Baby 9mm - Page 2

Imperial Arms · 10-15-2002, 08:27 PM

Hello Jim,

I am familiar with the September 1962 Shooting Times article featuring the Baby Luger serial #4 which was owned by Carl Wilson and then later by Pat Redmond. An expert had confirmed to me that the Baby Luger had a mismatched upper and lower receiver, and Pat Redmond told be shortly before his death that the magazine was reduced from a standard magazine which shows welding marks. I do not doubt the opinion of the expert who told me about the mismatched upper and lower receiver as well as knowing the entire history of the Baby Luger. Eventually, these facts will need to be further studied, but nothing can be confirmed until the pistol is thoroughly examined again.

Albert

Pete Ebbink · 10-15-2002, 09:39 PM

Interesting sentence in Fred Datig's book, The Luger Pistol (Revised edition, 1962 5th. printing) on page 229 :

The sentence reads as "...In the years following the First World War, Mr. Weiss recalls that he supervised the production of, among other things, 12 "Baby" Lugers in caliber .32 ACP., mentioned on Page 137 of this book...".

Mr. Datig went to Germany in the 1950's and met and interviewed both August Weiss and Georg Luger, Jr....

Regards,

Pete <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

jimturner · 10-15-2002, 09:59 PM

Hello Albert,
Thanks for sharing that info.Is it known who owns .380/.32 Baby Luger now?

Jim

Imperial Arms · 10-16-2002, 12:14 AM

Hello Jim,

The collector is known who owns the Baby Luger serial #4 which is in a large collection in the UK, however, there has been some unfortunate problems created between him and various collectors around Europe and the US and, therefore, access to this pistol would be difficult.

Thank you for your inquiry.

Albert

Ron Wood · 10-16-2002, 02:27 AM

This is a very interesting thread, and it raises a few questions.

[quote] An expert had confirmed to me that the Baby Luger had a mismatched upper and lower receiverÃ¢?Â¦.I do not doubt the opinion of the expert who told me about the mismatched upper and lower receiver as well as knowing the entire history of the Baby Luger <hr></blockquote>

I am wondering about the conflict between the expert observation and the documentation, such as it is, that exists. In the 1962 Shooting Times article it states: Ã¢?? Serial numbers are not on all parts of it, but they do appear in three places: on the bottom of the barrel and front of the frame, and inside the toggle on the rear portion where the number is actually hidden by the flipping forward of the spring hook arm.Ã¢?Â The article goes on into considerable detail about the construction of the baby Luger, to include the fact that the magazine Ã¢??is made in two piecesÃ¢?Â¦Ã¢?Â which are locked together by Ã¢??tiny dimplesÃ¢?Â [spot welds?], and that the bolt face had been altered or repaired by brazing. It seems to me that if there was a mismatch between the upper and lower parts it would have been mentioned in such a comprehensive article, but there is no indication of a serial number mismatch.

The baby Luger was again the subject of an in-depth article in the 1984 Guns Illustrated annual. It was written after Pat Redmond had acquired the gun in 1981. The Shooting Times article only pictured the baby Luger in profile, but the Guns Illustrated article contains a clear picture of the forward frame and underside of the barrel with the caption: Ã¢??The only marks on the baby Luger are the serial number 4, shown here on the bottom of the barrel and front of the frame. The number also appears on the bottom of the center toggle link.Ã¢?Â

So, my question is: how does a gun observed by an expert to be made up from two different guns, pass the scrutiny of Herr August Weiss and be photographed with matching parts?

Johnny Peppers · 10-16-2002, 09:22 AM

According to a conversation between a friend of mine and the late Pat Redmond, Pat sold the Baby to Geoffrey Sturgis of England. The amount that Pat indicated he gave Carl Wilson for the pistol and the price Pat sold the pistol for does not indicate that it was an accumulation of parts.

John Sabato · 10-16-2002, 10:59 AM

What an interesting thread...

Can someone explain to me how this very historical pistol exists in a collecction in England without having suffered the "deactivation" fate that all of Terry Foley's guns had to undergo (see the Deactivation process in the Member Gallery Album)?

Is there a privileged class of collector in the UK? and if so, what are the qualifications for joining this elite fraternity? Money? Royalty?

Ron Wood · 10-16-2002, 11:28 AM

I believe Dr. Sturgis has had his collection classified as a "museum", therefore exempt from the insane rules of a private collection. To answer your second question...MONEY. Sturgis seems to have some of the deepest pockets in the collecting fraternity and is gradually acquiring the lion's share of the world's rarest Lugers and other early firearms. In some respects, having a representative examples from the complete evolution of the Luger all in one collection is a fabulous situation. On the other hand, I am deeply concerned that the existence of this collection hinges on the whimsy of government and that the museum status could disappear in a heartbeat. If you want to have nightmares, think of all of these single digit serial number weapons suffering the fate of tacfoley's collection.

Pete Ebbink · 10-16-2002, 04:22 PM

I have atached a nice photo of the Baby in Ralph Shattuck's collection; from C. Kenyon's book, Luger - The Multi-National Pistol, on pages 58-59; for those folks that might not have this book. I think it shows some details that the photo posted by Ted Green may not have...

Just to clarify my understanding of this thread :

1. Am I corect in understanding that this Baby is not the same Baby as the Wilson/Redmond/Sturgis pistol ? That is, the Wilson/Redmond/Sturgis Baby is a .380/.32 ACP ?

Am I correct in understanding that all 7-shot Baby's have a traditional thumb safety lever while the other baby's (i.e. .380/.32 ACP) have the Borchardt-type safety lever ?

2. Is the Redmond/Sturgis Baby thought to have been the personal pistol of Georg Luger or is it the Baby in Ralph Shattuck's collection...? Or are both thought to have been owned by GL...?

3. How is such "ownership" provenance by Georg, himself, documented and accepted by the luger collecting community ?

Regards,

Pete... <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

Imperial Arms · 10-16-2002, 05:13 PM

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

jimturner · 10-16-2002, 10:36 PM

Ther are a lot of questions on this variation of .32 and .380 Lugers.I can only assume that Mr. Carl Wilson is no longer with us?

Imperial Arms · 10-17-2002, 12:19 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Wm. Pete Ebbink:
<strong>Just to clarify my understanding of this thread:

1. Am I corect in understanding that this Baby is not the same Baby as the Wilson/Redmond/Sturgis pistol ? That is, the Wilson/Redmond/Sturgis Baby is a .380/.32 ACP ?

Am I correct in understanding that all 7-shot Baby's have a traditional thumb safety lever while the other baby's (i.e. .380/.32 ACP) have the Borchardt-type safety lever ?

2. Is the Redmond/Sturgis Baby thought to have been the personal pistol of Georg Luger or is it the Baby in Ralph Shattuck's collection...? Or are both thought to have been owned by GL...?

3. How is such "ownership" provenance by Georg, himself, documented and accepted by the luger collecting community?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Pete,

In reference to your various questions:

1) The Baby Luger image which you posted is actually the 7-Shot Prototype likely owned by Georg Luger and made between 1902-06. This pistol should not to be confused with the 'true' Baby Luger made between 1920-26 which has the Borchardt style safety.

2) the Baby Luger in the Redmond/Sturgess collection was not owned by Georg Luger. The original owners of the various Baby Lugers are unknown, however, one could have been owned by the master designer or August Weiss at DWM. However, I cannot confirm this fact.

3) I cannot comment on this question because I have never examined the Georg Luger pistol nor have I seen any documentation about it.

I hope this answers some of your questions.

Albert

Ron Wood · 10-17-2002, 01:46 AM

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 heckÃ¢?Â¦it wonÃ¢??t be the first time. [img]smile.gif[/img]

1) Would all the four Baby Luger bottom receivers [frames] and magazines be the same for each caliber? IÃ¢??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 .02Ã¢?Â 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 goodÃ¢?Â¦a little stagger stacked but nothing that couldnÃ¢??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 .02Ã¢?Â and maybe shortening the height of the extractor hook .01Ã¢?Â 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 werenÃ¢??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 WeissÃ¢?? 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

Johnny Peppers · 10-17-2002, 09:15 AM

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.

10-16-2002, 02:27 AM	#25
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	This is a very interesting thread, and it raises a few questions. [quote] An expert had confirmed to me that the Baby Luger had a mismatched upper and lower receiverÃ¢?Â¦.I do not doubt the opinion of the expert who told me about the mismatched upper and lower receiver as well as knowing the entire history of the Baby Luger <hr></blockquote> I am wondering about the conflict between the expert observation and the documentation, such as it is, that exists. In the 1962 Shooting Times article it states: Ã¢?? Serial numbers are not on all parts of it, but they do appear in three places: on the bottom of the barrel and front of the frame, and inside the toggle on the rear portion where the number is actually hidden by the flipping forward of the spring hook arm.Ã¢?Â The article goes on into considerable detail about the construction of the baby Luger, to include the fact that the magazine Ã¢??is made in two piecesÃ¢?Â¦Ã¢?Â which are locked together by Ã¢??tiny dimplesÃ¢?Â [spot welds?], and that the bolt face had been altered or repaired by brazing. It seems to me that if there was a mismatch between the upper and lower parts it would have been mentioned in such a comprehensive article, but there is no indication of a serial number mismatch. The baby Luger was again the subject of an in-depth article in the 1984 Guns Illustrated annual. It was written after Pat Redmond had acquired the gun in 1981. The Shooting Times article only pictured the baby Luger in profile, but the Guns Illustrated article contains a clear picture of the forward frame and underside of the barrel with the caption: Ã¢??The only marks on the baby Luger are the serial number 4, shown here on the bottom of the barrel and front of the frame. The number also appears on the bottom of the center toggle link.Ã¢?Â So, my question is: how does a gun observed by an expert to be made up from two different guns, pass the scrutiny of Herr August Weiss and be photographed with matching parts? __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

10-16-2002, 10:59 AM	#27
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,156 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,308 Times in 1,098 Posts	What an interesting thread... Can someone explain to me how this very historical pistol exists in a collecction in England without having suffered the "deactivation" fate that all of Terry Foley's guns had to undergo (see the Deactivation process in the Member Gallery Album)? Is there a privileged class of collector in the UK? and if so, what are the qualifications for joining this elite fraternity? Money? Royalty? __________________ regards, -John S "...We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created EQUAL *and are endowed by their Creator* with certain UNALIENABLE* rights, and among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness..."*

10-16-2002, 11:28 AM	#28
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	I believe Dr. Sturgis has had his collection classified as a "museum", therefore exempt from the insane rules of a private collection. To answer your second question...MONEY. Sturgis seems to have some of the deepest pockets in the collecting fraternity and is gradually acquiring the lion's share of the world's rarest Lugers and other early firearms. In some respects, having a representative examples from the complete evolution of the Luger all in one collection is a fabulous situation. On the other hand, I am deeply concerned that the existence of this collection hinges on the whimsy of government and that the museum status could disappear in a heartbeat. If you want to have nightmares, think of all of these single digit serial number weapons suffering the fate of tacfoley's collection. __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

10-17-2002, 01:46 AM	#33
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	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 heckÃ¢?Â¦it wonÃ¢??t be the first time. [img]smile.gif[/img] 1) Would all the four Baby Luger bottom receivers [frames] and magazines be the same for each caliber? IÃ¢??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 .02Ã¢?Â 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 goodÃ¢?Â¦a little stagger stacked but nothing that couldnÃ¢??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 .02Ã¢?Â and maybe shortening the height of the extractor hook .01Ã¢?Â 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 werenÃ¢??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 WeissÃ¢?? 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

10-15-2002, 08:27 PM	#21
Imperial Arms Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Malta, EU Posts: 579 Thanks: 0 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	Hello Jim, I am familiar with the September 1962 Shooting Times article featuring the Baby Luger serial #4 which was owned by Carl Wilson and then later by Pat Redmond. An expert had confirmed to me that the Baby Luger had a mismatched upper and lower receiver, and Pat Redmond told be shortly before his death that the magazine was reduced from a standard magazine which shows welding marks. I do not doubt the opinion of the expert who told me about the mismatched upper and lower receiver as well as knowing the entire history of the Baby Luger. Eventually, these facts will need to be further studied, but nothing can be confirmed until the pistol is thoroughly examined again. Albert

10-15-2002, 09:39 PM	#22
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Interesting sentence in Fred Datig's book, The Luger Pistol (Revised edition, 1962 5th. printing) on page 229 : The sentence reads as "...In the years following the First World War, Mr. Weiss recalls that he supervised the production of, among other things, 12 "Baby" Lugers in caliber .32 ACP., mentioned on Page 137 of this book...". Mr. Datig went to Germany in the 1950's and met and interviewed both August Weiss and Georg Luger, Jr.... Regards, Pete <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

10-15-2002, 09:59 PM	#23
jimturner User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: AR Posts: 15 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Hello Albert, Thanks for sharing that info.Is it known who owns .380/.32 Baby Luger now? Jim

10-16-2002, 12:14 AM	#24
Imperial Arms Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Malta, EU Posts: 579 Thanks: 0 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	Hello Jim, The collector is known who owns the Baby Luger serial #4 which is in a large collection in the UK, however, there has been some unfortunate problems created between him and various collectors around Europe and the US and, therefore, access to this pistol would be difficult. Thank you for your inquiry. Albert

10-16-2002, 09:22 AM	#26
Johnny Peppers User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Calion, Arkansas Posts: 1,042 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	According to a conversation between a friend of mine and the late Pat Redmond, Pat sold the Baby to Geoffrey Sturgis of England. The amount that Pat indicated he gave Carl Wilson for the pistol and the price Pat sold the pistol for does not indicate that it was an accumulation of parts.

10-16-2002, 04:22 PM	#29
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	I have atached a nice photo of the Baby in Ralph Shattuck's collection; from C. Kenyon's book, Luger - The Multi-National Pistol, on pages 58-59; for those folks that might not have this book. I think it shows some details that the photo posted by Ted Green may not have... Just to clarify my understanding of this thread : 1. Am I corect in understanding that this Baby is not the same Baby as the Wilson/Redmond/Sturgis pistol ? That is, the Wilson/Redmond/Sturgis Baby is a .380/.32 ACP ? Am I correct in understanding that all 7-shot Baby's have a traditional thumb safety lever while the other baby's (i.e. .380/.32 ACP) have the Borchardt-type safety lever ? 2. Is the Redmond/Sturgis Baby thought to have been the personal pistol of Georg Luger or is it the Baby in Ralph Shattuck's collection...? Or are both thought to have been owned by GL...? 3. How is such "ownership" provenance by Georg, himself, documented and accepted by the luger collecting community ? Regards, Pete... <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

10-16-2002, 05:13 PM	#30
Imperial Arms Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Malta, EU Posts: 579 Thanks: 0 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	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

10-16-2002, 10:36 PM	#31
jimturner User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: AR Posts: 15 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Ther are a lot of questions on this variation of .32 and .380 Lugers.I can only assume that Mr. Carl Wilson is no longer with us?

10-17-2002, 12:19 AM	#32
Imperial Arms Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Malta, EU Posts: 579 Thanks: 0 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	[quote]Originally posted by Wm. Pete Ebbink: <strong>Just to clarify my understanding of this thread: 1. Am I corect in understanding that this Baby is not the same Baby as the Wilson/Redmond/Sturgis pistol ? That is, the Wilson/Redmond/Sturgis Baby is a .380/.32 ACP ? Am I correct in understanding that all 7-shot Baby's have a traditional thumb safety lever while the other baby's (i.e. .380/.32 ACP) have the Borchardt-type safety lever ? 2. Is the Redmond/Sturgis Baby thought to have been the personal pistol of Georg Luger or is it the Baby in Ralph Shattuck's collection...? Or are both thought to have been owned by GL...? 3. How is such "ownership" provenance by Georg, himself, documented and accepted by the luger collecting community?</strong><hr></blockquote> Pete, In reference to your various questions: 1) The Baby Luger image which you posted is actually the 7-Shot Prototype likely owned by Georg Luger and made between 1902-06. This pistol should not to be confused with the 'true' Baby Luger made between 1920-26 which has the Borchardt style safety. 2) the Baby Luger in the Redmond/Sturgess collection was not owned by Georg Luger. The original owners of the various Baby Lugers are unknown, however, one could have been owned by the master designer or August Weiss at DWM. However, I cannot confirm this fact. 3) I cannot comment on this question because I have never examined the Georg Luger pistol nor have I seen any documentation about it. I hope this answers some of your questions. Albert

10-17-2002, 09:15 AM	#34
Johnny Peppers User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Calion, Arkansas Posts: 1,042 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	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.