The M1906 Russian Contract Controversy Strikes Again

[Imperial Arms]

Hi Albert! Hope you are doing well. Guess you are right, some people never learn. Why would the Bulgarians order a Luger with an obscure chamber marking when they already had both 1900 and 1906 model Lugers with a nice Bulgarian crest? Doesn't make much sense to me, but then I don't know why the Russians chose crossed rifles either.

P.S. If we are going to start up this old friendly discussion again, let's start a new thread and not hjack this one.

Hi Ron,

I wonder if amnesia is slowly creeping up on you since the past discussion on this controversial contract Luger. In regards to the different chamber emblem on the M1908 Bulgarian Infantry Officers Luger, the order was likely placed by Tsar Ferninard I who was the Chief or Honoury Guard of the 54th His Majesty the Tsar of Bulgaria's Minsk Infantry Regiment (54-i Pekhotnyi Minskii Ego Velichestva Tsarya Bolgarskago polk) which was part of the Russian 14th Infantry Division, 8th Army Corps, 1st Brigade with its headquarters in Kishinev till 15th October 1915. This connection and Bulgaria gaining its independence in October 1908 from the Ottoman Empire makes more sense than compared to a M1906 'Russian Luger' which has no strong meaning/explanation for the crossed rifles (Infantry insignia) on the chamber.

It has also been reported and observed that Bulgaria received a number of deliveries from DWM starting in 1903 with the M1900/03 Bulgarian Luger, and it is safe to say that the M1908 Infantry Officers Luger was probably a special order by the Tsar for some of his important officers which logically explains its different markings and caliber after 1906. So far, all the 'hot air' about the fake M1900, and the M1906 Russian contract is hearsay. In my opinion, the Russians would have had no reason to order a Luger for its national army with obscure crossed rifles on the chamber (plus with Bulgarian safety markings) which ironically has confused Luger experts for many, many years, and no one on the 'Russian side' can give a sensible explanation to this day for such an odd occurrence. This kind of mystery is similar to searching for answers for some illinesses - if a doctor or a scientist cannot give a cause for the illness, just leave the case open or give it an unknown.

By the way, based on some 'detective work' that I had conducted on a deluxe factory engraved M1849 Pocket Colt revolver that was found last year in France, an authority of the subject shared some information with me that the cased Gustave Young deluxe engraved Colt Dragoon revolver serial #12406 in the national Metropolitan Museum (having been offered $6 million before its donation to the museum in 1996) is not one of three presentation revolvers from Samuel Colt to the Sultan of Turkey around the outbreak of the Cremean War in 1853 as documented in one of Wilson's books on the subject of Engraved Colt revolvers. It appears that the truth gives a different sequence of events. Even past and present books written by various authors, including his holiness Geoff Sturgess, continue to make mistakes.

Albert

[Edward Tinker]

Albert, I am sorry, your theory is just an opinion and your theory has not convinced me that Russian lugers don't exist.

You have been asked, told and whacked for Always bringing up Sturgess.

Do you have amnesia? QUIT throwing out his name for NO reason? I have no relation or interest in his books, but your comments are out of place most of the time?

When are you going to write a book and put your neck out where folks can chop at it, as you have done for Sturgess' book (did you buy it BTW?) and other peoples books?

[Norme]

Hi Albert, I have a new theory. Tsar Ferdinand cancelled a contract with DWM because of the incident described below (thank you Wikipedia). DWM, stuck with several hundred partially finished Bulgarian Lugers, applied the now famous Mosin-Nagant chamber decoration, and offered them for sale on the Russian civilian market. Rather a neat theory, don't you think? Best regards, Norm


Ferdinand was known for being quite a character. On a visit to German Emperor Wilhelm II, his second cousin once removed, in 1909, Ferdinand was leaning out of a window of the New Palace in Potsdam when the Emperor came up behind him and slapped him on the bottom. Ferdinand was affronted by the gesture and the Emperor apologised. Ferdinand however exacted his revenge by awarding a valuable arms contract he had intended to give to the Krupp's factory in Essen to French arms manufacturer Schneider-Cruseot.[9]

[Imperial Arms]

Hi Edward,

As the American phrase goes "some people just don't get it". While the critics cannot accept logical opinions and common sense due to having some kind of complex, they fail to give any strong reason for still believing in the crippled 'Russian theory' - instead, they prefer to believe in fiction from wrong sources that satisfies their ego - it is like playing politics where nothing moves forward. How can the critics imagine that such a mistake could be made by a government? It was NOT DWM who controlled the terms of the order - it was the foreign government military. If it never happened with the the dealings of the Mauser factory, why could something different happen with the DWM factory? I suppose that the discovery of much stronger theories can often lead to disappointment which can be a real heartbreaker! When critics take the 'fifth', their silence or spectulation does not win them any ground. Instead, it shows that their opinions are sinking.

What is wrong with mentioning Geoff's name who seems to still believe in the Russian theory and also other wrong stories? Are you trying to make his knowledge and position untouchable because of the size of his collection, the perception of his knowledge, and the intangable support that he gives to various collectors? No, I have not bought his messed-up books and I do not intend to either - I have sorrow for the trees that it wasted!

In regards to my book on the Mauser C96, I am still gathering information to continue building on the accuracy of the information that I shall provide on the subject. For your information, a solid book on a subject where plenty of information has been lost takes time and plenty of research. I am not a person who just snaps some good pictures and throw it all in a mixing bowl with some text. I do consult with other experts and make every effort to visit them. I prefer to be a 'detective' who examines genuine pieces as well as searching for data from surviving sources which usually takes plenty of time and expenses in traveling. Unfortunately, Geoff has ruined his reputation and integrity and he is paying the price for his mistakes. Those people who want to remain on his sinking ship will also get wet!

Albert

[Edward Tinker]

Albert, I just don't understand how your bringing up Sturgess in so many of your postings helps your theories? I don't know the man, never met him and never met you.

The excuse for not finishing your book is that you are gathering together data is an old, lame excuse and one I have seen numerous times after the person has died and the family wonders what to do with this semi-finished manuscript. You have been working on this book for what, 5 years? 10 or is it 15 years? What are you waiting for?

I don't believe some of your theories because you don't provide concrete paperwork or provide documentation from other guns. I have never said that your theories could not be correct, but simply that you base it on conjecture, just as the present theories are based.

If the crossed rifles were a marketing ploy, just as the american eagle was, then that hurts the theory that DWM and the gov'ts were involved in the reason behind the crossed rifles. If you go on the assumption that Bulgaria / Russia, they didn't ask, just as the US gov't didn't ask for the crest on the chamber, as no precise measurements were taken, given or asked for. If you take that into consideration, then the crossed rifles is just a marketing ploy for a 'commercial' market and not some gov't request.

Do you have any idea how many 'geladen' and Geischert marked lugers came to america? Now why would they have new made lugers come to america that had the german language instead of in english? Shouldn't all new made lugers instead have SAFE and Loaded on them? Perhaps because they had a lot more frames and extractors already marked, just as they already had bulgarian extractors marked. DWM simply didn't care, DWM made lots of mistakes or omissions, sales were more important than some precise wording for commercially sold guns to Russia.

[Norme]

Dear Albert, There is no supporting evidence for your Tsar Ferdinand the First* theory, none whatsoever, not in Germany, not in Bulgaria, and not in Minsk. However, even were one to accept this theory, I would point out that, since Minsk is in Russia, these Lugers would be Russian anyway!
*Since there was not to be a Tsar Ferdinand the Second, he should more properly be called simply, Tsar Ferdinand.
Best regards, Norm

[Ron Wood]

Albert,
Thank you very much for starting a new thread for this discussion. I can’t attribute anything I have said now or in the past to amnesia…but there is an argument for senility (advancing years and all that).

I have acknowledged that your assertions about this model of Luger are well thought out and are both scholarly and plausible. However, they remain conjecture without a shred of evidence to back them up… and I will preempt your objections by stating that there is also not a shred of hard evidence to support my belief that this model has Russian roots.

But to date my unshakeable conviction that this controversial Luger is “Russian” lies with several factors:

I have already mentioned the existence of the two early Bulgarian Lugers with very elaborate and readily identifiable chamber crests. Why abandon this singularly distinctive marking for an ambiguous crossed rifle mark? (Not to mention the fact that you and other detractors have acknowledged that the rifles are indeed Mosin-Nagant. Those rifles only represented 13% of the Bulgarian rifle armament, so it would be an odd choice for a “Bulgarian” Luger)

Next, the safety marking is undoubtedly exactly the same as that found on Bulgarian Lugers. But considering the era it was made, there is a strong argument (in my mind at least ) that it is also, if not correct, at least understandable in Russian. In earlier discussions about this language anomaly, very well educated and intelligent forum members have roundly rejected any Russian connection based on their present day familiarity with the differences in the Cyrillic spelling in the respective Russian and Bulgarian languages…and I am sure they will still consider me the village idiot. However, long before the controversy on the exact origin of this model arose and I had acquired my Luger, I was curious about the Russian and Bulgarian marking understanding as they existed then. I made copies of the marks that were available in early references and sought interpretation by Russian speaking individuals. My most convincing translation came from an elderly Russian immigrant who had no knowledge of Lugers and not a lot of familiarity with firearms in general. He was alive and literate when these weapons were produced (sadly he has since passed away a number of years ago at the age of 95). He immediately recognized the safety marking as “fire” and gave me the pronunciation of the word, but could not translate the Bulgarian extractor marking. Conversely, he correctly translated the “Russian” extractor as “a charge”. I find it a bit amusing that our current scholars can dismiss the “Russian” extractor marking as the same in both languages, but refuse to accept that at the turn of the century the safety marking would be the same and understood by a Russian. I am inclined to accept the commonality of the Russian/Bulgarian safety marking as interpreted by an individual who was contemporary with the date of manufacture over the well intentioned interpretation by our modern scholars.

John Walter in his writings also indicates that the Cyrillic alphabet was essentially the same for both Russian and Bulgarian languages prior to its standardization and had received the same interpretation that the safety marking was equivalent in both languages. So I am not alone in that thought.

And, getting back to the extractor marking, why in the world would Ferdinand single out this particular example to have a different inscription than the contemporary Model 1906 Bulgarian and the subsequent Model 1908 Bulgarian extractors? It just defies logic. And I hope you won’t tell me it was so that the Russians could understand it since, as you maintain, it was intended for his Bulgarian soldiers in the Russian unit.

This interpretation is my own and not because of influence by any other individual or author. I am capable of developing my own opinions and do not slavishly adhere to someone else’s theory (including yours ). You and I will remain polarized on this subject, and that is OK.

[Vlim]

Well, one thing that always puzzled me about Bulgaria is that it was Steyr-Mannlicher territory due to the cartel agreement between the Loewe Group companies of DWM, Mauser and FN and Steyr-Mannlicher.

Recently I finally found a copy of one of the cartel agreement renewals and was surprised to see that pistols were exempted from the agreement, as were commercial (hunting and sporting) rifles. The cartel agreement only specifically covered military rifle contracts.

[Ron Wood]

Not sure what that brings to the Russian/Bulgarian Luger enigma, but after a bit of reflection perhaps it will reveal itself to me. Thank you for your diligent research. It is great to have an European resource contributing to these discussions.

[Vlim]

Ron, thanks

It's actually quite simple: If the pistols were covered by the cartel agreement, DWM would not have been enabled, or allowed, to supply luger pistols to Bulgaria, at least not without consent from Steyr-Mannlicher, in the pre-1914 era.

[LugerVern]

The 1908-1909 time frame is correct, but what that means to us is still up in the air. It helps Albert's case but doesn't hurt the other theories. We have a very very small number of guns that look OK, and many that are obvious fakes.

We know that DWM made very small contracts as small as 300 guns, so a small number of original examples would not be unusual , also both the Russians and Bulgarians are known to make use of items for a long time and a refinished gun is both possible and expected in both cases. So this might explain some of the " fakes" we love to point out.

So here we sit, we haven't found any thing new in a year or so and the best have been at it pretty hard ( Albert, Ed, Ron)

This is a great gun to study in detail.
I honestly like the fact that I have not been able to prove them all fake, even though there are times I think they are.
Every hobby needs such an example, it would be boring otherwise.

Vern

[Norme]

So here we sit, we haven't found any thing new in a year or so and the best have been at it pretty hard ( Albert, Ed, Ron)

Hi Vern, Thats not quite true. Since this issue was last thrashed out , the new Görtz/Sturgess book has been published. Dr Sturgess throws his not inconsiderable weight on the side of the Russian commercial theory. I know that this will not impress Albert, but I think it does tilt the scales. Best regards, Norm

[Imperial Arms]

Originally Posted by Norme

Hi Albert, I have a new theory. Tsar Ferdinand cancelled a contract with DWM because of the incident described below (thank you Wikipedia). DWM, stuck with several hundred partially finished Bulgarian Lugers, applied the now famous Mosin-Nagant chamber decoration, and offered them for sale on the Russian civilian market. Rather a neat theory, don't you think? Best regards, Norm


Ferdinand was known for being quite a character. On a visit to German Emperor Wilhelm II, his second cousin once removed, in 1909, Ferdinand was leaning out of a window of the New Palace in Potsdam when the Emperor came up behind him and slapped him on the bottom. Ferdinand was affronted by the gesture and the Emperor apologised. Ferdinand however exacted his revenge by awarding a valuable arms contract he had intended to give to the Krupp's factory in Essen to French arms manufacturer Schneider-Cruseot.[9]

Hi Norm,

Your theory might be a neat story, but it is a very long shot. I doubt that DWM would sell pistols destined for the Russian civilian market (via a Russian dealer) which were previously for sale to a foreign country. Do not forget that the introduction of the New Model in 9 mm caliber was the first time that Bulgaria received this pistol directly from DWM. If any part of your theory was to be considered, usually it would be a government who would make such a decision in regards to 'surplus' firearms, such as the case with the M1900 Test trial Lugers being sold to Bannerman.

To the best of my knowledge, the Krupp factory in Essen sold cannons and not firearms. I guess that if the Kaiser had also squeezed his arse, DWM could have lost this small purchase of pistols!

Don't touch me
Albert

[Imperial Arms]

Originally Posted by Edward Tinker

Albert, I just don't understand how your bringing up Sturgess in so many of your postings helps your theories? I don't know the man, never met him and never met you.

The excuse for not finishing your book is that you are gathering together data is an old, lame excuse and one I have seen numerous times after the person has died and the family wonders what to do with this semi-finished manuscript. You have been working on this book for what, 5 years? 10 or is it 15 years? What are you waiting for?

I don't believe some of your theories because you don't provide concrete paperwork or provide documentation from other guns. I have never said that your theories could not be correct, but simply that you base it on conjecture, just as the present theories are based.

If the crossed rifles were a marketing ploy, just as the american eagle was, then that hurts the theory that DWM and the gov'ts were involved in the reason behind the crossed rifles. If you go on the assumption that Bulgaria / Russia, they didn't ask, just as the US gov't didn't ask for the crest on the chamber, as no precise measurements were taken, given or asked for. If you take that into consideration, then the crossed rifles is just a marketing ploy for a 'commercial' market and not some gov't request.

Do you have any idea how many 'geladen' and Geischert marked lugers came to america? Now why would they have new made lugers come to america that had the german language instead of in english? Shouldn't all new made lugers instead have SAFE and Loaded on them? Perhaps because they had a lot more frames and extractors already marked, just as they already had bulgarian extractors marked. DWM simply didn't care, DWM made lots of mistakes or omissions, sales were more important than some precise wording for commercially sold guns to Russia.

Edward,

I mention Geoff in a number of my comments because there are people like you who consider him so important in the collectors society when a number of people do not know what caused his reputation to tumble. His name and reputation has some stains like Ralph which is not as revealing because less is known about Geoff than compared to Ralph. He tries to use his 'holy' position and pompous English background to create a special image of himself, and he prefers to only exposes himself through his various publications which contain a number of errors. He will never admit that he is wrong, so he deserves the attacks that he receives. It seems that the size of his collection which he mainly acquired in one large sweep from Henk Visser in the early 1990's is what impresses collectors, but they should also learn what other rubbish has gone though his hands before saying 'Wow'. If it was not for his wealth and his 'proper' English attitude, I wonder what he would stand for in different times and circumstances?

In regards to my manuscript on the Mauser C96 which I have been working on for about 15 years, you do not need to worry about it never being made into a book - I am still young and in good health, unless your health is going in the opposite direction. I intend to make my book on the Mauser C96 a 'bible' on the subject and I have access to all the finest pieces in the world including to the first two Spur Hammer prototypes. I have learned from various experts how to properly present information based on sound historical facts and traditions, and not make similar errors like on the 'M1906 Russian Luger' and the 'Swiss-Anglo B/L pistols'.

When concrete information is not available, of course, conjecture is all that remains - As thet they say, believe what you want. However, in the case of the 'M1906 Russian Luger' theory, what can the critics provide? NOTHING - Just any excuse or weak opinion to keep it alive.

Considering the the great length of this topic being debated, I am surprised how the critics do not yet understand about the characteristics and differences of a contract and a commercial pistol. Usually, contract pistols need to be made under specific and/or strict guidelines provided by a foreign government. You tell me why the M1906 Russian Contract Luger has these strange markings that has confused collectors for decades? Is this 'curve ball' suppose to happen with a contract Luger (or a Mauser C96 pistol)? How come we do not see these odd occurences with the Portugese Lugers delivered around the same time frame? Just simply learn that the crossed rifles likely mean an infantry connection just like an anchor means navy. Now, you figure out some kind of connection between the infantry emblem on the chamber and the Russian Empire. I believe that the Tsar of Bulgaria being an infantry leader in his nation carries more weight than any empty 'Russian theory'. If you say the DWM made mistakes and omissions, they probably occurred with pistols sold in different commercial markets, but I have yet heard of a serious careless mistake dealing with a foreign contract. And do not forget about that M1902 Russian Luger Carbine with the same (contract) crossed rifles on the chamber!

Albert

[Edward Tinker]

You are so immersed in your own world that you have no idea?

I do not know Sturgess and do not care that you dislike him. But I have tried to impress upon you that you need to NOT be a jerk to anyone, and BTW that includes me. As a moderator I feel it is my duty to keep things on an even keel, but you seem to think that means that I don't like you and like Sturgess. The point is sport, that I don't care or not care about either of you (no offense meant), however, since you make snide comments about me and to me..... It makes it hard to respect you. Leave it be and remember I will enforce the rules; one is listen to the moderators and treat others with respect.

Oh, BTW, I could care less about your book and how exciting that you feel it will be the 'bible' of brooms. yawnnnnnn

sorry, but disparaging other authors, who have put in untold hours on research is disrespectful.


Ed

Originally Posted by Imperial Arms

Edward,

I mention Geoff in a number of my comments because there are people like you who consider him so important in the collectors society when a number of people do not know what caused his reputation to tumble. His name and repuation has some stains like Ralph which is not as revealing because less is known about Geoff than compared to Ralph. He tries to use his 'holy' position and pompous English background to create a special image of himself, and he preferes to only exposes himself through his various publications which contain a number of errors. He will never admit that he is wrong, so he deserves the attacks that he receives. It seems that the size of his collection which he mainly acquired in one large sweep from Henk Visser in the early 1990's is what impresses collectors, but they should also learn what other rubbish has gone though his hands before saying 'Wow'. If it was not for his wealth and his 'proper' English attitude, I wonder what he would stand for in different times and circumstances?

In regards to my manuscript on the Mauser C96 which I have been working on for about 15 years, you do not need to worry about it never being made into a book - I am still young and in good health, unless your health is going in the opposite direction. I intend to make my book on the Mauser C96 a 'bible' on the subject and I have access to all the finest pieces in the world including to the first two Spur Hammer prototypes. I have learned from various experts how to properly present information based on sound historical facts and traditions, and not make similar errors like on the 'M1906 Russian Luger' and the 'Swiss-Anglo B/L pistols'.

When concrete information is not available, of course, conjecture is all that remains - As thet they say, believe what you want. However, in the case of the 'M1906 Russian Luger' theory, what can the critics provide? NOTHING - Just any excuse or weak opinion to keep it alive.

Considering the the great length of this topic being debated, I am surprised how the critics do not yet understand about the characteristics and differences of a contract and a commercial pistol. Usually, contract pistols need to be made under specific and/or strict guidelines provided by a foreign government. You tell me why the M1906 Russian Contract Luger has these strange markings that has confused collectors for decades? Is this 'curve ball' suppose to happen with a contract Luger (or a Mauser C96 pistol)? How come we do not see these odd occurences with the Portugese Lugers delivered around the same time frame? Just simply learn that the crossed rifles likely mean an infantry connection just like an anchor means navy. Now, you figure out some kind of connection between the infantry emblem on the chamber and the Russian Empire. I believe that the Tsar of Bulgaria being an infantry leader in his nation carries more weight than any empty 'Russian theory'. If you say the DWM made mistakes and omissions, they probably occurred with pistols sold in different commercial markets, but I have yet heard of a serious careless mistake dealing with a foreign contract. And do not forget about that M1902 Russian Luger Carbine with the same (contract) crossed rifles on the chamber!

Albert

[Edward Tinker]

Originally Posted by Imperial Arms

Hi Norm,

Your theory might be a neat story, but it is a very long shot. I doubt that DWM would sell pistols destined for the Russian civilian market (via a Russian dealer) which were previously for sale to a foreign country.

In ref to your comments above; what makes you feel this was a Bulgarian that went to Russia? That falls in line with your theory. Your theory is not proven, so you can't say that the russian commercial theory is wrong, when it would have to rely on your theory being correct, which is not proven?

[Imperial Arms]

Originally Posted by Edward Tinker

In ref to your comments above; what makes you feel this was a Bulgarian that went to Russia? That falls in line with your theory. Your theory is not proven, so you can't say that the russian commercial theory is wrong, when it would have to rely on your theory being correct, which is not proven?

Edward, you do not seem to understand my response to Norm's comment. I do not see any reason why the DWM factory would decide to sell (Bulgarian) Luger pistols with CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS to a Russian dealer for sales on the commercial market, even if these pistols were assumed to be surplus military firearms. If a Russian buyer would ask what is the reason/purpose of these obscure markings, what would you expect the Russian dealer to say? "Sorry, those Germans f***ed up and decided to sell us these (Bulgarian) pistols as rejects. Why not just offer a standard commercial Luger - which is exactly described in a Russian dealers catalog from 1906 that I have in my archive, the pistol being a M1900 in caliber 7,65 mm. Could this listing in the catalog be the sale/delivery of the M1900 Russian Lugers with the crossed rifles on the chamber? By the way, notice the M1902 carbine with crossed rifles on the chamber!!

Obviously, it is difficult for some collectors to rationalize without fully understanding the culture and traditions of Imperial Germany. Without being racist, Americans will continue to think like Americans and often go along with 'knee-jerk' reactions. The American mentality in regards to the firearms industry is quite different from the German way in the past and the present.

Albert

[Edward Tinker]

Albert you aren't German so unsure why you say things like that?

I guess I need to re-read your posts and figure out why you think this way about the Bulgarians (seriously)

Your style of writing is many times difficult to read and figure out, because you put in a lot of extraneous info about 'certain people', about americans, about how people don't get it etc. Reminds me of a couple of lawyer friends that I know, they have been taught their entire lives that if you can say it in 2 paragraphs, then make sure you say it in 6 paragraphs.

[Ron Wood]

Albert is of German lineage. But then, so am I .

[Edward Tinker]

Sure, so are many folks here, I have my great-grandfathers German Military Discharge paperwork from the late 1800's

That is what I mean Ron, Albert makes these "American" comments and he speaks German probably only a bit better than I do