navy mags

Ron Wood · 02-10-2004, 10:00 PM

If you detected a note of skepticism in my post, you wouldn't be very far off target. Guess I would like to know if any documentation exists on this revelation also. I'm not trying to be difficult here, it is just that suddenly there is information surfacing that is heretofore unknown. I do not object to speculation, I do a lot of it myself, but I like it labled as speculation if it is. I have difficulty accepting anything proffered as fact if it has no precedent, and as a Luger enthusiast that enjoys research and history I delight in the details. The existence of two sets of magazine blueprints dated 1904 clearly labled "7.65mm" and "9mm" is worthy of note, but to draw the conclusion that this was done to be able to tell the difference in the dark is an educated guess. The statement that the first Navys were 7.65mm needs substantiation.

02-10-2004, 10:00 PM	#19
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: 7,051 Thanks: 1,120 Thanked 5,287 Times in 1,728 Posts	If you detected a note of skepticism in my post, you wouldn't be very far off target. Guess I would like to know if any documentation exists on this revelation also. I'm not trying to be difficult here, it is just that suddenly there is information surfacing that is heretofore unknown. I do not object to speculation, I do a lot of it myself, but I like it labled as speculation if it is. I have difficulty accepting anything proffered as fact if it has no precedent, and as a Luger enthusiast that enjoys research and history I delight in the details. The existence of two sets of magazine blueprints dated 1904 clearly labled "7.65mm" and "9mm" is worthy of note, but to draw the conclusion that this was done to be able to tell the difference in the dark is an educated guess. The statement that the first Navys were 7.65mm needs substantiation. __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction