navy mags

Navy · 02-10-2004, 11:50 AM

>>Subject: A question
>Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:21:13 EST
>
>Good Morning Nico,
>
>You remember the e-mail you sent me concerning the reason for the
>introduction of the concentric ring magazine to identify 9MM vice 7.65.
>
>Do you have a source document for that? It has been a matter of some lively
>discussion on the Luger forum and some members were curious as to the source.
>
>Thanks
>Tom Armstrong

E-mail traffic from Nico...

I have the blueprints of the magazines designed as M1900 7,65mm, M1904 7,65, M1904 9mm, M1906 7,65, M1908 9mm, M1937 9mm, M1938 Haenel, M1941 Haenel-Mauser and even the post war blueprints of Mauser. So for it is just a matter of comparing. The only differents between the magazine dated 1904 7,65 and the 1904 9mm is the bottom with the concentric rings. So the rings were the 9mm indicator in these early days. Remember the first Naval lugers were 7,65 !!! The dutch contract of 1904/1905 is asking for enlarging of 1mm for the cut in the top that frames the followerbutton. The dutch authorities demand this change as with dirt the hold open device in the pistol was not alway actived after the last round. By changing the cut the button was 1 mm higher in position when the magazine was empty and the holdopen device worked better. The dutch contract of 1904/1905 was ended by the dutch covernment. The pistols became to expensive for army. In 1911 the pistol was bought anyway for the dutch colonial army and in 1928 for the dutch navy. Anyway the germans used the dutch demand by changing production from that moment on. And so the M1906 7,65 and the M1908 9mm have both the 1mm longer cut. This all together proofs that the concentric rings were a 9mm indicator only and the lenght of the cut is for collectors the way to indicate if the magazine was made before 1906. When magazines are produced before 1906 (with the shorter cut) and have a concentric ring bottom and no Naval stamp or serial number then they are prototypes. I have such a not marked magazine with short cut and concentric rings together with the oriiginal blueprint. Nico

02-10-2004, 11:50 AM	#14
Navy RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Dc 'burbs in Virginia Posts: 2,482 Thanks: 0 Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts	>>Subject: A question >Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:21:13 EST > >Good Morning Nico, > >You remember the e-mail you sent me concerning the reason for the >introduction of the concentric ring magazine to identify 9MM vice 7.65. > >Do you have a source document for that? It has been a matter of some lively >discussion on the Luger forum and some members were curious as to the source. > >Thanks >Tom Armstrong E-mail traffic from Nico... I have the blueprints of the magazines designed as M1900 7,65mm, M1904 7,65, M1904 9mm, M1906 7,65, M1908 9mm, M1937 9mm, M1938 Haenel, M1941 Haenel-Mauser and even the post war blueprints of Mauser. So for it is just a matter of comparing. The only differents between the magazine dated 1904 7,65 and the 1904 9mm is the bottom with the concentric rings. So the rings were the 9mm indicator in these early days. Remember the first Naval lugers were 7,65 !!! The dutch contract of 1904/1905 is asking for enlarging of 1mm for the cut in the top that frames the followerbutton. The dutch authorities demand this change as with dirt the hold open device in the pistol was not alway actived after the last round. By changing the cut the button was 1 mm higher in position when the magazine was empty and the holdopen device worked better. The dutch contract of 1904/1905 was ended by the dutch covernment. The pistols became to expensive for army. In 1911 the pistol was bought anyway for the dutch colonial army and in 1928 for the dutch navy. Anyway the germans used the dutch demand by changing production from that moment on. And so the M1906 7,65 and the M1908 9mm have both the 1mm longer cut. This all together proofs that the concentric rings were a 9mm indicator only and the lenght of the cut is for collectors the way to indicate if the magazine was made before 1906. When magazines are produced before 1906 (with the shorter cut) and have a concentric ring bottom and no Naval stamp or serial number then they are prototypes. I have such a not marked magazine with short cut and concentric rings together with the oriiginal blueprint. Nico