post. My questions and comments are for discussion only and not intented to discount your knowledgeable opinions. I would like to refer to the first two paragraphs of page 94 in the 'Multinational Pistol' by Charles Kenyon. "On June 3, 1913, Kasier Wilhelm II signed an order approving the manufacture of a 'LANGE' or long pistol with shoulder stock. This weapon was to be designated "Lange Pistol '08". The adoption of this special purpose variation was the result of the successful testing of a small lot of 50 weapons submitted by DWM which employed features as specified by the German military....." The above paragraph makes it sound like those 50 weapons, with the C96 style stocks, were a pre-pre-production lot, and how can this be the case when the Artillery set/rig you mentioned was made in September 1914? Maybe the Artillery Luger was first designed with a standard stock/holster as we know it, and in September 1914 DWM decided to experiment with 50 separate weapons (without chamber dates) which were sent to AWM with the C96 style stocks? I would also like to point out the fact that Artillery Luger production had already started production in 1914 at DWM (as well as Erfurt) using the standard stock/holster, so how could the Artillery with the C96 style stock be considered pre-production or experimental? The only major fact that supports this Artillery Luger being pre-production is the rear non-reinforced receiver, otherwise, the date on the leather rig cannot justify pre-production. I can only go as far as saying that these 'pre-production' guns were an alternate or separate trial weapon after the first 1913 trails, maybe to compete with the C96 pistol because DWM used the same idea of the wooden stock from Mauser. I observed in your third posted image that the leather rig is from a different pistol than the one shown in the book 'The Multinational Pistol' on page 95/96. Who owns this complete rig because it appears older by showing more normal wear/useage on the holster as compared to the one in the 'Multinational Pistol'? Accepting the fact that the pistol and stock on page 95/96 to be absolutely genuine, I have some reservations about the authenticity of the accompanying leather holster which looks to damn mint after 80+ years! There is not one crease mark on the fastening strap; no stains, wear, or discoloration inside the flap; and no green brass residue between the brass studs and the leather which I have seen on ALL leather cases/rigs. Pat Redmond had told me that this leather holster was discovered much later and it did not come together with the pistol and stock which was discovered in Florida probably in the 1960-70's. Can this mean anything suspicious? I would like to receive the opinions of members on this this forum with reference to the points I have mentioned. Albert