1893 Loewe Borchardt

[Rod WMG]

What we like in guns is very subject to personal taste, but I think this is the crown jewel of a fine collection from what I've seen of your postings. I personally couldn't sell it.

[StarOfTheWest]

Yeah, upon careful consideration, I probably couldn't either.

[Ron Wood]

Alvin,

Walter does not say he saw #19, this one or any other, he only mentions the account in the British journal and says that â??it is tempting to suggest that the gun is number 19â?�â?¦not a shred of evidence that the gun in the article was #19.

â??Is there any possibility that two #19 were madeâ?�â?¦not a snowball's chance in the Sahara. Loewe production of the Borchardt (before they became DWM) consisted of three phases, pre-production, early production and late production. There are subtle, but readily identifiable, differences in each. The #19 currently at auction is a LATE Loewe production piece. A few hundred Borchardts had been manufactured by the time this one was produced and there is no imaginable reason why Loewe would reach back to the very beginning of pre-production to give this piece number 19. The only scenario that I can come up with is that whoever renumbered this otherwise lovely Borchardt hoped to capitalize on Walter, or other historical accounts, and represent this gun as having providential lineage. It is this type of deception that is designed to snare the collector with deep pockets but the inability, or lack of initiative, to do authentication research. If you are going to run with the big dogs, you had better be able to pee in the tall grass without it splashing back on you.

[Navy]

Mr Wood,

You, Sir, have a unique mastery of the mother tongue.

Tom A

[alvin]

Let's temporarily put the auction #19 aside. Today, I read chapter 1 & 2 of Walter's classic book again and found an unexplainable thing:

On 6-22-1897, Swiss ordnance department tested a Borchardt along with a Bergmann, a Mannlicher, and a Mauser. The Loewe-made C93, #95 was demonstrated by Georg Luger (Page 43).

The myth to me are (1) Why did DWM (already setup earlier) want to send a Loewe gun (instead of DWM marked one) for Swiss test? (2) Even more interesting, why did they send a pretty early one (#95) for the testing purpose?

The 1st one could be... DWM initial products were assembled from Loewe parts anyway, either one would work. So, might not a big issue.

The 2nd one .... I stuck on the 2nd one. By end of 1896, Loewe had made at least 1,000 Borchardts (Page 33). It's also mentioned some functional enhancements, including coil springs elevated magazine follower (D.R.P. 91,998, 10-10-1896, Page 30) were made. Why didn't DWM show Switzerland their latest and best.....

Here are a few possibilities that I can think of at this moment:

(1) All enhancements were made before #95, so #95 was DWM's latest. But the patent date (10-10-1896) ran against it. It's hard to believe Borchardt could put the product on market before issuing patent application, and it's hard to believe only fewer than 100 guns were made before October 1896, and at least 900 were made in the last two months of that year.

(2) Georg Luger intentionally carried a outdated model to Switzerland. He knew Swiss would reject it so he could improve it. By reading Mauser Archive (Jon Speed, 2007), GL was a shady guy and that's not impossible. But, which gun to send to Swiss could not be a GL's decision. It's not his gun, he only performed demo.

(3) A bold one.... absolutely no evidence..... DWM could have a seperately numbered series, and #95 was a late gun in that series.

Any comments?

[Big Norm]

I did a quick look-see in my old reliable and tattered 'The Luger Book' By John Walter to see if there was a diagram of the Borchardt. Sure enough on page 69 there was one. But I did a quick skim read of the rather long write up for serial number 19. There it was on page 68.

"Guns number 19 and 27 are the earliest known Loewe-marked Borchardts, the former being presented to Eley Brothers of London in 1894(?) and the latter submitted to Fabrique Nationale. The patent drawings suggest that the first gun(s) had a lanyard ring where the stock-lug will be found on the production guns, a different front sight and, just possibly, a different roller unit at the back of the toggle. Interestingly, the drawings also show flat concentric-ring toggle-grips of the type later associated with one of the prototype Borchardt-Lugers".

I'll be going back to Stars pictures to see if her Loewe-Borchardt corresponds to what Walter wrote. The above mentioned diagram page 69 will show the suggested changes.
Norm

[StarOfTheWest]

I did not see a stock lug on mine, nor any place that it appeared one might have been.
I have seen them on the back of the overhanging hump, (mainspring housing), on other guns, but mine lacks this little lug.
I do however have a lanyard ring, but it is on the left side.
I was wondering how they got a stock onto this beast.

[Big Norm]

Ron Wood,
just where did you see that snowball in the Sahara? Global warming is a funny thing. I almost had to erase the gazillion atta boys that I have after your name in my computer. Gosh, they ARE taking up a lotta space in my computer. It runs slow because of it too.

I looked at Stars Loewe-Borchardt shortly after writing my last post and, obviously, it isn't serial #19. So I went to Juliaauction and saw the Borchardt that you were referring to. Its Loewe #19, but its not what Walter described. Same old front sight, its got a stock lug and the right toggle knob is like the production Borchardts. (The left toggle knob is questionable). Oh boy, I thought that I had a gotcha on you. I still couldn't imagine that I had you, so I went to Walters write-up again. Sure enough, you got away. Apparently, Walter was looking at the patent diagram that I suppose is in his book on page 69. He didn't mention at he actually saw the physical gun itself. Ok, so you get to keep all those atta boys and my computer still is going to run slow. But gun #19 will play on my mind for a long time. Now we have to get someone to go to France and see Loewe-Borchardt #27 to see if it corresponds to the patent drawing.
Big Norm

Oh, did you happen to notice the size of the numbers on the magazine that Star presented. Considerably smaller that one would expect from seeing other Borchardt magazines. This issue came up before in emails between you and me.
Big Norm

[StarOfTheWest]

I would tend to believe that the number size on my mag is correct, if for no other reason than it does NOT match the gun, lol.
If they were going to boost it, they could have at least matched it to that gun.

Any ideas about the lack of stock lug?
Or am I just missing it, and it is a side mount or something?

[Big Norm]

Star,
the Lanyard ring on the patent drawing is quite pronounced on the rear around where the stock lug should be. The absence of a stock lug on your Loewe is interesting too. Maybe this is part of Mr. Lugers fiddling around. A lanyard ring mounted on the left side is not shown on the patent diagram. Time for me to keep my mouth shut for a while and to listen to what others might have to say.
Big Norm

[Big Norm]

Star,
I am not suggesting that your mag has been renumbered. I am sorry that I gave that impression. Ronny, me and others have discussed the number sizes before via emails. (Maybe on this forum too) A different way of having serial numbers on the mag is simular in size and location to a navy mag. I have two non matching mags for my DWM Borchardt and they go both ways. I have seen them both ways on other Borchardts. And they don't look redone either. If memory serves me right, a definite conclusion was never reached regarding the size and direction of the numbers.

Some day, I will start a thread with pictures and get a real discussion going on it. But I have a lot of learning to do on my digital camera and computer first.
Big Norm

[Ron Wood]

Alvin,

â??Any comments?â?� Yes, a few.

Point 1 â?? This is your most insightful comment â?? â??So, might not [be] a big issueâ?�. It isnâ??t. All changes in the Borchardt from beginning to end were largely cosmetic. Some were a little more significant than others, but not enough to impact basic functioning of the arm, so it really didnâ??t matter if #95 Loewe or #2095 DWM was used for the Swiss test.

Point 2 â?? The riveted magazine leaf spring died in the starting blocks. It lacked a solid follower and was unreliable, so Borchardts were marketed from the get-go with the double spring and follower. The patent of 10 October 1896 covered a holdopen for the toggle that would block the line of sight when the magazine was empty. The illustration for the patent showed the double coil spring, but had nothing to do with the double coil arrangement, which had already been implemented because of the failure of the flat spring arrangement. With respect to â??Why didn't DWM show Switzerland their latest and best...â?�, the Loewe pistol represented the best version of the Borchardt for demonstration. When DWM production began, several minor modifications were made to simplify manufacture: a) The fine stepped and pinned front sight of the Loewe version was replaced by a simpler solidly machined pyramidal sight; b) The pattern of the side plate was made more simple and largely eliminated the â??schnabelâ?� on the leading edge; c) Most significantly, the adjustable rear sight of the Loewe version was replaced by a fixed sight. So by presenting the Loewe #95, DWM was demonstrating the most sophisticated, adjustable sight, model. Probably #95, being an early production piece, had been used for other demonstrations and probably was pretty finely tuned for proper functioning.

Now letâ??s address your â??few possibilitiesâ?�:

(1) You are essentially correct; all enhancements were made before #95. The patent of 10/10/96 has already been discussed above and didnâ??t have diddlysquat to do with production numbers.
(2) In 1897, and subsequently, Georg Luger was an employee of DWM. Therefore he demonstrated what he was told to demonstrate and had no particular ax to grind. In fact, it is very likely the criticism of the Swiss test regarding the â??action lengthâ?� that prompted his initial consideration for modifications to the Borchardt design.
(3) Nearly every time an example of an early firearm shows up that has an oddball or out of sequence serial number, someone will put forth the theory that there was a â??separately numbered seriesâ?� (I have been through this ad nauseum with pre-production Lugers). Please be assured that after myself and other collectors have been tracking Borchardt serial numbers for nearly two decades, there is absolutely no evidence of anything other than sequential serial numbering throughout Borchardt production. There are a couple of flyers, but like this #19 they are easily identified as bogus.

â??Nuff said?

[John Sabato]

I don't see where any of you Borchardt owners have answered Star's question about the location where she should find the stock lug on her gun. I am completely ignorant where these guns are concerned... but I sure am also curious about a Borchardt without a stock lug.

[Ron Wood]

I am a little embarrassed to admit that I didn't notice the absence of a stock lug right off the bat. It should be located on the rear of the mainspring housing, so either it has been removed or never had one (unlikely). It is fairly small and sticks out where it could be easily damaged, so I think an examination in good lighting from several angles may reveal that it has been removed and the housing nicely refinished.

[John Sabato]

Hi Ron,

Is the stock lug integral to the housing? or is it attached to the housing? If so, by what method? Welding? Brazing? Could the missing lug be fabricated and replaced?

[StarOfTheWest]

Hmmm, well no evidence of a lug ever having been there, not any refinish to cover.
Odd.

[Ron Wood]

John,
Under magnification the lug appears integral to the housing, all machined from one piece of solid stock. I see no reason why a replacement couldn't be easily fabricated. The trick is attaching it to the housing. Silver braze would probably be strong enough to allow attachment of the stock. I am not sure it would hold up to firing (not much chance of that anyway). It could be strengthened by pins integral to the lug placed in corresponding holes drilled in the housing and, in addition to the silver solder, peening the pins over on the inside.

[A.Mifsin]

One thing I quite canâ??t understand, were Borchardts produced without a stock lug? And if yes what is the time period of these Boorchards? Because as far as I know I always thought that all Borchardts should have a stock Lug.

Alf

[Ron Wood]

Other than possibly one or two early pre-production pieces that may have been produced with the lanyard attachment where the stock lug eventually was placed, I am unaware of any Borchardts that were made without a stock lug. But, I haven't seen or have had reported to me all of the Borchardts in existence, so I can't say positively there were none.

[alvin]

Fig 1 of the October 1896 patent (D.R.P. 91,998) shows a unusual spring housing as well. In the stock lug's position, it has a lanyard ring, but not like the lanyard ring eye as appeared in the original C93 patent (D.R.P. 75,837).

According to patents and surviving samples, there are at least three types of spring housing:

(1) Lanyard ring eye in the upper position;
(2) Lanyard ring eye in the lower position. Also, a different shape;
(3a) -- nothing -- (questionable, but not impossible);
(3b) Stock lug in the lower position (most common).

Hopefully, I did not miss a configuration, did I?

======

For (1) & (2) listed above (visible on patents), there are virtually two lanyard rings per gun. What could be in Borchardt's mind to put two rings on the gun.... any suggestion? Thanks.