navy mags

[Ron Wood]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Remember the first Naval lugers were 7,65 !!! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I guess you learn something new every day! I have never seen that in any references. I wonder why?

[Lugerdoc]

Nico, The only unmarked concentric circle original DWM mags that I have seen, were installed in M1906 Commerical navies. TH

[G.T.]

Hi to all! Some time ago, I wrote a long multi page letter to Mr. Van Gjyn about the possibility of obtaining copies of certain prints concerning P.08 magazines... I went in to detail as to what my intentions were, (to produce a high quality new production mag.) I did not attempt to deceive him in any manner... I went thru all the NAPCA channels to have the letter posted to protect his confidentiality and made evey effort to convey "good intentions" and "good will".... Now, I always respect a persons opinion... I also respect their decisions, and whether I agree or disagree, I will listen to their reasons! But Mr. Van Gjyn did not even show me the courtesy of a contact or refusal letter, none, nada, zip!! Not only do I feel this was a snub, but I believe Mr. Van Gjyn grossly over estimates my abilities! The other side of the coin is, we are currently reverse engineering the "original magazines" and are making headway toward building a quality magazine...our goal is quality like an original, and a more desirable mag. then current repros! it would be quite a bit easier with some drawings to compare our prints with for working tolarences and such... But Oh Well! Such is life! I do appreciate that some of our members do have a line of communication with Mr.Van Gjyn, as is it obivious to all, that the man is a wealth of Luger information....to everyone, that is, but me! best to all! til...lat'r....GT

[Heinz]

Ron, the only thing I have ever seen on a 7.65 Navy is a post on Jan Still's forum on 9/17/2003 under "Commercial/Foreign Contract" showing a 1902 Carbine with a Navy acceptance mark. This carbine seems to have been a presentation prize for fencing tournament.

Kenyon's Lugers at Random shows a 1906 commercial Navy 9mm with the concentric rins and notes it is marked 9mm on the bottom. I have been under the impression these ringed and 9 mm marked mags were commercials. I note in Mr Van Gjyn's post he refers to the magazine drawings as 1904 7.65 and 9mm and 1906 7.65 and 9 mm without a navy designation for the blueprint. Perhaps he is making an assumption here.

My hypothesis is the ring may relate to getting a better grip on the mag bottom in wet conditions. How tight do Navy mags fit in their pouches?

[Ron Wood]

If you detected a note of skepticism in my post, you wouldn't be very far off target. Guess I would like to know if any documentation exists on this revelation also. I'm not trying to be difficult here, it is just that suddenly there is information surfacing that is heretofore unknown. I do not object to speculation, I do a lot of it myself, but I like it labled as speculation if it is. I have difficulty accepting anything proffered as fact if it has no precedent, and as a Luger enthusiast that enjoys research and history I delight in the details. The existence of two sets of magazine blueprints dated 1904 clearly labled "7.65mm" and "9mm" is worthy of note, but to draw the conclusion that this was done to be able to tell the difference in the dark is an educated guess. The statement that the first Navys were 7.65mm needs substantiation.

[G.T.]

I have to agree with Ron... I would have to see some other type of documentation as to the difference... or one's speculation is as good as anothers.... If the rings denote 9mm, then why would some mag's have both the rings, and the Cal. 9m/m logo also...isn't this a bit redundent??? besides, once they are out of the pistol, whether it be 9mm or .30 cal. it could be loaded with either of the current rounds! I think if anything... it is purely cosmetic, I can't really see an advantage to either... only tougher tooling to make! BTW, I'm over my snit now... best to all, til...lat'r...GT

[Pete Ebbink]

Not sure if this helps or not...

On pages 22-23 of the "The Navy Luger" book by Gortz & Walter...there is some discussion as to whether it was plausible to consider five (5) 15 cm barreled experimental B-suffixed 5-digit prototypes (which I read to assume were in 7.65 mm...) were actually Navy experimental pistols or not.

Another sentence reads, in reference to gun # 10005 (a 17.5 cm barrelled, 7.65 mm, with a rear tangent-type sight and unique stock attachment with a push button release), as :

"...It would have been very tempting to consider this gun as a potential navy trial piece had its calibre been 9mm rather than 7.65 mm...".

Maybe the conclusion has been accepted by some, including this Dutch collector...

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

[ViggoG]

Just another WAG !!
Is there any thought that the concentric circles are representative of the circular wave pattern so frequently seen on water surface around any disturbance ?
And therefor symbolic of Naval Power ?
ViggoG

[Navy]

Damn!
I really enjoy stirring this pot!

It is amazing what can happen when serious collectors and historians are presented with a "new possibility".

Keep at it, all.

Tom A.

[Adam]

WOW! This topic is getting very interesting. I honestly have no idea why the rings are on some, other than for cosmetic reasons, but some of the ideas mentioned here really make me want to find out the truth about them.

[Big Norm]

Wow! What a brilliant discussion this is. Maybe I can stir the pot a little bit more. If there was so much controversy about the magazines button activating the hold open during 1904/06, then why did the army wait until 1913 to even add the hold open?
Big Norm

[Ron Wood]

Presumably as a cost cutting measures, the Army elected to eliminate the stock lug that the Navy had adapted, the grip safety, and the hold open. Until the LP08 came along, there was no need for the stock lug, so that was a logical choice for elimination. The grip safety was actually redundant (cavalry troops might argue to the contrary) so it too met a well-deserved demise as a military necessity. However, not knowing when your weapon was empty in a heated disagreement proved to be an embarrassment of significant proportion. So in 1913, sanity reared its head and the hold open was once again recognized for its vital role and returned to its rightful place in the military Luger, where it remained until the end.

[Vlim]

Hi,

I agree with Ron that Nico got a bit confused over the Marine Model 1904.

It's a reasonably documented fact that the first German TRIALS were done using the 7.65MM versions, in 1900 - 1902. The 7.65MM was critized and the Germans quickly switched to 9MM and continued their trails (possibly using both 7.65 and 9MM at the same time, although I doubt that) until the adaptation of the Marine Model 1904 in 9mm.

The fact that DWM had both 7.65MM 1904 model magazines and 9mm 1904 model magazines does not prove in any way that the Germay navy adopted or used 1904 7,65mm versions and the conclusion that the concentric circles therefore were used to differentiate between them is complete speculation.

As long as the blueprints with concentric circled magazine bottoms do not show 'Marine Modell 1904' or any other proof of German navy acceptance on them, I tend to disagree with Nico's findings.

A possibility that the concentric circles were left over from an early (trial) attempt to differentiate between them is there, but it is generally speaking a bit weird, since the magazines can be used for both types, a point made earlier.

The 'we are the customer, we are right and we want circles' approach therefore makes the most sense.

Another option is that the concentric circles prevent the bottoms from developing cracks, while retaining a decent grip. Perhaps our wood working experts can comment on this?

[G.T.]

Hi Gerben! I think your point is well taken, I have turned many a concentric ringed bottom on the lathe and I've notice a few things that may give your theory support... one is, the knobs are a more uniform size, dimension, because the forming tool plunges in from the end, and dosen't get anywhere near the outside edge... secondly, the outside dia. of the knob is decidedly more robust... as it is quite a bit thicker then the dished knob end... they are with out a doubt, stronger... this additional strength may have been necessary when banging around on a sea going vessel... the regular or standard mag. bottom probably went away on the first ladder! Best to you Gerben! til...later....GT

[Strider]

OK folks, I am going to jump into this with both feet. I consider myself a novice when it comes to this so I ask for patience on this question.
Do the bottoms really need to have a concave surface on them? It would seem to me that these would have worked just as well with out the extra step involved in milling the bottoms out. Was this done purely for cosmetic reasons. Just something else to stir the pot here. By the way, this has been a great topic. Thanks.
Sid.

[G.T.]

Hi Strider! I think you're 90% right on.... I don't think it would make any difference at all if the bottoms were dished, convex, ringed, or checkered... just as long as you had something for a little traction! I think the Borchardt(sp.?) had convex knobs on the mag. bottoms...best to you....Til..lat'r....GT

[John Sabato]

I think the concave surface of the knobs on the mag bottom give a place to provide purchase for the fingertips to pull out a stubborn bulged or damaged mag...

The concentric rings would also serve in a similar manner better than just flat wood surfaces.

I think asthetics also play a role here since with few exceptions, virtually all other semi-automatics had/have a flat bottom flush to the grip magazine... The design of the wood capped mag is just more graceful in appearance, and matches well the elegance of the design.

Just my $0.02

[Heinz]

Ron, I know of no documentation on the Luger carbine that appears in the post on Jan Still's forum other than the post itself. The carbine has a C/B and C/U on the left side in the "lazy" position followed by a C/M in the vertical position. My use of the navy reference was based only on that acceptance mark. There is no mention of any other Navy marks on this piece. I did notice on reviewing that post that the stock inlay award plate is dated 1910 so that probably takes it out of the discussion on the magazines anyhow. The devil is allways in the details.

[Ron Wood]

Heinz,
The skepticism that I expressed was in regard to the comment that "the first Navy Lugers were 7.65", not your recollection of the presentation carbine with Navy markings. I also remember that carbine post from Still's forum. It is a beautiful and desirable piece but as you have noted, the only connection to the navy is the acceptance mark which, no doubt, was applied when it was awarded and not because it was a contract item. I remain unconvinced that there was ever an issue Navy Luger in 7.65mm.

Sid, G.T. and John S.,
I think you guys are on track. The concave indentation on the Luger mag is both functional and decorative. It does provide a better purchase for extraction of a stubborn magazine, and it looks better than just a slab sided extension. The convex profile of the Borchardt magazine knobs probably was the inspiration for a more "snazzy" treatment of the Luger magazine bottom, but the convex configuration is a bit more complex to machine and finish than the concave style, plus it can be harder to grasp if you fingers are cold and wet. My guess is that the indentation of the magazine base is to improve grasping the magazine, and the difference in machining of the magazine bases between the "standard" and "Navy" is purely cosmetic.

[Imperial Arms]

Based on my close examination of a 1904 Navy Luger #36 which is shown hereunder, it happens to have a standard (9 mm) magazine which is numbered and matching to the pistol. There is no doubt that the magazine is absolutely correct. If my eye sight serves me well, the C/M proof mark on the magazine base COULD be on the left side of the dished base, but I could be wrong because I do not access to the actual photo which is in storage.



I hope this image and information clarifies somes points regarding this interesting discussion.

In regards to the M1902 Carbine with the C/M proof mark, it is not abnormal for a Luger carbine which is DESTINED to a Navy Department for the purpose of a (fencing) prize to be stamped with this proof mark. The proof mark could simply mean in this case 'destination' and not 'issue'. In order to make a reasonable conclusion of an item, consider its originality, provenance and consistency of its details.

Cheers,
Albert