navy mags

[JL]

I've seen pictures of early navy lugers with concentric rings on the mags finger grips. Were these used on all the WW! era navy lugers? JL

[Luke]

JL -

No, both concentric ring and standard type wooden bottoms were used on the 1914-type Navy Lugers.

Luke

[Navy]

Actually the concentric ring mags were introduced to differenciate 9MM magazines from 7.65 by a method that could be detected in the dark. This info was given to me by Nico Van Gjyn, who owns a great deal of oriiginal Luger plans, files and correspondence.
The Navy continued use of concentric ring magazines throughout the war, although one occasionally finds matching non-concentric ring mags witha Navy gun. This is far more prevalent in Post-war/Weimar era guns, tho.
There is no documented explanation of which I am aware as to why the Army chose a different magazine plug style.

Tom A

[Ron Wood]

Tom,
I have a great deal of respect for both you and Nico Van Gijn, but I have to say that the explanation that the concentric ring mags were "introduced to differentiate 9MM magazines from 7.65mm by a method that could be detected in the dark" seems a bit odd. There is no difference between 9mm and 7.65 magazines, and Navy Lugers were not made in 7.65mm. It might be useful if one were in possession of a pocket full of magazines, some loaded with 9mm and some loaded with 7.65mm. But that is a somewhat of a stretch to make the point, and the same function could be accomplished by running your thumb over the top round in the magazine.

[Navy]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the kind words.

Nico has documentation (he has a fantastic collection of old DWM, Walther and Mauser files, drawings and memoranda)that substantiates this point. Seems a bit odd to me also, but that is what the man said was in the files.

Tom A.

[Big Norm]

I have a great deal of respect for both Tom and Ron. But from my limited background in manufacturing. My understanding of the ego differences betwen the German army and navy as mentioned to me by Heinz and through my readings about Kaiser Wilhelm and 'his' navy. I would tend to think that the German navy would have just wanted to differeniate themselves and their Lugers from the army by wanting concentric circles. But in manufacturing, somebody just grabbed a handfull of the wrong bottoms and other workers just didn't want to waste their time walking back to the correct bin to get the correct wood bottoms. In manufacturing and in war time, the wood bottoms would not be a big thing.
A simular comparision could be made of the Erfurt manufacturing. Proof marks were stamped in some of the stupidest places just to justify jobs for the workers. I still laugh when I see Erfurt proof marks on the grip screws,on the extractor spring and on the magazine wood bottom.
Just my logical thinking. If someone buys me a beer, I will just forget it all after a few tips.
Big Norm

[Ron Wood]

I guess I will have to accept what Nico's documentation substantiates. But I am just skeptical (or hard headed) enough that I would really like to see a copy of the source documents.

[Heinz]

Has there ever been any notice of German Naval officers carrying personally purchased 7.65 Lugers?

I agree with Ron that this documentation seems to make little sense. However the reference to documentation is from a very reliable source. The only thing I could think of that would bring in some logical explanation is that in 1904 there were many 1900 model 7.65 Lugers out there and maybe Officers carried them? But I have never heard of that.

However if I do not get to tired tonight I can probably have one on gunbroker tomorrow :-)

[Big Norm]

Just a thought. Were the magazines made by an outside source as were the holsters or were they made at the DWM and/or Erfurt manufacturing facilities?
Big Norm

[Navy]

Magazines were all DWM manufacture.

Tom A.

[Pete Ebbink]

Hello Tom A.,

Not to be a pest...but are there some sources for the conclusion that manufacturing was "in-house" at DWM...?

Regards,

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

[G.T.]

Hi to all! Mag. shells may have all been from one supplier... but the mag. bottoms were decidedly different! ... they were unique to each manufacture... best to all! till...later...GT

[Big Norm]

Pete,
you NEVER a pest. You are a highly valued contributer.

G.T. Just how did the magazine bottoms differ between Erfurt and DWM? I have a magazine with a double Erfurt proof marks and no serial number as well as a DWM Artillery with Erfurt proof marks all over it. I have always wondered about what happened there.
Big Norm

[G.T.]

Hi Big Norm, The differences between the two are subtle, but they are definitly evident when you see a large cross section of bottoms, over time... If you totally ignored the markings all together, you could still tell by the construction and material unique to each manufacture... These are not hard and fast rules, but are most of the time, evident... first, the Erfurt bottom will usually, or almost always be a darker, dark brown in color... where as the DWM will run anywhere from orange to red to red/brown (most likely they were both/all subjected to dyes)... second, and most obivious, the usual Erfurt bottom has a completely different radius on the external (outside) rim of the knob pieces... is is a sharper shoulder, so to speak, it doesn't have that nice soft radius that the DWM bottoms almost always display... consequently, the dimples on the knobs themselves will appear different.. the Erfurt convcave dimples will look larger, and more crude, because of the small radius edge, and the subsequent sharper shoulder... third, to further exaggerate the image of the knobs, the length (or width, how far it sticks out to the side) of the knob on the Erfurt is usually about .015" to .020" per side longer.... this is really visiable when you have several clips side by side... if you take a dial caliper and measure the heigth of this knob, it is supposed to be approx. .250" on each side finished.. but DWM cut the knobs to .250" then radiused the rim, then plunged the dimple... so, you end up with about .235" per side... whereas the Erfurt will almost always approch the .250" as spec'ed.... On mag bottoms in general, because of wear, parts swaps, replacements etc. there is a huge hazy zone in between, where anything goes, and it is hard to tell. But, there are many, many examples that are constant, and I have seen a lot of them... and that is all my conclusions are based on.. just my observations... remember the above, and tell me what you see after awhile! I'd be interested in what the rest of the forum has experienced in this area! Best to you Big Norm! til...lat'r....GT

[G.T.]

Big Norm! This is also just an observation.. but as to your Erfurt proofed mags, I have seen several unnumbered double proofed mags as you describe.. I think, again, my opinion only.. The manufacture was not always the end user... also I think that a lot of guns and mags were numbered up at repair depots and armorers repair stations all the way up to WW2... I was thinking about this the other day, when I realized that the replacement mags that I had seen the most of, forced matched, or numbered to a specific pistol, were the nickle plated, droop winged E/63 mag... of mid 1930's vintage.. most everything spare, I have seen after that.. s/42, 42, E/63, E/655 etc.. remained unnumbered... Either the mags got to a point to where they (Mauser) were better quality.. and the matching (in the field) was redundant, or they just didn't have the time... but I think prior to WW2 it was just as if it were law! Then again, who knows! til..lat'r...GT

[Navy]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Tom A:
<strong>Magazines were all DWM manufacture.

Tom A.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I did not mean to imply that the mag bottoms were made by DWM; it is generally recognized that these were subcontractor provided.

Tom A.

[G.T.]

Hi Tom! I got to thinking afterwords that the navy bottoms were probably made inhouse by DWM, and I don't believe Erfurt would have any reason to procure any of this type... It is pretty much hypothetical at best... but I believe there were very few different manufactures of the magazine tubes... perhaps just one??? I sure would like to know more about their production... be nice to go back in time and visit for a day! best to you! till...lat'r...GT

[Big Norm]

Gentlemen,
I guess that we will have to agree to disagree on this topic. With respect to TomA, I have to think that since Erfurt had some 96,000 Artillery Lugers scheduled for 1914 production as well as a larger number of army Lugers scheduled, then logic would tell me that there was ample production to justify the manufacture of the magazines at the point of manufacture of the weapons during WW1. But since DWM produced all the navy Lugers, then DWM produced their magazines at their own factory.

This discussion will go into one of my folders along with a previous discussion regarding the "blackening" of the pin that holds the bottom to the spine. In order to keep peace in our family, I will pass on asking a simular question regarding the grips.

After reviewing the venerable Ron Woods comment to the original question about the concentric circles on the wood bottom, I have concluded that the concentric circles may have just been an ego thing between the navy and the army and that a few non concentric bottoms just happened to slip in.
Big Norm

[ViggoG]

OK, So I stick my "Neeeck" out again !.. <img border="0" alt="[blabla]" title="" src="graemlins/a_smil17.gif" />
Has anyone considered that the serialization of magazines might have been a matter of "Peacetime Property Control", To force regementation and accountability on the Regular Military Troops,
And as such would be quickly abandoned in the rush that occurs in wartime with the influx of irregular troops and high combat losses...
Just a thought that came to mind.
ViggoG...

[Navy]

&gt;&gt;Subject: A question
&gt;Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:21:13 EST
&gt;
&gt;Good Morning Nico,
&gt;
&gt;You remember the e-mail you sent me concerning the reason for the
&gt;introduction of the concentric ring magazine to identify 9MM vice 7.65.
&gt;
&gt;Do you have a source document for that? It has been a matter of some lively
&gt;discussion on the Luger forum and some members were curious as to the source.
&gt;
&gt;Thanks
&gt;Tom Armstrong

E-mail traffic from Nico...

I have the blueprints of the magazines designed as M1900 7,65mm, M1904 7,65, M1904 9mm, M1906 7,65, M1908 9mm, M1937 9mm, M1938 Haenel, M1941 Haenel-Mauser and even the post war blueprints of Mauser. So for it is just a matter of comparing. The only differents between the magazine dated 1904 7,65 and the 1904 9mm is the bottom with the concentric rings. So the rings were the 9mm indicator in these early days. Remember the first Naval lugers were 7,65 !!! The dutch contract of 1904/1905 is asking for enlarging of 1mm for the cut in the top that frames the followerbutton. The dutch authorities demand this change as with dirt the hold open device in the pistol was not alway actived after the last round. By changing the cut the button was 1 mm higher in position when the magazine was empty and the holdopen device worked better. The dutch contract of 1904/1905 was ended by the dutch covernment. The pistols became to expensive for army. In 1911 the pistol was bought anyway for the dutch colonial army and in 1928 for the dutch navy. Anyway the germans used the dutch demand by changing production from that moment on. And so the M1906 7,65 and the M1908 9mm have both the 1mm longer cut. This all together proofs that the concentric rings were a 9mm indicator only and the lenght of the cut is for collectors the way to indicate if the magazine was made before 1906. When magazines are produced before 1906 (with the shorter cut) and have a concentric ring bottom and no Naval stamp or serial number then they are prototypes. I have such a not marked magazine with short cut and concentric rings together with the oriiginal blueprint. Nico