Another .45 Luger Question...

[Ron Wood]

OK boys and girls, cinch up your knickers, here goes Ron Wood on a flight of fantasy again.

Mike Reese was the Luger Editor for Guns and Ammo in the mid 1970â??s. He started a feature in August 1973 that showcased a different variation of Luger each month. In February of 1974 his topic was the .45 Luger. The photo he used in this article was Sid Abermanâ??s #2. When Mike consolidated these feature articles into â??Luger Tipsâ?� in 1976, he chose to substitute the photo that Pete Ebbink is questioning now. Where did he get this photo? The answer is found in Scott Meadowsâ?? book â??U.S. Military Automatic Pistols, 1894-1920â?� on page 383, and in J. Howard Matthews outstanding work â??Firearms Identification, Volume II page 387. The photo is from the archives of the Ordnance Department. You can see the caption under the following picture I took from Meadowsâ?? book â??Ordnance Department photograph of the .45 caliber Luger tested in 1907â?�. Matthews has a similar caption.





I have taken the Aberman Luger and the Ordnance photo and placed them side-by-side. Granted, the angles of the photos are very slightly different and I have had to do a bit of scaling to make them appear about the same size, but neither of these factors are enough to significantly alter the grip angle and perspective.



Ball's back in play, where do we go from here?

[Edward Tinker]

Sorry Garfield, I guess I don't understand why Petes talking about the .45's is pointless or seems to bother you?

It is just another "angle" he is trying to explore?

[crgkstnr]

Another difference between the two photos is the rear of the toggles. The Kenyon book shows the rear of the toggle protruding beyond the frame. The Reese book shows the toggle flush with the frame.

It would be nice to compare the Norton and Aberman guns. Maybe if I asked nicely......

[Garfield]

Ron:

Excellent research!

Pete:

Appears that you have a very valid point. There are significant differences between the two photos regarding the angle and shape of the grip and the size and shape of the safety.

Now, what does it all mean?

[Pete Ebbink]

First of all, my thanks to Ron Wood for taking the time to research and post...!

I do not know what conclusions can be made here. If the Ordnance gun shown in the Meadows/Mathews/Reese photo was serial # 1 and side-by-side with serial # 2 (the Aberman gun), can we conclude that GL made two, slightly different .45 lugers for the US Trials ? I also recall reading somewhere that serial # 1 was thought to have been destroyed in 1914...

Tom Heller's post about custom-shop prototypes being a bit varied makes sense to me.

I make Japanese shoji screens and window coverings as a hobby. Each are hand-built and no two are quite alike. With each creation, I learn a bit more and build the next a bit differently...

Beyond that, I do not think any more can be concluded (i.e. total nubmer of .45's made, how many of each "model", etc...).

Appreciatively,

Pete...

[Hugh]

<img src="graemlins/wave.gif" border="0" alt="[byebye]" /> Excellent post. Ron! Thank you for going to the trouble. Thanks to Pete for bringing this up and sticking to his guns (pun intended) amid all the flack he encountered. <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

[Mike Jones]

Ron,

In Michael Reese's Luger of the Month In Febuary 1974 the gun shown is the Norton Gun notice the crown N proof.

I have detailed photos and measurements of both of the known .45 Lugers and they are identical.

Regards,
Mike

[Ron Wood]

Thanks Mike. I suspected that might be the case since Reese lived in closer proximity to the Norton gun, but I was going on the info that I had from a long time ago. Thank you for setting the record straight.

[John Sabato]

Great research Ron, and a great post... This kind of information exchange is what makes this forum great.

I think the differences in grip angles is small enough that it can be attributed to distortion introduced during the camera capture of the images and during publishing...

I would like to add my $0.02 about the differences in the size of the exposed grip safety... I think it may be that the grip safety spring may not have exposed the pressure piece completely in one of the photos and that they are in fact the same size... just showing less in one photo... I make this assumption on the physical location of the safety bar (at the sear) which also appears to be not completely engaged in the same photo.

Comments on this aspect are certainly invited.

My thanks to you all for a lively and informative discussion.

[Ron Wood]

John
I think that the variances between the two photos are too great to attribute to photographic distortion alone. The grip on the ordnance photo is definately longer, at a more pronounced angle and more square at the heel of the butt. The grip safety on the Aberman photo is fully exposed and if the ordnance gun safety is only partially exposed (which I doubt), futher exposure would only serve to enhance the difference rather than reduce it. As much as I dislike doing so, I am afraid I must respecfully disagree with you on this one.

[John Sabato]

Your informative rebuke is gracefully accepted Ron. As I stated in my post, my conclusions were based strictly on assumptions on my part.

It would be interesting to be able to compare these guns side by side... Perhaps if one of the well known and distinguished authors that post here (this is a very strong not to go unnoticed hint Jan) approached the owners of these two pistols, there might be a book that would sell very well on this forum in the comparison of the physical and technical aspects of these two famous guns... What would the owners get for their cooperaton? why notoriety of course... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Doubs]

Just an opinion here but I'm with John on this one. The small difference between the grip angles as so nicely illustrated by Ron can easily be explained by camera angles AND the type of cameras used.

I'm willing to bet that the Ordinance photograph was made using a large format view camera with the ability to tilt and swing front and back and possibly even drop the bed. Such camera movements allow the photographer to correct distortions in perspective. e.g., taking a picture of a tall building with a normal camera will show the walls converging as they go higher. A view camera can correct that perspective and show the walls parallel all the way up.

While such cameras can correct distortion, they can ALSO INTRODUCE distortion! In looking at the two photographs, the Ordinance picture appears to me to have distorted the grip in the mag well entrance area when compared to the newer photograph. The flow of the grip into a well-rounded bulge on the bottom front and the smooth curve on the lower back strap aren't there in the Ordinance picture. The smooth grip contour is quite plain in the newer picture.

Why am I so sure of the equipment used by the Ordinance Department photographer? Because the only cameras available in the early part of the 20th Century were box cameras or of the Kodak folding variety with minimal image control and large 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 or larger view cameras. Except for the view cameras, the rest were of essentially "snap shot" quality and the Ordinance Dept. would have demanded better. The chances are that the original negative or plate of the .45 Luger taken by the Ord. Dept. was as sharp as a tack. Repeated copying has degraded the image.

Yes, it's quite possible to distort the grip in the manner seen depending upon the focal length of the lens used and the corrections made by the photographer using the various movements of the camera lens, bed and back.

Just something more to consider when comparing the two pictures.

[John Sabato]

thanks for the backup on my thinking Doubs, I do have some photographic history in my curriculum vitae but hardly enough of a credential to spout the history of the camera...

I don't think anyone can dispute that the two photographs differ in a manner that is noticeable to the naked eye... Unless a new comparison is made by modern methods, we will never be able to resolve what the differences are between them...

thanks again...

[Ron Wood]

Gotta hand it to you guys, you don't give up easily! [img]smile.gif[/img] I had assumed that the camera used was a large format bellows camera with a photographic plate. I had also assumed that since the photo was an archival record, it would have been taken with some precision, backlighed on a copy stand (no shadows, although this could have been accomplished several ways). Also there is no apparent distortion on the remainder of the weapon as well as the magazine beside it. The magazine is to scale and probably was photographed in the same frame as the gun. A lot of assumptions there, but I am inclined to give credit to the old Army photographers who I think were professional enough not to deliberately distort an archive photo. (I don't give up easily either [img]biggrin.gif[/img] )

[Johnny Peppers]

With my limited knowledge of photography I would still conclude that unless both pistols were photographed with the same camera and lens from the same position and distance, no conclusions can be drawn. The focal length of the lens in relation to the film size plays a large part in the perspective of the object being photographed. A wide angle lens positions the rear node of the lens much closer to the film plane, and invites distortion if everything is not kept absolutely parallel and perpendicular. The reference given to the building is one of the best examples. As the camera and lens is moved away from perpendicular with the building, the more severe the angle of the building appears. If the camera position is moved to an elevation where it is then perpendicular with the building, the converging lines of the building which gives the appearance of the building standing at an angle goes away. As long as all lines go through the center of the lens the distortion is virtually non-existent, but as the lens is tilted either up or down the change in the angles become more apparent.
As I doubt the two known .45 Lugers will every come together to be photographed, we will probably just to have to live with our own theories.

[Ron Wood]

See Mike Jones' post above concerning detailed photos and measurements of the two known .45 Lugers.

[John Sabato]

touche! Ron [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

[Doubs]

[quote]Originally posted by Ron Wood:
<strong>See Mike Jones' post above concerning detailed photos and measurements of the two known .45 Lugers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ron, I took note of Mike's message before and it would seem that the two known existing .45 Lugers were made to identical specs. What we don't know is if the actual Test Luger, serial number 1, was also made to the same specs or if serial number 2 and any subsequent .45 Lugers were modified to some degree. My best guess is that serial number 2 was an exact duplicate of the Luger used during the testing. My reading indicates that serial number 2 Luger was submitted to the Ord. Dept. in the event that an unforeseen breakage or damage during testing made the original Test Luger unusable for continuation. In my estimation (opinion) it's unlikely that modifications would have been made in any test back-up pistol unless they were so minor as to not change test results in any way. The lower grip configuration and grip angle just might fit the requirement of being mods that didn't negate the completed tests.

That's why the Ord. Dept. photograph is so important. What we don't know is the level of training of the photographer or his attitude on the day the picture was taken. We don't know exactly what camera or lens or the size format the Photographer used. The manner in which the picture was taken isn't known. Even a print made from the original plate or negative may not answer the questions to everyone's satisfaction.

I believe view camera pictures of an early grip-safety Luger without the stock lug would go a long way toward answering the questions. Finding someone willing to devote the time and resources is another matter.

[Ron Wood]

Doubs
I think such an effort with a view camera would be enlightening, but I'll bet we won't have a stampede of offers to do it! <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

[edgedealer]

Gentlemen,
I am sitting at my computer reading this thread, it is very amusing to say the least. You are going back and forth concerning yourselves about picture format, the state of the photographer when he took the picture, angle of the grip. enough already. Mike Jones was kind enough to share his fathers records on the 45's. what part of identical doesnt anybody understand.You can bet Harry Jones took out his calipers and went through those guns inside and out, part by part. I saw him do it at a couple of gun shows,he was meticulous, I can only imagine how much time he spent on those two guns in his home.You guys should thank Mike for settling your arguement, identical. thanks Mike.