US Test AE's - 900 vs. 100 - Page 2

Edward Tinker · 11-11-2002, 11:11 PM

So, let me beat this horse a bit more [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

I am reading Datig's The Luger Pistol, 1962 edition, and he states two interesting things:

[quote]In the fiscal year 1904, 71 pieces were sent to Springfield Armory and were, after attempts at repairing, declared no longer serviceable.<hr></blockquote>

and

[quote]It has been stated by Ordnance Officers, who served in the Army at the time of these trials, that quantities of the pistols were nickel plated for use by the officers<hr></blockquote>

That last one, I had missed in previous readings.

Has this ever been documented?
Shown false? True?
Any test pieces in nickel and always thought they were redone by some Joe-smoh?

Pete Ebbink · 11-15-2002, 07:35 PM

Thanks to all who participated and took their time to reply in this thread.

I think this another example of the Luger Forum at its best.

We will probably not all agree, all of the time; but we are civil and share our opinions and knowledge...with mutual respect.

Grateful !

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

Imperial Arms · 11-15-2002, 08:41 PM

Hello Members

Last week, I spoke to my friend Charles Kenyon to receive some of his comments about the US Test Lugers and he made two interesting comments. The first comment was that the US Government was very 'slick' in exchanging (or should we say 'ripping off' DWM instead?!) 50 used and abused Test Lugers for brand new 50 Cartridge counters - and they still did not give DWM a contract even after producing a more powerful cartridge! It appears that the American commission was more shroud and tight than the Dutch commission!! What happened with the fifty 1900 Test Lugers in exchange for the Cartridge Counter Lugers is anyones good guess, but they could have been returned to H. Tauscher via Springfield Armory for commercial sales.

His second comment was considering that there could have been some rejects in the first two shipments before they were sent to the respective field units. The replacement Lugers could have been sent by DWM a short time afterwards which may not have been recorded by the US Government, probably explaining the few Lugers which fall in the slighty higher 7100 serial range.

We many never know for sure 'what went where and why', and it is the heart of each collector to determine what he finds acceptible and whether he could live with a specimen that falls outside the 'so-called' established serial range.

Albert

Silvano · 11-19-2002, 07:31 AM

Hello guys!
I visit periodically, and couldn't help but notice this interesting discussion.
There was a similar discussion about a year back on the old board. Now some things don't seem to be as set in stone anymore, such as the flaming bomb proof, and the location of the numbering on the takedown.
One thing however that I am curious about, is the "GERMANY" import mark. It is clear that Test Eagles did not have this mark. Is this because they where taken off the line without the mark since they where being sold to the government, and thus did not require the mark? Does this also mean that all other AE's had to have the mark in order to be imported and sold commercially. What is the likelyhood of guns being imported without the mark, and passing importation? And why would Germany not put their mark on commercial guns? A mistake? An oversight? How many AE's are known without the mark, and what serial# range are they in?
Thanks in advance for your contributions.

Johnny Peppers · 11-19-2002, 10:17 AM

Silvano,
I believe the general consensus is that the U.S. Test Eagles did not require the GERMANY import stamp as they were military pistols. I think it is somewhere in the above discussion, but the stamp did not show up again on the Model 1900 AE's until almost the 8000 serial number range. The first pistol I have recorded with the stamp showing up again is serial number 7990. This is not to say that there are not pistols with the GERMANY import stamp in the 6000 to 8000 range, but that I just do not have a recorded example.
Likewise, the takedown lever was occasionally numbered on the round before the Test Trials pistols, and was used occasionally after the Test Trials pistols.
At the last Tulsa show I showed Ron Wood the 1917 dated Navy that has not had the Navy proofs finished over, and I believe he is in agreement with me that the pistol is totally authentic. We both did agree that the only absolute in Luger collecting is that there are no absolutes.

John Sabato · 11-19-2002, 11:56 AM

Albert B.

I have no reason to doubt Mr. Kenyons comments, [quote] His second comment was considering that there could have been some rejects in the first two shipments before they were sent to the respective field units. <hr></blockquote>

But they make me wonder what possible reason could the U.S. Government have to reject anything that came off the DWM assembly line for that first shipment in that time period...

All of the DWM pistols I have ever seen from that time period with their original finish were superb mechanical engineering wonders that were hand fitted like anything of commercial quality... This statement really has be scratching my bald head... I guess I have a hard time understanding anything being allowed to get by the DWM quality control inspectors at DWM in a shipment that was intended to show their best side and quite possibly could result in sustained orders for tens of thousands of pistols...

Anyone care to comment on DWM's quality control during that period?

Ron Wood · 11-19-2002, 03:58 PM

I find it highly unlikely that any weapon in the first two shipments were rejected prior to issue. I agree with John that this just does not wash considering the fit and finish of observed Lugers from that time and the fact that DWM was attempting to land what could be a very lucrative contract with the U.S.

What is more likely, and borne out by Ed's post about the 71 pieces returned in 1904 as unserviceable, is that DWM may have provided replacements. This would be unusual, since it is virtually unprecedented for a contractor to replace something the client has screwed up. But, once again, it is plausible because DWM stood to make a lot of money if the U.S. contract came through, and even in those days "money talks".

However, by 1907 DWM was in the final phases of negotiation with Germany to provide the Luger as the standard sidearm for the German army (which WAS successful and hence the P08). At that time DWM had pretty much had it with the U.S. demanding and getting preferential treatment. So the rest is history. DWM figuratively told the U.S. to "walk west till your hat floats" and left us without the Luger.

Imperial Arms · 11-19-2002, 10:33 PM

John & Ron,

Your responses are probably correct and I may have misunderstood the timing of events relating to how additional pistols could have slipped in during or after the tests. I agree with you that each Luger which came off the production line was a fine piece of hand fitted machinery and it is highly unlikely that there were rejects in the first two shipments considering DWM's high quality control.

Probably my misunderstanding of Mr. Kenyon's explanation could have been connected with the unserviceable pieces that were returned to Springfield Armory in 1904, and maybe DWM proposed to send replacements accounting for those Lugers which fall outside the 6100-7100 serial range showing suttle differences, such as the placement of the serial number on the take-down lever. Nevertheless, I agree with Ron that DWM probably did not ship additional pistols by reason of the fact that they originally intented as test pistols and sending replacements would serve no benefical purpose, only revealing that the Luger could not survive an abusive beating.

Unfortunately, we will never know if additional Lugers were shipped from DWM exceeding the original 1,000 pieces. I understand that this period around 1904 is a 'fuzzball' which might still leave questions open pertaining to those pistols which fall outside the upper limit.

Thank you gentlemen for your good comments.

Albert

ViggoG · 11-20-2002, 01:48 AM

Gentlemen,
As a lurker in this matter, I hope that I'm not intruding with the observation that perhaps the statement of "6100 to 7100" was intended to indicate that there were none in the 7200 range and above.
That is to say that, could the 7100 range have been meant to include up to 7199 with none higher?
(As in 71xx) ?
That will be my question in this matter?
ViggoG [img]confused.gif[/img] <img src="graemlins/wave.gif" border="0" alt="[byebye]" />

11-11-2002, 11:11 PM	#21
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,933 Thanks: 2,032 Thanked 4,530 Times in 2,092 Posts	So, let me beat this horse a bit more [img]biggrin.gif[/img] I am reading Datig's The Luger Pistol, 1962 edition, and he states two interesting things: [quote]In the fiscal year 1904, 71 pieces were sent to Springfield Armory and were, after attempts at repairing, declared no longer serviceable.<hr></blockquote> and [quote]It has been stated by Ordnance Officers, who served in the Army at the time of these trials, that quantities of the pistols were nickel plated for use by the officers<hr></blockquote> That last one, I had missed in previous readings. Has this ever been documented? Shown false? True? Any test pieces in nickel and always thought they were redone by some Joe-smoh? __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV

11-19-2002, 11:56 AM	#26
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,154 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,306 Times in 1,097 Posts	Albert B. I have no reason to doubt Mr. Kenyons comments, [quote] His second comment was considering that there could have been some rejects in the first two shipments before they were sent to the respective field units. <hr></blockquote> But they make me wonder what possible reason could the U.S. Government have to reject anything that came off the DWM assembly line for that first shipment in that time period... All of the DWM pistols I have ever seen from that time period with their original finish were superb mechanical engineering wonders that were hand fitted like anything of commercial quality... This statement really has be scratching my bald head... I guess I have a hard time understanding anything being allowed to get by the DWM quality control inspectors at DWM in a shipment that was intended to show their best side and quite possibly could result in sustained orders for tens of thousands of pistols... Anyone care to comment on DWM's quality control during that period? __________________ 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..."*

11-19-2002, 03:58 PM	#27
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: 7,022 Thanks: 1,090 Thanked 5,178 Times in 1,703 Posts	I find it highly unlikely that any weapon in the first two shipments were rejected prior to issue. I agree with John that this just does not wash considering the fit and finish of observed Lugers from that time and the fact that DWM was attempting to land what could be a very lucrative contract with the U.S. What is more likely, and borne out by Ed's post about the 71 pieces returned in 1904 as unserviceable, is that DWM may have provided replacements. This would be unusual, since it is virtually unprecedented for a contractor to replace something the client has screwed up. But, once again, it is plausible because DWM stood to make a lot of money if the U.S. contract came through, and even in those days "money talks". However, by 1907 DWM was in the final phases of negotiation with Germany to provide the Luger as the standard sidearm for the German army (which WAS successful and hence the P08). At that time DWM had pretty much had it with the U.S. demanding and getting preferential treatment. So the rest is history. DWM figuratively told the U.S. to "walk west till your hat floats" and left us without the Luger. __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

11-15-2002, 07:35 PM	#22
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Thanks to all who participated and took their time to reply in this thread. I think this another example of the Luger Forum at its best. We will probably not all agree, all of the time; but we are civil and share our opinions and knowledge...with mutual respect. Grateful ! Pete... <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

11-15-2002, 08:41 PM	#23
Imperial Arms Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Malta, EU Posts: 579 Thanks: 0 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	Hello Members Last week, I spoke to my friend Charles Kenyon to receive some of his comments about the US Test Lugers and he made two interesting comments. The first comment was that the US Government was very 'slick' in exchanging (or should we say 'ripping off' DWM instead?!) 50 used and abused Test Lugers for brand new 50 Cartridge counters - and they still did not give DWM a contract even after producing a more powerful cartridge! It appears that the American commission was more shroud and tight than the Dutch commission!! What happened with the fifty 1900 Test Lugers in exchange for the Cartridge Counter Lugers is anyones good guess, but they could have been returned to H. Tauscher via Springfield Armory for commercial sales. His second comment was considering that there could have been some rejects in the first two shipments before they were sent to the respective field units. The replacement Lugers could have been sent by DWM a short time afterwards which may not have been recorded by the US Government, probably explaining the few Lugers which fall in the slighty higher 7100 serial range. We many never know for sure 'what went where and why', and it is the heart of each collector to determine what he finds acceptible and whether he could live with a specimen that falls outside the 'so-called' established serial range. Albert

11-19-2002, 07:31 AM	#24
Silvano User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 16 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Hello guys! I visit periodically, and couldn't help but notice this interesting discussion. There was a similar discussion about a year back on the old board. Now some things don't seem to be as set in stone anymore, such as the flaming bomb proof, and the location of the numbering on the takedown. One thing however that I am curious about, is the "GERMANY" import mark. It is clear that Test Eagles did not have this mark. Is this because they where taken off the line without the mark since they where being sold to the government, and thus did not require the mark? Does this also mean that all other AE's had to have the mark in order to be imported and sold commercially. What is the likelyhood of guns being imported without the mark, and passing importation? And why would Germany not put their mark on commercial guns? A mistake? An oversight? How many AE's are known without the mark, and what serial# range are they in? Thanks in advance for your contributions.

11-19-2002, 10:17 AM	#25
Johnny Peppers User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Calion, Arkansas Posts: 1,042 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Silvano, I believe the general consensus is that the U.S. Test Eagles did not require the GERMANY import stamp as they were military pistols. I think it is somewhere in the above discussion, but the stamp did not show up again on the Model 1900 AE's until almost the 8000 serial number range. The first pistol I have recorded with the stamp showing up again is serial number 7990. This is not to say that there are not pistols with the GERMANY import stamp in the 6000 to 8000 range, but that I just do not have a recorded example. Likewise, the takedown lever was occasionally numbered on the round before the Test Trials pistols, and was used occasionally after the Test Trials pistols. At the last Tulsa show I showed Ron Wood the 1917 dated Navy that has not had the Navy proofs finished over, and I believe he is in agreement with me that the pistol is totally authentic. We both did agree that the only absolute in Luger collecting is that there are no absolutes.

11-19-2002, 10:33 PM	#28
Imperial Arms Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Malta, EU Posts: 579 Thanks: 0 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	John & Ron, Your responses are probably correct and I may have misunderstood the timing of events relating to how additional pistols could have slipped in during or after the tests. I agree with you that each Luger which came off the production line was a fine piece of hand fitted machinery and it is highly unlikely that there were rejects in the first two shipments considering DWM's high quality control. Probably my misunderstanding of Mr. Kenyon's explanation could have been connected with the unserviceable pieces that were returned to Springfield Armory in 1904, and maybe DWM proposed to send replacements accounting for those Lugers which fall outside the 6100-7100 serial range showing suttle differences, such as the placement of the serial number on the take-down lever. Nevertheless, I agree with Ron that DWM probably did not ship additional pistols by reason of the fact that they originally intented as test pistols and sending replacements would serve no benefical purpose, only revealing that the Luger could not survive an abusive beating. Unfortunately, we will never know if additional Lugers were shipped from DWM exceeding the original 1,000 pieces. I understand that this period around 1904 is a 'fuzzball' which might still leave questions open pertaining to those pistols which fall outside the upper limit. Thank you gentlemen for your good comments. Albert

11-20-2002, 01:48 AM	#29
ViggoG RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: South Side Virginia Posts: 534 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Gentlemen, As a lurker in this matter, I hope that I'm not intruding with the observation that perhaps the statement of "6100 to 7100" was intended to indicate that there were none in the 7200 range and above. That is to say that, could the 7100 range have been meant to include up to 7199 with none higher? (As in 71xx) ? That will be my question in this matter? ViggoG [img]confused.gif[/img] <img src="graemlins/wave.gif" border="0" alt="[byebye]" />