Navy Luger? - Page 2

Ron Smith · 07-15-2006, 10:36 AM

The GA example has a "two position" rear sight? Evidently when the toggle is closed counts as one position. When it's open is the second position??

Parabellus · 08-17-2006, 12:32 AM

I finally found a Navy that I can (almost) afford. I was at my favorite toy store (KrausewerK). I had inquired with Mike Krause about putting together a mock-Navy-style shooter not unlike Ron SmithÃ¢??s.

http://forum.lugerforum.com/showthre...0&pagenumber=1

He pointed out that he had this Model 1914 which he could not offer as a collectorÃ¢??s piece but could be just what I was looking for. The reasons are that it is not an all-original matching piece. Ã¢??It is what it is,Ã¢?? as I have been told. It is a shooter, a 1917 DWM Model 1914 with replaced side-plate and sight-slider. IÃ¢??m sure it has been refinished. The grips don't match (each other). Nevertheless the rear sight looks correct. The barrel matches. The Crown/Ms are nested. I'll get some pictures if I can. I made a small down payment to reserve it until I can pay it off.

Now the catch. At the same time I reserved a Wartime Commercial 7.63mm C96 all matching including stock. This will lengthen the pay-off time. The Broomhandle is a bit less expensive than the Navy so I could have it sooner if I decide to pay it off first.
Decisions, decisions.

Russell

Parabellus · 08-26-2006, 02:33 PM

Mike let me photograph the item in his store.
I wonder about the rear toggle pin flange. Is it correct? Could it be that the entire rear sight & toggle have been replaced?
And yes, the left grip has Ã¢??the chipÃ¢??

I truly appreciate any observations and comments on this, soon-to-be-mine, Navy shooter.

Russell

Dwight Gruber · 08-26-2006, 06:12 PM

Russell,

Since you ask--the inspector marks and proof on the right receiver and the small flange toggle pin reveal this gun's origin as an Army weapon.

The outline profile of the rear sight, the modern machining marks, and the slider's fit at the front where it recesses into the rear toggle reveal it as a modern reproduction.

The constant stroke widths and rounded ends of the grip-strap number are characteristic of pantograph rounting--if you remove the whitening you will probably find router-end swirling in the strokes.

It would be instructive for us all if you could post closeup, detailed views of the left receiver, breechblock, left barrel, and under-barrel markings.

If you paid a decently moderate shooting gun price for this it should be great fun to shoot and show off at the range.

--Dwight

Jan C Still · 08-26-2006, 06:20 PM

Russell
Maybe I missed something. It appears that photograph 2 shows the left receiver with a Navy crown and two C/Ms. Photograph 5 shows the standard three acceptance stamps and a test proof used by the Army on the right receiver. The frame serial number in photograph 5 is 3245 which is consistent with the parts serial numbers of 45 in the other photographs.

If I have not made a mistake, your photographs show a receiver with Navy proofs on the left side and Army proofs on the right side. Have never observed such an Army/Navy receiver.
Thanks for the interesting photographs.
Jan

George Anderson · 08-27-2006, 08:41 AM

I think Dwight has said it all, the rear sight looks like a reproduction, the grip strap marking is very questionable, the Navy acceptance stampings are just plain weird on an army gun. The 1917 stampings are probably fake and the barrel as well.

Russell, if your gun budget is such that you must put this pistol on layaway it would indicate a sacrifice on your part. This pistol does not warrant such a sacrifice.

Parabellus · 08-27-2006, 10:51 AM

Thank you very much Dwight, Jan, & George.

I'm glad I put this up for review. I hope to get more and better pictures next week to detail the Navy proofs, etc. The Army markings are something I will be asking Mike about.

Sacrifice (ie. needing to lay away) is not a problem when it comes to these guns. I definitely want one that I can shoot. This is my 'reality check'. In any case I plan to pick up the Broomhandle first. So I have lots of time to consider my options.

Thanks again,

Russell

Parabellus · 08-27-2006, 10:51 AM

Thank you very much Dwight, Jan, & George.

I'm glad I put this up for review. I hope to get more and better pictures next week to detail the Navy proofs, etc. The Army markings are something I will be asking Mike about.

Sacrifice (ie. needing to lay away) is not a problem when it comes to these guns. I definitely want one that I can shoot. I know that $2Gs is a lot for a shooter but cheap for a real Navy Luger. This is my 'reality check'. In any case I plan to pick up the Broomhandle first for a bit less $1.75Gs. So I have lots of time to consider my options.

Thanks again,

Russell

Pete Ebbink · 08-27-2006, 11:39 AM

What does "SAR" signify ?

BTW...toggle pin flange does not look right and the photo of the left-side proofs need better resolution, as the proofs look odd in the photo provided.

Pete Ebbink · 08-28-2006, 11:39 AM

Russell,

There are "deals" out there from time to time on REAL Navy lugers, albiet refinished. This is one the Simpson shop had for sale at $ 2500 but I see is on hold with a customer now :

http://www.simpsonltd.com/product_in...oducts_id=4449

If you decide to change your mind about this piece but cannot get out of the lay-away, maybe the seller will allow you to transfer your lay-away dollars to another piece that he might have for sale that would hold some collector and investment value for you in the future.

Garfield · 08-29-2006, 01:41 AM

Russell:

"I know that $2Gs is a lot for a shooter but cheap for a real Navy Luger."

IMHO, this is NOT a real Navy; it is a bogus piece of crap offered at an exorbitant price. As Pete Ebink pointed out, although you might pay a bit more for an original "shooter" you will have something of value. If you just want a bogus Navy "shooter" you can find one for less than the one you a contemplating buying.

John Sabato · 08-29-2006, 08:39 AM

Garfield!

Welcome back to the Lugerforum Bill Garrison... I know you have been active over on Jan Still's forum... but your expertise is very welcome here... within the rules that have not changed since your last post in September of 2002... despite belief to the contrary... you were never banned... just warned...

It has been many moons since you graced us with your input... I for one hope you choose to visit often...

Parabellus · 08-29-2006, 11:02 PM

Thank you Pete,

Your thoughtful insights are always welcome. I'm glad I brought this before the Forum for coment. Your suggestions are good. I'm glad I was allowed to photograph it and bring it before the Forum. Now I have a better perspective. No one was ever injured by having a little cold water thrown on his overheated enthusiasm. IÃ¢??m sure I can eventually find a Navy piece to pass inspection though it may be too expensive to dare to shoot. I am very reluctant to buy anything off an auction or online store, especially from out of state. I want to see it and touch it. At a gun show I would be at the mercy of whomever without an expert along.

Thanks again, all, for all your help.

Russell

Garfield · 09-02-2006, 01:40 PM

JS:

Your warm welcome is duly noted. My post on this thread was made at the behest of a friend. Should I decide to make future contributions to this forum, I will make every effort to acquaint myself with your rules.

garfield

Big Norm · 09-04-2006, 09:15 PM

Russell,
I'm afraid that I have to agree with everyone else here. $2K is a lot of AFTER TAX molla to pay for a shooter. Get out of this deal, if you can.

There is alway another deal that will come along.

Big Norm

Parabellus · 09-07-2006, 10:37 PM

Well, Mike is not obligating me to this purchase. He agrees that a less controversial Navy could come along in my price range anyway. For my part, I am still skittish about buying anything like this over the net or by mail.

I will be buying his Wartime Commercial C96, I think. Coming soon to a Forum near you.

Thanks for all the help, Guys.

Russell

Pete Ebbink · 09-30-2006, 02:23 PM

Russell,

You might want to visit the Greg Martin auction preview days in SF, CA to look over this offering. Holster is a $ 30 repro, but the re-finished M1908 Navy might be worth a closer, in-person look over :

http://67.155.195.3:8050/FMPro?-db=G...ID=47867&-find

Parabellus · 09-30-2006, 04:23 PM

Thank you Pete,

Sure is worth a trip into The City to have a closer look. Will you be there in November?

Meanwhile, Mike Krause says he has an alternative piece coming in for me to look at soon. For now, I expect to take delivery on the Broomhandle in a week or so.

Russell

Tomathvl · 09-30-2006, 09:53 PM

Pete,
The C/M's look funny on that one .
Tom

Ron Smith · 09-30-2006, 10:16 PM

Tac,

Are you trying to imply that this pistol may not be legimate?

Ron

07-15-2006, 10:36 AM	#21
Ron Smith User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Orygun Posts: 4,243 Thanks: 118 Thanked 245 Times in 150 Posts	The GA example has a "two position" rear sight? Evidently when the toggle is closed counts as one position. When it's open is the second position?? __________________ I Still Need DWM side plate #49... if anyone runs across a nice one. What ~Rudyard Kipling~ said...

08-17-2006, 12:32 AM	#22
Parabellus User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: SF Bay Posts: 195 Thanks: 16 Thanked 9 Times in 4 Posts	I finally found a Navy that I can (almost) afford. I was at my favorite toy store (KrausewerK). I had inquired with Mike Krause about putting together a mock-Navy-style shooter not unlike Ron SmithÃ¢??s. http://forum.lugerforum.com/showthre...0&pagenumber=1 He pointed out that he had this Model 1914 which he could not offer as a collectorÃ¢??s piece but could be just what I was looking for. The reasons are that it is not an all-original matching piece. Ã¢??It is what it is,Ã¢?? as I have been told. It is a shooter, a 1917 DWM Model 1914 with replaced side-plate and sight-slider. IÃ¢??m sure it has been refinished. The grips don't match (each other). Nevertheless the rear sight looks correct. The barrel matches. The Crown/Ms are nested. I'll get some pictures if I can. I made a small down payment to reserve it until I can pay it off. Now the catch. At the same time I reserved a Wartime Commercial 7.63mm C96 all matching including stock. This will lengthen the pay-off time. The Broomhandle is a bit less expensive than the Navy so I could have it sooner if I decide to pay it off first. Decisions, decisions. Russell __________________

08-26-2006, 02:33 PM	#23
Parabellus User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: SF Bay Posts: 195 Thanks: 16 Thanked 9 Times in 4 Posts	Mike let me photograph the item in his store. I wonder about the rear toggle pin flange. Is it correct? Could it be that the entire rear sight & toggle have been replaced? And yes, the left grip has Ã¢??the chipÃ¢?? I truly appreciate any observations and comments on this, soon-to-be-mine, Navy shooter. Russell __________________

08-27-2006, 10:51 AM	#27
Parabellus User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: SF Bay Posts: 195 Thanks: 16 Thanked 9 Times in 4 Posts	Thank you very much Dwight, Jan, & George. I'm glad I put this up for review. I hope to get more and better pictures next week to detail the Navy proofs, etc. The Army markings are something I will be asking Mike about. Sacrifice (ie. needing to lay away) is not a problem when it comes to these guns. I definitely want one that I can shoot. This is my 'reality check'. In any case I plan to pick up the Broomhandle first. So I have lots of time to consider my options. Thanks again, Russell __________________

08-27-2006, 10:51 AM	#28
Parabellus User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: SF Bay Posts: 195 Thanks: 16 Thanked 9 Times in 4 Posts	Thank you very much Dwight, Jan, & George. I'm glad I put this up for review. I hope to get more and better pictures next week to detail the Navy proofs, etc. The Army markings are something I will be asking Mike about. Sacrifice (ie. needing to lay away) is not a problem when it comes to these guns. I definitely want one that I can shoot. I know that $2Gs is a lot for a shooter but cheap for a real Navy Luger. This is my 'reality check'. In any case I plan to pick up the Broomhandle first for a bit less $1.75Gs. So I have lots of time to consider my options. Thanks again, Russell __________________

08-26-2006, 06:12 PM	#24
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,889 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,281 Times in 423 Posts	Russell, Since you ask--the inspector marks and proof on the right receiver and the small flange toggle pin reveal this gun's origin as an Army weapon. The outline profile of the rear sight, the modern machining marks, and the slider's fit at the front where it recesses into the rear toggle reveal it as a modern reproduction. The constant stroke widths and rounded ends of the grip-strap number are characteristic of pantograph rounting--if you remove the whitening you will probably find router-end swirling in the strokes. It would be instructive for us all if you could post closeup, detailed views of the left receiver, breechblock, left barrel, and under-barrel markings. If you paid a decently moderate shooting gun price for this it should be great fun to shoot and show off at the range. --Dwight

08-26-2006, 06:20 PM	#25
Jan C Still User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Box 240188, Douglas, Alaska, 99824 Posts: 463 Thanks: 0 Thanked 52 Times in 32 Posts	Russell Maybe I missed something. It appears that photograph 2 shows the left receiver with a Navy crown and two C/Ms. Photograph 5 shows the standard three acceptance stamps and a test proof used by the Army on the right receiver. The frame serial number in photograph 5 is 3245 which is consistent with the parts serial numbers of 45 in the other photographs. If I have not made a mistake, your photographs show a receiver with Navy proofs on the left side and Army proofs on the right side. Have never observed such an Army/Navy receiver. Thanks for the interesting photographs. Jan

08-27-2006, 08:41 AM	#26
George Anderson Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: VA Posts: 3,592 Thanks: 1,769 Thanked 2,527 Times in 786 Posts	I think Dwight has said it all, the rear sight looks like a reproduction, the grip strap marking is very questionable, the Navy acceptance stampings are just plain weird on an army gun. The 1917 stampings are probably fake and the barrel as well. Russell, if your gun budget is such that you must put this pistol on layaway it would indicate a sacrifice on your part. This pistol does not warrant such a sacrifice.

08-27-2006, 11:39 AM	#29
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	What does "SAR" signify ? BTW...toggle pin flange does not look right and the photo of the left-side proofs need better resolution, as the proofs look odd in the photo provided.

08-28-2006, 11:39 AM	#30
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Russell, There are "deals" out there from time to time on REAL Navy lugers, albiet refinished. This is one the Simpson shop had for sale at $ 2500 but I see is on hold with a customer now : http://www.simpsonltd.com/product_in...oducts_id=4449 If you decide to change your mind about this piece but cannot get out of the lay-away, maybe the seller will allow you to transfer your lay-away dollars to another piece that he might have for sale that would hold some collector and investment value for you in the future.

08-29-2006, 01:41 AM	#31
Garfield User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A little SE of Nome Posts: 239 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Russell: "I know that $2Gs is a lot for a shooter but cheap for a real Navy Luger." IMHO, this is NOT a real Navy; it is a bogus piece of crap offered at an exorbitant price. As Pete Ebink pointed out, although you might pay a bit more for an original "shooter" you will have something of value. If you just want a bogus Navy "shooter" you can find one for less than the one you a contemplating buying.

08-29-2006, 08:39 AM	#32
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,150 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,096 Posts	Garfield! Welcome back to the Lugerforum Bill Garrison... I know you have been active over on Jan Still's forum... but your expertise is very welcome here... within the rules that have not changed since your last post in September of 2002... despite belief to the contrary... you were never banned... just warned... It has been many moons since you graced us with your input... I for one hope you choose to visit often... __________________ regards, -John S "...We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created EQUAL *and are endowed by their Creator* with certain UNALIENABLE* rights, and among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness..."*

08-29-2006, 11:02 PM	#33
Parabellus User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: SF Bay Posts: 195 Thanks: 16 Thanked 9 Times in 4 Posts	Thank you Pete, Your thoughtful insights are always welcome. I'm glad I brought this before the Forum for coment. Your suggestions are good. I'm glad I was allowed to photograph it and bring it before the Forum. Now I have a better perspective. No one was ever injured by having a little cold water thrown on his overheated enthusiasm. IÃ¢??m sure I can eventually find a Navy piece to pass inspection though it may be too expensive to dare to shoot. I am very reluctant to buy anything off an auction or online store, especially from out of state. I want to see it and touch it. At a gun show I would be at the mercy of whomever without an expert along. Thanks again, all, for all your help. Russell __________________

09-02-2006, 01:40 PM	#34
Garfield User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A little SE of Nome Posts: 239 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	JS: Your warm welcome is duly noted. My post on this thread was made at the behest of a friend. Should I decide to make future contributions to this forum, I will make every effort to acquaint myself with your rules. garfield

09-04-2006, 09:15 PM	#35
Big Norm RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,864 Thanks: 1 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	Russell, I'm afraid that I have to agree with everyone else here. $2K is a lot of AFTER TAX molla to pay for a shooter. Get out of this deal, if you can. There is alway another deal that will come along. Big Norm

09-07-2006, 10:37 PM	#36
Parabellus User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: SF Bay Posts: 195 Thanks: 16 Thanked 9 Times in 4 Posts	Well, Mike is not obligating me to this purchase. He agrees that a less controversial Navy could come along in my price range anyway. For my part, I am still skittish about buying anything like this over the net or by mail. I will be buying his Wartime Commercial C96, I think. Coming soon to a Forum near you. Thanks for all the help, Guys. Russell __________________

09-30-2006, 02:23 PM	#37
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Russell, You might want to visit the Greg Martin auction preview days in SF, CA to look over this offering. Holster is a $ 30 repro, but the re-finished M1908 Navy might be worth a closer, in-person look over : http://67.155.195.3:8050/FMPro?-db=G...ID=47867&-find

09-30-2006, 04:23 PM	#38
Parabellus User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: SF Bay Posts: 195 Thanks: 16 Thanked 9 Times in 4 Posts	Thank you Pete, Sure is worth a trip into The City to have a closer look. Will you be there in November? Meanwhile, Mike Krause says he has an alternative piece coming in for me to look at soon. For now, I expect to take delivery on the Broomhandle in a week or so. Russell __________________

09-30-2006, 09:53 PM	#39
Tomathvl User Join Date: May 2004 Location: Milan, IN Posts: 363 Thanks: 3 Thanked 48 Times in 19 Posts	Pete, The C/M's look funny on that one . Tom

09-30-2006, 10:16 PM	#40
Ron Smith User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Orygun Posts: 4,243 Thanks: 118 Thanked 245 Times in 150 Posts	Tac, Are you trying to imply that this pistol may not be legimate? Ron __________________ I Still Need DWM side plate #49... if anyone runs across a nice one. What ~Rudyard Kipling~ said...