Restoration worth the price?

[Parabellus]

Hi Herb,

I'm still playing e-bay for a copy of 'Lugers at Random' as per your sugestion. There is one first edition up now. I tried several already. Not fast enough I guess.
Of course it was your good word that helped me finally decide to buy this Arty. Thanks again for your input.

Pete,

Maybe we should all get together some time. Everywhere I look on this and Jan's forum I find your expertise helping everyone. Do you ever sleep?
By the way, your Swiss revolver collection looks ausome! Is ther anywhere you have posted your Swiss Luger collection all together?
I will check on the status of Jackson Arms.

And what about the demise of Traders in San Leandro? What a mess!

Russell

[Parabellus]

It really does have the same markings as Proof 6 #60.

[Big Norm]

Parabellus,
serial number 330? 330? That sounds familar. Look at the navies section of this forum. FGS has a navy stock with maybe that number. Ya, its a nice navy stock. But look anyway. Look under "stock".

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976726584.htm

Big Norm

[zinfull]

Traders seem to think that He did not have to be "perfect". When you have a US senator after your a** you better be perfect. He was warned a lot. Maybe in another state it would not of happened but not here. So stay legal.

Jerry

[Pete Ebbink]

Hi Russell,

I have not put all lugers together for one photo. One does not attempt to do such a thing with wife and family around (as they will then know what you have really been up to)...

p.s. Your wooden magazine looks to be an Erfurt magazine, an early one with the two crown/gothic letter proofs. From your earlier photos, it appears your wooden magazine has two (2) retaining pins int he bottom of the tube through the wood; originally it would have had only one (1). These magazines are quite desirable for Erfurt collectors.

It is, ovbsiously, not a Swiss Bern mag I had previously suspected.

Hi Norm,

Would putting a Navy stock on an Artillery be "kosher" per the BATF ?

[Big Norm]

Pete,
Good question. Under BATF rules, 1900's, 1906's (Ideal stocks), carbines, artilleries and navies can legally have stocks on them. They don't specify that an artillery must have an artillery stock or that a navy must have a navy stock. They don't even specify that the stock must be original, repro or even have matching serial numbers. This stock is original (albeit a navy stock) and is serial numbered to the gun. So my guess is that its OK.

Now, as a collector, is it "kosher" to have a navy stock on an artillery? That is a question that only the buyer can decide. Especially at that price. I didn't see if Parabellus had a small cap after the serial number on his frame. I'll check that out later. If so, then this stock would not be, technically, a match to a collector. But thats collector talk.

When Doug bought this stock, he said that he felt that it belonged on a "real" 1904 Navy Luger. I am still crying in my beer that he laughed at my offer to purchase it from him. Don't ever get Doug laughing. He remembered what I previously paid to him for another navy stock a while back. Bad negotiating on my part. Ken and Joe were surprised though, that Doug didn't take my offer. But I had my head focused on a certain 1902 carbine at the OGCA at the time and I didn't have the money to buy both. As it turned out, I didn't get either. Zeus must have been mad at me for some reason. Maybe better luck next time.

Parabellus, let me know how this all turns out. I don't plan on buying this stock, but I do have a personal interest here. See, as I have often said, bragging is good. It may pay off for you in this instance.
Big Norm

[Ron Wood]

They don't specify that an artillery must have an artillery stock or that a navy must have a navy stock.

.Yes, they do! It even says that it is to be an "original" artillery stock for an artillery, and an "original" navy stock for a navy. (EMPHASIS AND SIZE Changed by ADMIN) I understand that authentic reproduction stocks of each type have been approved. Also, Ideal stock/holster rigs may only be attached legally to American Eagle Lugers (1900, 1902, and 1906).

So, getting back to the original question, it would NOT be kosher to attach a Navy stock to an Artillery

[John Sabato]

Sorry Norm, but Ron is absolutely correct on the use of the stocks. They can ONLY be used on the exact same type of gun that they were designed for according to ATF... EXACT reproductions of original stocks have been subsequently approved on the same models. Any Navy stock attached to an Artillery Luger or the reverse combination (IN THE USA) would be a technical violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934... that would be bad mojo for a law abiding gun owner...

http://www.lugerforum.com/BATF2.html

http://www.lugerforum.com/BATF.html

[Parabellus]

Yes, gentlemen, I have seen this stock before. If I could afford it it would be perfect for my NEXT Luger (which I can't afford either). A Navy is my price range? Now who's laughing? I go to GA often to get an idea of prices. I thank Norm for the tip.
A six-inch American Eagle will probably be my best chance at an intermediate-length Luger. That will have to wait.
Now the focus is to make sure this Arty fires properly. A repro stock within my buget is available for Krausewerk and I should have it in a couple of weeks.

Russell

[Parabellus]

Thank you Ron and John for clarity and for driving home the point.
It seems that BATF has conceded on some crucial points as far as faithful reproductions of authentic stocks for specific weapons are concerned. I see no reason to push the envelope on this one.
But that sure is ia beautiful piece of woodwork.

By the way, my Arty's sn is 330g. Did numbers get reused on different lines like Artillery, Navy, Army, Commercial, etc?

Russell

[Ron Wood]

By the way, my Arty's sn is 330g. Did numbers get reused on different lines like Artillery, Navy, Army, Commercial, etc?

The answer to your question is yes, and no. For military Lugers the answer is yes as the numbers would repeat at the beginning of each production year and for DWM the range extended to â??gâ?� for:
1915 P.08
1916 P.08
1917 P.08
1917 LP.08
1918 P.08
So you could find #330g in each of those year/model guns. Navy suffix letters did not go that high.

On the â??noâ?� side, Commercial Lugers did not have a letter suffix to the serial number until the 1920 Commercials, and they will be found with suffix letters primarily from â??iâ?� through â??uâ?�.

[Big Norm]

Thank you Ron and John. This is some pretty interesting reading. I'll have to make copies of these rulings for my note book.

Something that I found interesting is the part about Ideal grips and stock/holster. I didn't know that they can only be on American Eagles of 1900, 1902 and 1906 vintages. I thought that they could be on those vinages even though they were not American Eagles. If I read the rules right, you cannot even replace the leather, if the old leather is all worn out and torn. The wood grips and the metal backing must also be original.
Big Norm

[Ron Wood]

If I read the rules right, you cannot even replace the leather, if the old leather is all worn out and torn. The wood grips and the metal backing must also be original.

I don't believe that is a correct interpretation. There isn't anything that precludes restoration. As long as the stock/holster/grips conform to the authentic original configuration, they are legal. Look at the last paragraph of the second reference that John posted: " Therefore, any Luger or Browning Hi-Power pistol which would be removed from the purview of the NFA if equipped with an original shoulder stock, would also not be subject to the NFA is equipped with a reproduction shoulder stock which either duplicates or closely approximates the dimensions and configuration of the original stock."
However, there is no equivocation on the requirement that the Ideal sholderstock/holster may only be attached to an American Eagle Luger.

[Big Norm]

Russell,
OK, now that I straightened this all out, I recommend that you don't buy that navy stock. You can also forget about the ice cold, six pack of Samual Adams beer that you would have owed me.
Big Norm

[Parabellus]

That's OK Norm. I'd be proud to tip a Sam Adams with you any time. We'll toast the BATF.

Russell

[Parabellus]

Pete,

Looks like Jackson Arms is in transition, moving to:

152 Utah
South San Francisco

They hope to re-open there on July 4, 2006 perhaps with a new name.

Russell

[Parabellus]

Tac, old friend!

By Georg I think I've got it!

This is the best shot my feeble camera with my miserable photographic skill has been able to capture. Check this out against Proof 6 #60 and tell us again the English did not mark (with some panache) their spoils of war (or imported weapons).



You be the judge.

Respectfully yours,

Russell

[Ron Wood]

The question is not whether the British proof marked weapons, the disparity lies in the use of â??captureâ?� and â??spoils of warâ?�. Just like the common use of â??capture papersâ?� is a misnomer. The paper no more indicates that the weapon was â??capturedâ?� by the individual possessing it than the markings on a British proofed weapon indicates it was â??capturedâ?�. The â??capture papersâ?� are merely authorization to possess and transport a weapon by a soldier. It may have been captured, won in a poker game or swapped for a carton of cigarettes. Likewise as I understand it, the laws of Britain require that all guns not made in England and brought into country, military or commercial, be proofed to British standards, therefore there is no connotation of â??captureâ?� involved.

Tacâ??s statement that â??we never 'capture marked' anything we took off the enemyâ?� is accurate in light of the above. The assertion that â??Nor do we put import marks on any weapon like you do in the USA to show the importer's name/companyâ?� may be splitting hairs a wee bit, since the proofing requirement and â??Not English Makeâ?� are de facto import marks.

[Parabellus]

I apologize for the expression I used 'spoils of war'. I was feeling a bit cantankerous at the moment. I fully well realize that the purpose of free nations going to war is not to pillage conquered lands but to free oppressed people and protect our territorial integrity.
The point Ron makes about â??capturedâ?? weapons is well taken.
Now I think I understand Tacâ??s point. My guess is that he (or many other Forum members) know what the markings mean such as â??15 TONS PER (square) â??â?? and the â??Xâ?? (internal pressure?) expression. Are these actual test proofs? What about Crown BNP?

Thank you again,

Russell

[Ron Wood]

Yes, these are actual test proofs. Of course the 15 TONS PER ��" is just a shorthand notation for a pressure of fifteen tons per square inch. I believe the "X" expression is a notation for burst pressure for overloads. And lastly, the Crown/BNP is for British Nitro Proof which indicates that the weapon has been tested in accordance with the 1954 proof law.