M1906 Russian Luger - The Ending of its Identity

[Imperial Arms]

Hello Vern,

I do not have an image of the Russian '54th His Majesty the Tsar of Bulgaria's Minsk Infantry Regiment' since it was a Russian regiment containing a number of Bulgarian officers including the Tsar of Bulgaria who was the honoury guard of that regiment.

Based on strong evidence, these Bulgarian Lugers were ordered from DWM by the Tsar of Bulgaria and issued by him and his commanders; not the other way around via Russia because there was no previous large contract(s) to Russia, and the previous information presented by other writers still remain weak. If you comprehend well my article, there is still a Russian link according to the mixture of officers in this Russian regiment, but the primary emphasis still stands on this Luger pistol initially being delivered to Bulgaria. The 'identity' of the 'Russian Luger' was created because authors at the time were 'near-sighted' about many factors and they did not quickly realize that the crossed rifles can have straight-forward ties to an infantry organization. If some authors did not realize this, what's wrong with throwing in a Luger of mysterious nature and give it the grand name 'Russian Luger'?

Based on my strong knowledge and expertise with Imperial Lugers (and Mausers), I can say with a high degree of confidence that there was no Russian contract, but the Russian Army probably 'test-run' a few M1900/02 Commercial model Lugers (without crossed-rifles on the chamber).

Of course, all it takes is a little amount of hope from the critics to keep the 'Russian theory' alive, and these critics probably have other motives and agendas on their mind. Sometimes it is money and followers of these critics who cannot accept common sense or change. I am prepared to challenge any critic and accept defeat if any one can give me a better theory that makes sense/logic - and please, I do not want to hear about those outlines and the position of the triggers on the crossed Mosin-Nagant rifles! That is beating a dead horse.

Only time and further indepth research will give a proper answer which I am willing to undertake. Someday, I plan to go to Bulgaria to do some 'hunting' and see what I discover.

If one reviews sales of German pistols to that region during the period of 1898-1914, the DWM factory was selling Lugers to Bulgaria while the Mauser factory sold a small contract of Mauser C96 pistols to Turkey from whom the Bulgarians gained their independence in 1908. And both factories were owned by the Loewe family! Quite an interesting piece of German arms sales!

Albert

[cirelaw]

Having a Bachelors in History and Doctorate in Law, I concede that Your both right. The Bible, written in many hands, dialects and Historical significance are each correct by those who follow them. I commend Albert in His deep seated resaerch, seemingly logical conclusions and vigor of a young schoolboy. Whose Right? Everyone, For in a Democrasy each has a Right to their own conclusions, assertions and beliefs. In the end, We are all correct if in our hearts soals and logic we beleive in what we assert while realizing there often is more than one answer.

[Imperial Arms]

While everyone of us has our own way of thinking and drawing our own conclusions, one of the reasons for writing this detailed article is to make us seriously consider other avenues of thinking besides what has been stated in various books and articles from the past. If collectors wish to keep the title of the 'Russian Luger' to satisfy their ego, so it shall be.

While LOB was researching and writing his article on the 'Russian Lugers', I am very surprised that LOB was unable to piece together the puzzle of the 'M1906 Russian Luger' when he already owns a Bulgarian instruction manual from 1911 which has the heading "Rules for the Training and Operation of the Infantry - Part 1 - Description and Observation of the Specification of the Weapon: The Automatic Pistol Parabellum". The word 'Infantry' should have given him the clue to the meaning of the crossed rifles. Instead, he vomits all this various nonsense including the matching to Mosin-Nagant rifles!

Albert

[cirelaw]

Democracy in action~~~

[Imperial Arms]

Yes, of course, collecting has too much damn 'politics' involved which allows those 'minorities' to spill so much s*** which is inaccurate or baseless!

Albert

[jamese]

the critics to keep the 'Russian theory' alive, and these critics probably have other motives and agendas on their mind. Sometimes it is money

Albert,
help me out a little here....why would a Russian Luger be worth more than Bulgarian ?

with all your research on the history of the Bulgarian Infantry Unit these Lugers were made for, and the theory that only about 300 of these guns were made......as a collector I think your theory would make them worth more.......so I'm not sure money would be the motive for keeping the Russian Luger alive.

[Imperial Arms]

Hello James,

The 'Russian Luger' would usually be worth more than a (M1900/03) Bulgarian Luger because Russia was once recognized as an adversary of the US and this notion made it more desirable and valuable. Now that the identity of the ‘Russian Luger’ is on ‘life support’ and it is being considered as another Bulgarian variation, I suppose that its importance will change, but I cannot determine in what direction. In some cases, the limited mentality of some collectors will see Bulgaria as a country of less importance and prestige than compared to Russia, and this factor can have a bearing on value.

Collecting has so any invisible forces and it is not a matter of simple economics (i.e. supply and demand) which determines value. My guess of only 300 M1908 Bulgarian Infantry Officers Lugers delivered to Bulgaria is only an estimate based on those Lugers delivered to Portugal in 1907-08. I still consider this Luger very rare with an incredible history behind it (more exciting than the previous ‘Russian theories’ in my opinion), and I believe that its value will be unaffected. In my personal preference, I love those Lugers with strong history instead of those Lugers based on mystery and ‘catchy’ names. We all know that ‘politics’ and money plays a game in the collectors club (including the business side with auction houses), so we will need to wait and see what happens when the next ‘Russian Lugers’ appear for sale.

My next difficult task will be to research the Bulgarian archive records to determine if there is any account of these specific pistols.

Thank you for your questions and input.

Albert

[Navy]

This post and the scholarship behind it remind me of a discussion my pal George Anderson and I had several years back. It could be loosely summed up as "The conventional wisdom developed and sometimes manufactured by collectors over the years is in liklihood substantially flawed if not completely incorrect."

I believe this to be the case particularly among American collectors who are not internet savvy.

You could not imagine the things "older" folks say when looking at my lugers for sale case at gunshows.
Tom A

[Ron Wood]

To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of the demise of the Russian Luger are greatly exaggerated!

Albert has done a fine, and to much extent plausible, analysis of the origin of the Model 1906 Luger with the crossed rifle chamber inscription. I would like to pursue his lines of reasoning.

The lengthy historical account of Tsar Ferdinand I and his military connections is quite well done. When I first started to read it I immediately thought of the highly detailed “histories” furnished by some gun sellers to hype their fabulous wares. But that is not the case here. We did have to wade through quite a bit of background to get to the noteworthy connection of Tsar Ferdinand I with the 54th His Majesty the Tsar of Bulgaria Infantry Regiment. The Imperial era pretty much marked the end of military knighthood and the age of warrior kings. Nearly every crowned head in Europe was the honorary/titular “commander” of one military unit or another. Probably at the top of the heap was Crown Prince Wilhelm of Germany, “commander” of the 1st Leib Hussar Regiment, and his sister Princess Victoria Louise, “commander” of the 2nd Leib Hussar Regiment. The actual commander of the Hussars was Field Marshall August von Mackensen, who earned his rank. (Sorry about the digression…the Leib Hussars and old Mack are favorite subjects of mine!) Anyway, such honorary commands were largely an excuse to get dressed up for ceremonial occasions and few, if any, of these honorary leaders had much actual “field” command duty. So Tsar Ferdinand’s active involvement in procurement of a special lot of Lugers for Bulgarian officers in the 54th is speculative at best.

Regarding the use of a national crest on Lugers of the Imperial era, let’s take a look at the crested examples. The Swiss, Bulgarian and American Eagle Lugers do indeed sport likenesses of their respective national crests. However, the contract Lugers of Germany, Portugal (CI, M2, Royal Navy, R.P. Navy) and Bolivia, while bearing chamber markings, do not have a national emblem. The Dutch, Brazilian and Mexican contracts have no chamber markings. So across the board, the use of a national crest on a contract Luger appears to be an exception (or at least the minority) rather than the rule.

Now let’s address those pesky rifles. In the light of the foregoing paragraph, there is no reason indeed to associate the crossed rifle Lugers with a particular nation based on the presence of the rifles alone. As has been discussed, it is most likely that the crossed rifles indicate intended use by infantry. However, reluctant recognition of the type of rifle, albeit still with reservations, favors identification as Mosin-Nagant. A number of people, me included, have no hesitation in this identification. So one would wonder why Tsar Ferdinand would choose a rifle that only constituted 13% of the total long arms inventory to be the insignia on the chamber of Lugers intended for the Bulgarian officers. The type of rifle notwithstanding, why would he choose to arm his officers with this variant when he had at least 4,450 lovely Lugers with the national crest on hand? I have difficulty in visualizing Tsar Ferdinand pandering to the Russians by equipping his officers with a Luger that would not be readily identified as Bulgarian, particularly since he already had the aforementioned Bulgarian Lugers.

We arrive at last at the lynchpin about which much of the Bulgarian connection revolves: the Cyrillic markings. It has long been acknowledged that the safety marking on the crossed rifle Lugers is Bulgarian. Reasons for this have ranged from “unknown” to “…it is possible that the order from Russia gave the wrong markings, or else the German die cutter and inspector had tangle with something equivalent to out Tennessee Corn (the liquid type) and stamped the frames with the wrong die. Being from Tennessee, I am inclined to accept the latter reason” (a bit of tongue in cheek by Harry Jones in 1959)! John Walter in Luger, an illustrated history of the handguns of Hugo Borchardt and Georg Luger , 1875 to the present day (1977) stated that “The surviving ‘Russian’ weapons are actually of modified Bulgarian type, owing to the non-Russian safety marks”. In his later book The Luger Book (1986), this notion is amended to; “It is popularly believed that the surviving Russian guns are of ‘Bulgarian’ type, owing to subtle differences between the two languages. However, as linguists have now pointed out, there was no difference at all between Russian and Bulgarian until the former was modernized in the early 1902s.” He was off by a few years on the date of the standardization of the Russian alphabet, and obviously he was referring to the safety markings as having “no difference at all” as there were certainly considerable differences between the two languages! This explanation of the identical safety markings was provided to me independently by an older Russian gentleman who indicated the word was the same in both language and meant “fire”. This was long before either he or I was aware of Walter’s writing (my earliest exposure to the Russian Luger and its markings was via Harry Jones’ book Luger Variations (1959)). Much later (a couple of years ago) I received further reinforcement of this notion from a student of Russian who did translation work. I showed him examples of Russian and Bulgarian Model 1906 Lugers. He quickly identified the Russian extractor as “a Russian word meaning “a charge”. It is pronounced "zar-yad". It's actually written in old Russian (pre-1917)”. He was unable to decipher the Bulgarian extractor marking. Then looking at the safety markings, he thought for a moment and stated “Actually, the markings on the Russian safety are in Bulgarian. As far as my Bulgarian goes, it is pronounced as uh-go-n (with soft "n" at the end) both in Russian and in Bulgarian”. Not a lot of authority in that pronouncement, but it does suggest that the safety marking is sufficiently bilingual for a modicum of recognition, even for a non-Bulgarian speaker. Another troublesome aspect, to me, regarding the two different extractor markings is why in the world would Tsar Ferdinand abandon the logical “ПЪЛЕНЪ” (loaded) marking already present on the Bulgarian Lugers and substitute “ЗАРЯДЪ ” meaning “a charge”? (I have always felt was a dumb thing to write on an extractor anyway, everybody else marks the extractor “loaded” in their respective languages)

The enigma of a Bulgarian marking on a Russian Luger may very likely end up to be as “norme” has postulated. The Bulgarian frames very well could have been leftovers in anticipation of additional sales. DWM is notorious for not throwing anything away, to wit, the Swiss and Brazilian “proofed” barrels found on some American Eagle Lugers. The end recipient, who still remains unknown, may have been satisfied with the approximate ‘bilingual’ safety marking if the price was right. That is a stretch I know, but not totally out of the realm of possibility.

So in summary, I find no compelling reason to proclaim the Russian Luger is now Bulgarian. I do not feel that this is an “ego” thing; I just believe that the preponderance of “evidence” favors a Russian connection. The evidence on either side of the argument is all circumstantial; there is no “smoking gun” (pardon the pun) that conclusively comes down on one side or the other. The collector community still needs to weigh what has been discussed and decide which camp to support. Unless and until something truly definitive is discovered, the controversy will live. But as for me…it’s Russian!

I thank you all for enduring this epistle, and I particularly thank Albert. He has provided much food for thought and intellectual stimulation. Let us choose up sides without acrimony!

Sincerely,
Ron Wood

[wlyon]

Ron
As I stated on Jan's forum your response is well thought out, and as usual , well written. This is how we all learn. We all need to be reminded to respect the opinions of others. When we do we all gain. Bill

[Jasta2]

What most I know of Lugers comes from my old "Lugers at Random" book.,so I am just a novice here compaired to the rest of this forum so I hope my question is not behind the times. I was reading through my book "Lugers of Ralph Shattuck" today looking for something that caught my attention about the Russian Lugers. On page 20 of his book he list 2 variations of the Russian Luger. A 1900 Model ( of which he states only two are known to exist, one of which he owned) and the 1906 Russian which I take is the hot topic on it's being Russian to start with. The 1900 Russian he has pictured does show the crossed rifles as does the 1906, but the 1900 does not show a marked saftey. Does these two 1900 Russian with Crossed Rifles lend any truth the 1906 Russian story? This may have been addressed in this series of post as I might have missed it. Did these 1900 Russians have anything to do with the Bulgarian debate? Seems much of this debate is based on the Bulgarian script. Was this script of these 1900 Russian Lugers? This is a fantastic forum in which I learn much (along with Jan Still's) and the manner of this topic does great credit to this forum.
Thanks,Bill

[Ron Wood]

Being a Model 1900, the two Russian Lugers with crossed rifles have no safety or extractor markings that would provide a tie to either Russia or Bulgaria. The only link to Russia that I am aware of are the Mosin-Nagant rifles on the chamber. I have personaly examined a fairly well worn example a number of years ago (don't think it was one of the two mentioned by Shattuck). It had a very odd marking on the left side of the receiver consisting of a small sans-serif upper case "W" over a larger "backward" upper case "Q" (the "tail" of the Q came out the left side). It also had a rather long (about 10 digits) number stamped or pantographed on the bottom of the barrel that looked like it might be a museum accession number. Unfortunately, I have lost both the serial number and the barrel number over the years.

[Imperial Arms]

Bearing in mind the useful input and facts that have been mentioned in this marathon discussion, I wish to present a simple experiment which will further dilute the beliefs of those critics who want to have faith in the ‘Russian theory’ instead of the logical and strong ‘Bulgarian theory’:

There is an experiment where three rather intelligent men from the US, Russia and Bulgaria are examining three Luger pistols displayed on a table in an attempt to quickly identify each pistol’s ‘nationality’, namely a M1906 AE Commercial, a M1906 Bulgarian and a ‘M1906 Russian’ Luger. Of course, the American and Bulgarian man will quickly identify the Luger sold/delivered to their home country as a result of each pistol having certain clear national and language characteristics (i.e. the coat or arms or state/national emblem on the pistol’s chamber as well as the safety marking in the correct language on each gun). However, it is very likely that the Russian man will be baffled because the ‘Russian Luger’ does not follow the same pattern/relationship as compared to the other two Lugers. Then, an observer of the experiment decides to speak out and tell the Russian man (and maybe the uncertain American) that it is a ‘Russian Luger’ – he will become even more confused because there is absolutely nothing on the exterior of the pistol which will ‘jump out’ and say to him “I’m a Russian Luger”. If it has taken collectors and historians over 60 years to reach only this far regarding the mystery of the ‘Russian Luger’, how could it be explained that a Russian man (past or present) would be unable to tell us (present collectors) that it is a ‘Russian Luger’ in less than 60 seconds?!

If this ‘identity’ puzzle would have been the actual situation, the DWM factory would have screwed up in a big way by sending a contract of mis-marked and confusing Lugers to Russia – and, moreover, an order from the Russian government would have not requested for a safety marking in the Bulgarian language. I am sorry to disappoint those critics that such a grave mistake by the DWM factory would have NOT occurred when there was no other foreign contract with the same irregularities. Everything was marked in a certain way for a reason, and although the DWM factory (and Mauser factory) did not throw away any parts in inventory, nobody at the DWM factory would have decided to shuffle through a pile of upper receivers and (Bulgarian) frames and make the careless suggestion “let us try and put together some new model Lugers with Bulgarian markings for the Russian government/forces who we hope will become a very important customer (like the Swiss)”.

Ironically, there are collectors who simply accept uneducated and inaccurate information like a parrot which has been written or spoken in the past regarding the notion of ‘old Russian text’ to explain the text/word on the safety marking and extractor when in fact both words are actually 100% BULGARIAN, and the Bulgarian word ‘ЗАРЯДЪ’ on the extractor happens to have the same translation/meaning in the Russian language. Based on the language and the interpretation of the historical events mentioned in my first article, there are obviously very strong ties to a Bulgarian ‘nationality’ instead of a Russian one.

So, for the ‘drowning’ collector who wishes to continue believing a ‘Russian theory’, the only ‘floating object available in the water’ is whether or not the model of the crossed rifles on the chamber are Mosin-Nagant (M-N) rifles – not much of a ‘life-saver’ for a ‘Russian theory’ (for those English critics, a Life-Saver used to be (or is) a circular multi-colour sweet/candy with a hole in the middle, and this ‘plain-flavour’ theory has – a big hole!). If the critics want to rely heavily on the accuracy of the outline of the crossed rifles on the chamber believing that they are M-N rifles, my question is why are the fixed bayonets missing on this (organizational) emblem? And do not tell me that the roll-die maker/designer at the DWM factory had to exclude the fixed bayonets on the M-N rifles in order to preserve or enhance the rest of the details on the rifles. If the ‘Bulgarian theorists’ give the benefit of the doubt to the ‘Russian theorists’ regarding the M-N crossed rifles, a logical explanation of the crossed rifles on the chamber is to express thanks to the Russians for selling 50,000 M-N rifles to Bulgaria – in secret – who was preparing for war against the Turks. And what better way to say "thank you for the M-N rifles!" by adding M-N rifles on the Luger pistols intended for issue to both Bulgarian and Russian officers in the ‘54th His Majesty the Tsar of Bulgaria's Minsk Infantry Regiment’ which was part of the Russian 14th Infantry Division, 8th Army Corps, 1st Brigade in addition to the same pistol being issued to other officers in Bulgarian infantry regiments! Without putting much weight on the importance of the type of rifles on the chamber, I am 95% confident that it simply represents an infantry connection in the Bulgarian Army.

With reference to Ron’s post #142, point #2 (on the Jan Still Forum), he agrees (with my theory) that “it (the crossed rifles) most likely indicates an infantry unit connection”, and towards the end of his article (post #179), he states “But as for me…it’s Russian!”, then according to his way of mistaken thinking, he is saying that this Luger was delivered to an infantry unit in Russia which is incorrect because there are no records or information at all which reveals such a national Russian link, especially if the Bulgarian safety marking is not ignored.

For those critics who still do not yet understand the ‘Bulgarian theory’ which has been presented, it explains that these contract Lugers were delivered to Bulgaria and not Russia. Considering all the various points which have been raised in this discussion, not one single part of the ‘Russian theory’ can challenge the Bulgarian position because there was no previous contract between DWM and the Russian government, whereas there was a few thousand Luger pistols sold to the Bulgarian Army since 1903 – every thing about the ‘Russian theory’ is ‘bla-bla’ and inconsistent, and the Russian government was never mentioned in DWM sales records as a buyer. I cannot imagine the Russian government accepting to issue any firearm to their officers with Bulgarian markings. Therefore, trying to maintain its identity as a ‘Russian Luger’ is extremely weak.

So, after weighing all past and present valid opinions and contributions, I believe that there is a majority of collectors who will likely accept the ex-Russian Luger as a M1908 Bulgarian Infantry Officers Luger which was a contract Luger that was sold and delivered to Bulgaria and any other ‘Russian theory’ to satisfy ones imagination (or ownership) still remains sketchy at best. If any critic can present a stronger case based on persuasive information and data instead of making queries, step-up to the firing squad.

Respectfully,
Albert

Ron, where do you want your ashes spread?

[Mauser720]

Okay, I have some questions:

Assuming the pistol has been misidentified for years, but also assuming that at least some of them are legitimate DWM creations, would the relative rarity of this variation still result in it being a very desirable collector's item?

In other words, in terms of collector desirability, can one expect that it is still just as valuable as it was when it was misidentified?

If there were just as many legitimate "Russian Lugers" as there are now "Model 1908 Bulgarian Infantry Officer's Model Lugers" is it reasonable that the collector value is still the same?

In my opinion, if you can overlook the issue of whether it is Russian or Bulgarian, everything else is still the same; i.e., it is still exotic; it is still rare; a few of them seem to be authentic; and, very few of them are in decent condition.

It would seem to me that all these factors would indicate that the value has not changed, and that only the name has changed.

Does this sound "far fetched"?

Thanks,

[Imperial Arms]

Hello Ron,

Thank you for your very good question. Indeed, it is still a very desirable collectors item, and it is my opinion that the collectors value will be unaffected. In fact, now that we have added some realistic 'substance' to this previous mislabelled Luger, I reckon that it will have MORE appeal than the fuzzy ex-Russian Luger. In my opinion, the value of a collectors item is not in its 'wow-factor' (such as the size and power of a country), instead its value and desirability should be based on the combination of its historical background (i.e. arms build-up and the involvement in conflicts/wars) coupled with the meaning of its markings to a countries nationalism and armed forces (i.e. take for example the value of the Swiss Lugers which were delivered to a tiny country with a small army). I am willing to pay for knowledge and history instead of 'fairy-tales'.

Thanks,
Albert

[Edward Tinker]

Well, although thought out, it is another theory to me, albeit a good theory.

The nationality of the markings is not a good basis; as the american eagle was a marketing tool, NOT a national marking. This is obvious because many commericial lugers came to america without AE's on them.... It was never a requirement by the US gov't for the eagle.

Also, the example of the markings being for a unit is plausible, but not definiative.

Some examples of how guns were not marked to country>
One good example is the luger for the Dutch. Few of the lugers ended up in the home country, most were for the colonies. dutch guns are not marked differently than other contract guns, except for the "Rust" marking.

Brazilian lugers aren't marked except for the circle B and that is not definitive either.

Overall, I think your theory is plausible, but not convincing to me. I will gladly look forward to further research or provenance to show either way.


Ed

[LugerVern]

Yes, we need to put the issue of the 1900 Russian to rest, it now hangs over this new theory like a black cloud. We cannot have it both ways.

I get the feeling we are close but haven't opened the last door yet.

I bet there are yet some surprises around the corners.

Vern

[Edward Tinker]

Originally Posted by LugerVern

Yes, we need to put the issue of the 1900 Russian to rest, it now hangs over this new theory like a black cloud. We cannot have it both ways.

I get the feeling we are close but haven't opened the last door yet.
...

Vern

Vern, folks still say 1920 commericial; and that was a change probably 20 yrs ago.

Besides, IMHO I haven't heard anything definitive that makes me feel that "anything" is decided?


Ed

[cirelaw]

Like The Romans said. RES IPSA LOQUITOR. 'Let The Facts Speak For Themselves'

[Ron Wood]

Eric,
Unfortunately there are no "facts", only theories, guesses and assumptions. There is no documented evidence one way or the other. Ya kinda got to make your own decision on what is what. I still hold out for Russian.