M1906 Russian Luger - The Ending of its Identity

[Imperial Arms]

I wish to report with sadness that the so-called ‘M1906 Russian Luger’ is nearing the end of its documented identity! It is coming to light that it was not a Luger pistol for the Russian armed forces nor was it sold by Russia dealers (with those ‘mixed’ characteristics including the crossed rifles on the chamber). Based on new research and information which is recently surfacing and being discussed (or debated), the Russian Lugers do not meet the specific national criteria for a pistol intended as a foreign contract as compared to those Luger pistols which were sold to the countries of Switzerland, Bulgaria, the US and Portugal at the beginning of last century.

Let us analyze each of the foreign contract Luger pistols which I have mentioned in the first paragraph:

1. Swiss contract – National emblem of a cross in sunburst or a cross in shield;
2. US Test Lugers – National emblem with an American eagle as we know it;
3. Bulgarian contract – National emblem of two standing lions holding a shield (as we observe it);
4. Portuguese contract – National symbol as documented in various books and articles;
5. Russian Luger – Plain crossed rifles – oops, something is not right!

Why should a ‘Russian Luger’ have plain crossed rifles on the chamber when the national emblem/crest or coat of arms for the Russian empire was a double-headed eagle (as depicted in the image hereunder)?

How does one explain the safety marking in Bulgarian text, the extractor marking in Russian text, and the crossed rifles on the chamber that still remains a mystery? I suppose that many collectors have jumped to the conclusion that this Luger pistol continues to have a strong Russian connection simply because of the close meaning of the old spoken language in Russia and Bulgaria. Ironically, we collectors just wanted to believe that it must be a Russian Luger for the sake of a thrill. To this day, actual documentation on the ‘Russian Lugers’ is very sketchy and unreliable. There is strong evidence based on Russian dealer catalogs that Luger and Mauser C96 pistols were commercially sold in Russia, however, there are still no strong leads to a Russian contract, and there is absolutely no logical reason for commercial firearms to receive a chamber marking with crossed rifles. In this same post, there has been mentioned an Officers Shooting School in Russia where such Luger pistols could have been given as awards, but the existence of this institution in Russia would have not justified the DWM factory to produce nearly 1,000 pistols (based on the estimated serial range) and these pistols to be received by officers with markings of twin nature.

In my opinion, every thing has a reason and I doubt that the DWM factory would have been so ‘casual’ in the application of various markings on a pistol that had a particular destination. So, who was the recipient of these so-called ‘Russian Luger’? Stay tuned for more ….

Albert

[LugerVern]

Albert

I think most of us think exactly like you, its just that we don't really know where to put them as at least one or two look to be honest guns.

I don't like to call them Russian Lugers, but that terminology stuck a long time ago, so it continues.

So what do we call them " The Crossed Rifles of Bulgaria" variation, created by a third party?

I have gone from liking them to hating them to at least excepting that a scarce few may represent a unique sub variation that collectors may want to own.

I can not argue what your saying

Vern

[Vlim]

Supporting Albert's line of thinking is that in a document, dating from 1911, written by one of the Swiss KTA executives, lists a number of contract pistols to different countries, including China and Brazil. The other 'usual suspects' like the Netherlands, Portugal, Bulgaria, etc... are included in the list. Russia, however, is not mentioned anywhere.

I'm curious to see where this will lead to.

[Imperial Arms]

When I present my next theory, which I reckon contains some sound logic based on actual historical facts, I suppose that many Luger collectors will be reluctant to redefine the label from a M1906 Russian Luger to another variation. By the way Vern, you are on the right track. I would like to seize this opportunity to acknowledge Nick who has been very benefical in developing this new theory using his foreign contacts.

Albert

[drbuster]

Albert, I for one, eagerly await further posts from you on this subject.

[drbuster]

Would the fact that some of these "Russian" lugers that have surfaced recently, including on Simpson's site, have Tula arsenal markings on the barrel underside tend to confirm or have no bearing on whether these lugers were actually in Russia?

[Imperial Arms]

Hello Herbert,

If any of the legitimate/authentic 'Russian Lugers' would happen to have a Tula arsenal marking on the underside of the barrel, I think that I have an explanation when I present my new findings on these 'Russian Lugers'.

The new findings will be rather lengthy, and I hope to answer most questions with sound theories. Stay tuned....

Albert

[drbuster]

Believe me Albert, I am tuned! I'm certain that many folks, especially those who own "Russian" lugers are on the edge of their seats (am I mean this sincerely!).

[Imperial Arms]

Before saying farewell to the existence of the ‘Russian Luger’ which was mistakenly labeled since many, many years as a (contract) pistol delivered to Russia (for the most part attributable to the extractor marking and the depiction of crossed Mosin-Nagant ’91 rifles over the chamber), there has recently surfaced some strong evidence and facts (which I am continuing to explore) that will open some new significant theories which will very likely lead to this Luger Parabellum being another Bulgarian variation. Firstly, it is necessary to listen to some attention-grabbing history about the principality and kingdom of Bulgaria including the reign of Tsar Ferdinand I and his military connections.

Although Tsar Ferdinand I of Bulgaria (1861-1948) was one of many monarchs to lose his throne in 1918, he had shown remarkable ability to retain it till the end in the face of civil disturbance, revolution and military defeat.

Born on 26 February 1861 in Vienna, Ferdinand was the youngest son of Prince Augustus I of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. He was elected prince of Bulgaria on 7 July 1887 by the national assembly as successor to Bulgaria's first ruler, Alexander I, who had abdicated in 1886.

His dynastic position was not however recognized by the major powers, a source of ongoing irritation to Ferdinand. At the time of his election as prince he had been serving in the Austro-Hungarian army as a lowly junior officer.

For all that Ferdinand was the nominal ruler of Bulgaria, until 1894 policy was dominated by the Bulgarian Prime Minister, Stefan Nikolov Stambolov. With the spectacular fall from grace of Stambolov in 1894 however, Ferdinand took the opportunity to assert himself over domestic affairs.

Marriage to the Bourbon princess Maria Louisa of Parma in April 1893 helped Ferdinand gain partial recognition from the major European powers, as did the entrance of his young son Boris to the Greek Orthodox Church in February 1896.

This latter event aroused the interest of Russia, who made diplomatic noises regarding rapprochement with Bulgaria. Finally, in March 1896, Ferdinand's position as Bulgarian ruler received international recognition.

Never a man to let pass a golden opportunity, Ferdinand declared Bulgarian independence of the Ottoman Empire on the eve of Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and proclaimed himself Tsar of Bulgaria on 5 October 1908 (celebrated on 22 September). The Declaration of Independence was proclaimed at the Saint Forty Martyrs Church in Turnovo. It was accepted by Turkey and the other European powers.

As imperialistic as any other Balkan ruler, Ferdinand championed the formation of the Balkan League of 1912, consisting of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro. Their aim, as a loose alliance, was to dismember European Turkey for their own disparate ends. Thus the First Balkan War of 1912-13 came about.

Despite finishing up on the winning side Ferdinand's territorial ambitions were frustrated when the allies failed to agree on a sharing of the Turkish spoils. This resulted in an alliance being formed by Greece and Serbia against Bulgaria, later joined by Turkey and Romania: cue the Second Balkan War of 1913.

Defeated and bruised by events in the Balkans, and having set himself against the other Balkan powers, the seeds were sown for Bulgaria's subsequent entry into the First World War with the Central Powers.

Bulgaria began the war as a neutral; however, once Ferdinand was as sure as he could be that the Central Powers were in the ascendancy - given the lamentable French lack of success of the Western Front and the Anglo-French humiliation in Gallipoli, as set against sweeping German victories in the east - he finally threw in his lot with Germany. He hoped for (of course) territorial gains as a consequence of a successful war, chiefly in Macedonia.

It was a fatal mistake. Germany proved by far the dominant ally in the partnership, and exploited Bulgarian natural and military resources to the full. Despite initial military successes against Serbia, success in the field quickly dried up and he found his popularity on the wane.

Having survived revolution in Bulgaria towards the close of the war, Ferdinand was finally forced to abdicate by the Allies in early October 1918 in favour of his son Boris III, having surrendered to the allies in late September.

Ferdinand chose to live thereafter in Coburg, Germany. He died there on 10 September 1948 having lived to the ripe age of 87; a better fate than numerous other deposed monarchs.

During my research, the most exciting piece of military news about Tsar Ferdinand I was his position as Chief or Honoury Guard of the 54th His Majesty the Tsar of Bulgaria's Minsk Infantry Regiment (54-i Pekhotnyi Minskii Ego Velichestva Tsarya Bolgarskago polk) which was part of the Russian 14th Infantry Division, 8th Army Corps, 1st Brigade with its headquarters in Kishinev till 15th October 1915. Each infantry regiment was made up of four battalions, each of 4 companies, except non-Siberian rifle regiments which had only two battalions. This regiment was not only made up of Russian soldiers and officers, but also of Bulgarian officers including those of very high rank even reaching the rank of General. With the presence of both Russian and Bulgarian officers in this regiment, it is likely that these Luger pistols were ordered by the Tsar for the regiment which he commanded with the purpose of the pistols having ‘bilingual’ characteristics. In terms of the (safety) indicators on this new model Bulgarian Parabellum, the major focus still remained on the safety marking ‘ОГЪНЪ’ in the Bulgarian language (started on the M1900/03 Parabellum), and the lesser focus was the extractor marking word ‘ЗАРЯДЪ’ (noun meaning ‘charge’) which was spelt and pronounced the same in the Bulgarian and Russian language. Observing the difficulty of reading the small text on the extractors, it is plausible that this marking was added by a Bulgarian arsenal instead of the DWM factory.

In regards to the presence of crossed rifles on the chamber on this particular Luger, it was common for the insignia of infantry regiments to be represented by crossed muskets or rifles (including those of American infantry regiments). If you examine closely the portrait image hereunder, you will notice a small symbol with crossed rifles which seems to have a credible connection to the infantry and it probably gives a sensible meaning to the crossed rifles on this Bulgarian Parabellum Luger which is now on a ‘paved road’ for receiving a new identity.

Moreover, there is mounting proof of this Luger pistol being of Bulgarian ‘nationality’ in view of the fact that at least three more pistols with crossed rifles exist in Bulgaria. Two of these Lugers are in private hands which have been in the country before the rise of some local Bulgarian collectors as well as before the beginning of the ‘Russian theory’. The other one, which was snatched away since a number of years, used to be housed in an 3rd Motorized Infantry Blagoevgrad Division museum in the town of Blagoevgrad (old name Dupnitsa) located in the southwest region of Bulgaria. I am trying to obtain the serial numbers of the two pistols in private hands which might be difficult. It is not a fluke that the pistol shown at the being of this thread has a Bulgarian holster (with an officers name inside the flap) even though this type of holster was issued in another period.

Based on my research and discussions with various collectors in Europe, I could never figure out why any knowledgeable person/collector from Russia could not correctly and quickly identity this Luger if it was originally delivered to Russia for commercial sales or for an army test/contract. Giving some flexibility to the history and movement of these Luger pistols, there is a good chance that some of these Lugers went into Russia with Russian officers returning from service in Bulgaria. Subsequently, a couple of these pistols some how surfaced out of Finland and Norway by means of smuggling when many Russian citizens decided to search for a better life in those Scandinavian countries. If any of these Bulgarian Lugers happened to have a Russian Tula proof mark, it can easily be mentioned that this proof mark was applied by a Russian arsenal during the time the pistol was in Russia. When we notice the large quantities of surplus army guns and equipment that has been coming out of Bulgaria since many years, this huge amount of surplus inventory probably explains how 15-20 of these Luger pistols were able to ‘sneak’ out of Bulgaria and the surrounding region.

In an attempt to date the delivery of these pistols to Bulgaria, I reckon that these pistols were mainly given or awarded to officers in the 54th Minsk Infantry Regiment shortly after Bulgaria gained its independence in October 1908, and it is also likely that they were received as well by officers of other Bulgarian regiments if we presume that approximately 1,000 of these pistols were delivered from DWM based on the serial number range of those genuine pistols which have been recorded. In the same vein, the offering of these pistols from the king could have been seen as a way to commemorate the Bulgarian independence from the Ottoman Empire. In view of the fact that these pistols are original new model M1906 Parabellum Lugers made by the DWM factory in caliber 9 mm, I am confident that these pistols were delivered after those Bulgarian Lugers in caliber 7,65 mm which were converted into caliber 9 mm by a Bulgarian Arsenal..

Many collectors still take the view that the lowest and highest surviving serial number of a military or organizational contract may reflect an estimate of the quantity of guns made or delivered which is most often not the case. We collectors want to see production and sales in a categorized and sequential way which is illogical and usually the real procedures are different. In almost every weapons factory in imperial Germany, there were manufacturing procedures which involved accuracy and repeatability tests, failure rates and rejects, which resulted in the actual acceptance rate to usually be lower than those delivered/received. The random selection and assembly of the remaining guns from the stock for the contract probably lead to large number gaps in the serial range spread causing collectors today to miscalculate the actual number of guns produced and delivered while there remains a limited availability of accurate archive records. It is possible that only 300-400 of these pistols were delivered to Bulgaria for the officers of various regiments even though the serial range spread can be observed from around 200 to 850. As a comparable example, why is the M1906 Portuguese Royal Navy Luger rig serial #147 which used to belong to Admiral Hypacio de Brion under King Carlos I happen to fall around the middle of the serial range for this first contract when it would be expected that an Navy admiral should have received a pistol in the first 1-10 pieces delivered? I have concrete proof that this rig used to belong to the admiral because I bought it directly from the family (great-grandson) in Lisbon.

It is difficult to determine whether these Bulgarian pistols were made before, after or during the same time of the two Portuguese Navy contracts in 1908 considering that both contracts had there own 1-3 digit serial range and each contract had an ‘organizational’ emblem on the chamber and not a national coat of arms. In fact, the two Portuguese Navy contracts have an organizational emblem (the crown anchor or the R.P anchor) because the national coat of arms for King Carlos I was completely different. Realizing that DWM had more sales with Bulgaria than compared to Portugal prior to 1907/08, it is possible that those original 9 mm caliber Bulgarian Lugers were made and delivered before the two Navy contracts to Portugal.

According to the ground-breaking information which I have uncovered that will probably end the long-standing glamour the ‘Russian Luger’, I propose that we collectors give it a new identity as a M1908 Bulgarian Infantry Officers Luger instead of its previous label as a ‘Russian Luger’ which was created from guess-work and insufficient information. Of course, there will be some collectors who will strongly maintain that a (M1900) Russian 7,65 mm Luger Parabellum with the crossed rifles on the chamber will be “legitimate and unquestionable Luger variations” as stated on the web site of ‘Land of Borchardt’ (LOB):

“The fact that eight M1900 Russian Parabellums have been identified is irrefutable testimony to its existence, and when the next noted Luger author picks up the pen for the next chapter in Luger history, hopefully, will acknowledge and recognize the Model 1900 Russian Parabellum as a legitimate and unquestionable LUGER VARIATION…It seems certain from looking at the table that the 1900 Russian Parabellum is a genuine Luger variation”

LOB has steered off course with the use of rambling stories, sketchy quotations and using comparative images of Mosin-Nagant rifles in an attempt to authenticate the ‘M1900 and M1906 Russian Luger’, while my article simply scores strong sensible points that the crossed rifles above the chamber have a direct link to an infantry regiment (organization). LOB wants to some how squeeze in and justify the ‘M1900 Russian Luger’ as the predecessor of the contract ‘M1906 Russian Luger’ which he and others believe were tested by the Russians in 1904 at Oranienbaum (“Test Oranienbaum 1904”). Whatever LOB is trying to say, how could such ‘Russian Lugers’ in the serial range 11,000-12,000 be received after the true M1900/03 Bulgarian Lugers in the 20,000 serial range which were actually delivered to Bulgaria in 1903? This irregular ‘back-to-front’ sequence of events places a big question mark on a ‘M1900 Russian Luger’ with crossed rifles above the chamber (even if it was allowed to be redefined as a ‘M1900 Bulgarian Officers Luger’ without any safety markings). Based on a (1906) Russian dealer’s catalog that I have in my archive, it is plausible that the Russian Army had decided to ‘test-run’ a few M1900 Lugers, but these pistols were very likely ordinary commercial models in caliber 7,65 mm as depicted in the catalog. If we accept that Portugal first received a few M1900 Commercial Lugers, the same could have occurred with Russia, but these Lugers were not delivered as contract Lugers.

Unfortunately, a small group of foolish Luger collectors want to praise themselves as authorities by writing strange articles with no credit, and in the same fashion they try to legitimatize certain Lugers in their collection by scrutinizing and comparing every micro detail and measurement that usually causes them to make unfounded mistakes because they prefer to reply on ambiguous stories from other sources who act in the same way!

The various strong theories, opinions and information which I have explained in this article can be read in the way that the existence of the ‘cross-rifle’ Luger pistols has a low probability under a ‘Russian theory’, whereas extremely high probability under a ‘Bulgaria theory’. It will be interesting to observe in the future how this new information will affect the value of the M1908 Bulgarian Infantry Officers Luger from the perspective of prestige, desirability, rarity and its historical background seeing that the once occupied space of the ‘Russian Luger’ will likely become void.

Finally, by taking a quote from a forum member and applying some humour to it: "I guess, the Russian Lugers will be with us for a long long time" – my modest reply is “the Russian Luger is quickly fading away”.

Written by: Albert Beliard
Important contributions from Nick Stanev
E-mail: imperialarms@att.net

[drbuster]

Albert, thanks for taking the time to post your well written and researched history lesson and attempting to assign the 1906 "Russian" luger to a "Bulgarian" variant with strong Russian connections. In my view, this is all a matter of semantics. True, it is likely that there never existed a formal Czarist Russian luger contract, nevertheless these lugers appear to be genuine (except, of course, for the documented fakes!) and whether they were "official" or just made available for Bulgarian officers to purchase, along with their Russian comrades, makes little difference to me, a century later. I have no trouble viewing these crossed rifle marked DWM pieces as Bulgarian-Russian, rather than purely Russian. Your treatise should stimulate much further discussion. Thanks again, Albert, for your efforts and putting forth your theory.....after all, it COULD be absolutely true!

[guns3545]

Well as the owner of SN 591, a well documented Russian, what can I say?

Sounds pausible. Cannot find any lapse of logic.

But in the overall scheme of things, it does not take anything away from from the value of the piece as a collectible item with a place in history.

JMVHO.

[LugerVern]

Albert

I like the time frame, the "Russian Lugers" have the same type of frame as the Portuguese M2 and that is I believe the last time it was used. They were issued in 1909. The Portuguese Navy's that came in 1910 have the newer style frame.

So the frame style and the Bulgaria independence in October 1908 go hand in hand.

I have also noted some close similarities in machine marks between the Portuguese M2 and several Russians so yes, you could say you have both documentation and physical evidence to support your theory as to their dated production.

Very intersting post you presented to us!

Vern

[Ice]

Thank you for thaking the time to research and post this info. I will probably never own a Bulgarian-Russian but I love to learn.

Charlie

[suum cuique]

Albert,
this is very interesting. Thanks for posting.
BTW, does somebody know if the Romanian army had Lugers, too? They were German allies until Fall 1944, then they switched sides.

[Imperial Arms]

I suppose that there will be some collectors who will find it difficult to let go of the 'Russian Luger' and they will continue to dig for traces of information 'to keep it on life support' such as trying to determine if the roll-die for the crossed rifles have Russian rifle characteristics - who cares about the make/model of the crossed rifles when the probability that the 'Bulgarian theory' has a 70/30 advantage over the 'Russian theory'? In my rational opinion, I am simply looking at this rifle emblem as one which has very strong connections to the Infantry and it does NOT make this Luger any more 'Russian' than to its likely 'nationality' of another Bulgarian Luger variation. To try and magnify a small emblem on a chamber which has insufficient and inaccurate details is futile. The directions of lines (on the magazine) and the shapes of curves (on the rifle stock) will lead to no where. I do not think that the Bulgarian and Russian officers in those various regiments were ever debating (over some Vodka shots) the type of rifles on the chamber! It is amusing how collectors will 'pile up the chips' in an effort to shift the balance with regards to the markings on this Luger - Bulgarian safety marking, a bilingual extractor marking, so therefore it all rests on the emblem on the chamber to determine if it is more Bulgarian than Russian!

Can somebody tell me if the anchor on the Portuguese Navy Lugers is from a Portuguese, Spanish, German or French ship? Why not carefully examine the curvature and height of the points which could tell us the origin of the anchor?!

Cheers (over four Vodka shots ),
Albert

Ron, you will need a (1911) Bulgarian military manual for your Luger and not a commercial one in Russian language! Maybe we can now discuss a trade for a very rare manual that will be compatible for another Luger in your collection of which I have a duplicate.

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by Imperial Arms

I suppose that there will be some collectors who will find it difficult to let go of the 'Russian Luger'...

Like those who can't relinquish the "Black Widow"???

A very interesting theory you put forth...Thank You for sharing!!!

[Ron Wood]

Albert,
Your posting here is a duplicate of the one on Jan Still's forum. While it is germane to the discussion there its relevance on this forum is ambiguous and possibly confusing since there is no context for it. It would be much better to keep discussions on track and not fire off random broadsides. I would much prefer to maintain a scholarly atmosphere rather than devolving into silly and meaningless analogies (points on an anchor?...please). As I indicated on Jan's forum, your carefully crafted theory requires a reasoned response and it will come in due time.

Cheers (and still sober )
Ron

[Imperial Arms]

Hello Ron,

Your reason is right that it is a duplicate which may cause some confusion, so I shall treat both discussions separately on each forum. Nonetheless, my post continues to have some meaning to this subject where LOB's reference and comparisons to large Mosin-Nagant rifle diagrams was going to extremes in order to authenticate the M1900 and M1906 'Russian Lugers' as contract Lugers delivered to Russia.

As you probably agree with me, a roll-die used at the DWM factory will not hold all the secrets to a particular Luger such as the case with the 'Russian Luger'. If there was ever a Luger pistol which had crossed canons on the chamber, could anybody say to which country it was delivered, besides the emblem/symbol having a connection to the artillery?

Albert

[Ron Wood]

Your assumption that I agree with you on anything you assert is premature and should wait until I have appropriately responded to the entire premise (which may take a couple of days, I am old and slow). Hang in there...I will respond, but not in a piecemeal fashion to repeated snippets of shooting from the hip. You are mounting a crusade and I do not choose to duke it out on momentary minutiae.
Ron

[LugerVern]

Albert

Do you have anymore information?

A picture of that " 54th His Majesty the Tsar of Bulgaria's Minsk Infantry Regiment" with some luger holsters on some men would be helpful.

Many have researched the Russian lugers, some tiny bits have surfaced from the guns themselves but never enough to put the debate to an end.

As good as your theory is ( and it is a good one) I think your going to need just a little more to satisfy the critics.

You have tied known history,opportunity and production time frames together, but as good as it is, its just not quite enough .
When I put it all in front of me, I like what I see, I just can not get all the puzzle together.

For example, using your new information, and twisting it around just a little I could make a case for this being a Russian Luger being ordered because there where Bulgarians also present.

You see, we have not broken the Russian link, so the Russian Luger hangs on.

I think that is what is bothering people.

If you have anything else please bring it out.

thanks

Vern