Those Mysterious Forty-fives

Steve D · 08-03-2012, 10:11 PM

Still consider myself a new-comer to the Luger fraternity, am fascinated by the .45s and would like to ask a few questions of the experts:

1. Is the current thinking / research that the Aberman gun provenance is genuine? As a beginning student, I think it is highly suspect. I know it is not now believed to be the elusive number 2 trials pistol - first and foremost due to the fact that it is not the correct caliber, and second that there is a host of physical differences between it and the archive photo of the number one gun.

Most authors report a provenance of the Aberman gun back to the Springfield Armory from whom it was supposedly purchased in 1913. But, why would the Springfield Armory have this gun in the first place? The Aberman gun was either manufactured for the .45 ACP, or re-barreled for the cartridge after the trials were over and forgotten. It seems logical to me that if there was a second trials pistol, a dejected and defeated Luger would have simply stuffed it in his bag after the trials and returned to Germany, thus ending any involvement of the US Armory in the .45 Luger.

2. Is there any documented provenance of the second, believed-to-be-genuine .45, the so-called "Norton" gun? It seems logical that if the DWM Tool Room made a handful of .45s, that a survivor or two could migrate to the US, but I would like to know how far back the documented history of this gun goes? When and why did it get to Canada?

3. Do modern researchers believe there are any others out there, hidden by elusive collectors?

To me, these two .45s certainly remain some of the most mysterious guns ever. I wonder if in Luger's wildest imagination, he could have thought that the .45s would evoke such fascination by students 100 years after the fact.

Edward Tinker · 08-03-2012, 10:22 PM

In Central Powers it is discussed at length, and on Jan's forum, there was a huge discussion before the book came out.

Not sure where you felt that the 45 was rebarreled and chambered to 45 / this can easily happen from 7.65mm to 9mm but the 45 requires a bigger gun.

The pictured 45 has a different grip angle than the two surviving 45's.

You can see the Norton at the Shreveport, LA museum. The Aberman I can't remember who has it now, a private collector, but not sure where it went after it was sold and then not sold.

I personally have always believed that if they were making up guns to be used at trial, that 3-5 would have been made; seems logical that 3 would be here in the USA and 1 or 2 left in Germany.

There is much speculation that others exist, but these are generally just wild rumours or modified 9mms.

Ed

drbuster · 08-03-2012, 10:38 PM

Ed, you just scratch the surface. One has to mention the two different grip angles on the original prototype and later to be production gun that never materialized. A good resource to read is the last series of Charles Kenyon's Lugers at Random column in the now defunct Gun Report. Also, required reading on this subject should be pages 457-467 of the Pistole Parabellum by Gortz and Sturgess (the first edition). I think that most of Steve D.'s questions would be answered by these references. Also, the Aberman .45 luger rests in deep seclusion in the safe of a brewery magnate in Southern California after its acquisition at a recent Greg Martin auction.

Edward Tinker · 08-04-2012, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drbuster

Ed, you just scratch the surface. ....

yes, others are welcome to give their opinion,,,

I commented on the different angles of the grips?

alvin · 08-04-2012, 04:39 AM

My knowledge on .45 Luger is limited to the first 3 posts of this topic. Following is wild thinking .

Different angles of the grips could be valid: for test gun, German most likely built and submitted a few samples with minor difference in configuration.... "Each one has plus and minus, and you pick up the one that fits you" type of theory. On GMA catalog, the gun is in super condition and does not look like that it went through a very tough testing process. That could be valid as well.... like a team player in Olympics Games does not have to compete in the actual game as a backup member, he/she could still win a medal by sitting there when the team wins. Even the team loses, he/she still officially joined the Game of year xxxx, as a member of a team. Nothing wrong with that. GMA Luger might be in the similar situation.

Steve D · 08-04-2012, 01:26 PM

The "Aberman" gun in its present condition could not have been associated with the 1907 trials. It is chambered for the .45 ACP round, while the trials pistol was chambered for the .45 M1906 round (1mm longer than the .45 ACP). Additionally, the Aberman gun does not have the "stepped chamber" - patented by Luger - of the Number 1 trials gun. If it was indeed a supplied trials gun, it must have been re-barreled at some later date.
Gortz and Sturgess report that the magazine for the Aberman gun fits the slightly longer M1906 round which lends credence that maybe it was a trials pistol later re-barreled for the standardized M1911 round, possibly so that it could be fired as a serviceable pistol.
The "Norton" gun exhibits commercial German post-1912 proofs. It was probably re-barreled for the .45 ACP and then sold commercially as factory odds and ends. (Gortz and Sturgess report the discovery of several non-proofed .45 barrels after WWII). The Aberman gun is not proofed, which leads me to believe that it may have been re-barreled (or possibly simply re-chambered?) in the US after it was sold by the Springfield Armory in 1913 according to its provenance.
It might be interesting to conduct a microscopic examination of the fudicial mark on the barrel/receiver of this pistol to see if their is any indication that the barrel has ever been removed.

Mike Jones · 08-04-2012, 01:32 PM

Steve,

"first and foremost due to the fact that it is not the correct caliber"

Can you point me in the direction for documentation of this statement? Must say its the 1st time I have heard this.

Regards,
Mike

Steve D · 08-04-2012, 02:21 PM

Mike - I referenced Gortz and Sturgess, Vol. 1, pp 457 - 467. Quoting from P. 461, "If either or both of the surviving examples of the Model 1907 Parabellum had been used for the US trials or as development models, both must have been re-barreled, since they both now have chambers, without the Kropfungsliderung step, cut for the US standard 1911 (.45 ACP) cartridge and not the 1906 cartridge used in the trials, which is 1mm longer."

That said, Stills (Central Powers Pistols) lists the caliber of the known (only from a photograph) trials gun as .45 ACP (Table 1h, page 7). Wikipedia also says that the 1907 trials utilized the new Browning-designed .45 ACP and makes no mention of an earlier, longer .45 M1906 round.

Keep in mind I consider myself a beginner. I deferred to Gortz and Sturgess as the final authority as to what round the 1907 US trials actually utilized, but there may be some controversy there. They do show a photograph (page 460) of several Parabellum barrels discovered following WWII, at least one of which is chambered for the longer .45 M1906 cartridge. Maybe more research needs to be done on origin and use of that round.

As a side note to picking and choosing researchers - imagine my dejection when Gortz and Sturgess said in the same three volume set that Mauser NEVER used brown grips, as I have a beautiful 1940 42 code Mauser with brown Kreighoff grips! But then Hallock and Van de Kant (The Mauser Parabellum) come along and report brown grips in my same serial number range! So I guess I'll go with the latter researcher on that one!

Edward Tinker · 08-04-2012, 03:36 PM

Steve, if the guns are of this other round, couldn't a person shoot 45 acp through these guns, but the other cartridge you state could not be shot out of a 1911?

Steve D · 08-04-2012, 08:57 PM

Edward - I'm not a gunsmith, but I would guess, no. It's not like shooting .22 shorts in a Long Rifle chamber. The .22 is a rim fire which headspaces on the rim, while the .45 is a rimless cartridge which headspaces on the entire case. A shorter cartridge (.45 ACP) would enter the firing chamber of the .45 M1906 too far as the headspace would be too long and would probably not allow the extractor to to grab on to the rim to pull it out as the gun recoils.

sheepherder · 08-04-2012, 10:17 PM

Interesting...I pulled out POTW and looked up developement of the 45 caliber auto - This is a quote -

Model 1905 .45 Automatic

"...The 45 rimless round, which was developed for the new pistol, turned out to be less powerful than was really needed, and this was to lead to the .45ACP cartridge, though this round was still some years off when the 'Model 1905' appeared..."

I looked through HMOCC and could not find any reference to the .45 rimless round...But this reference in POTW does lend credence to an earlier .45 rimless cartridge...

Here's an Internet site with a 'history' of the .45 Auto Cartridge -

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/histor...ge_History.htm

One interesting comment in one of the .45 cartridge sites was that the .45 ACP round was developed from a cut-down 30-03 case (not 30-06)...I had never heard of that round...(But I've read about it now)...

Interestingly [to me], I made 44 Automag cartridges out of commercial 30-06/.308 Remington brass back in the 80's or so; cut to length and seating the 44 bullet...I would hazard a WAG that the M1906 .45 cartridge was made the same way (either from a 30-03 case or the then-new 30-06)...(It is also possible to make a .45 ACP cartridge by cutting down a 30-06/.308 case the same way)...

In this thread, Mike Irwin states -

The .30-06 cartridge was created by shortening the neck of the .30-03 by .07". No other changes were made to the brass itself.

It seems the 30-03 [cartridge & chambering] was only used in military rifles in those three years [1903 - 1906], when the 30-03 chambered rifles were recalled and the barrels were shortened (at the breech) and the chambers re-cut...for the 30-06...

Fascinating stuff...

Lugerdoc · 08-05-2012, 10:08 AM

Steve D, I would bet that the brown KH grips on Mauser or DWM lugers, were field armour's replacements. Long ago, I picked up a GI bring back WW1 DWM with the brown plastic KH grips. Most likely installed from a LW spare parts kit. Tom

sheepherder · 08-05-2012, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve D

...It is chambered for the .45 ACP round, while the trials pistol was chambered for the .45 M1906 round (1mm longer than the .45 ACP)...

Steve, do you have the reference for the M1906 .45 round that gives dimensions and/or where it came from/what it was developed from??? Inquiring minds [mine!] would like to know...

alanint · 08-05-2012, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lugerdoc

Steve D, I would bet that the brown KH grips on Mauser or DWM lugers, were field armour's replacements. Long ago, I picked up a GI bring back WW1 DWM with the brown plastic KH grips. Most likely installed from a LW spare parts kit. Tom

I posted an S/42 with HK grips some time ago and George Andreson as well as Jan Still confirmed that they were a legitimate Mauser variation, as the grips appear in only a very narrow serial range.

Steve D · 08-05-2012, 03:40 PM

Postino - The web site you posted, http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/histor...ge_History.htm has a table comparing the dimensions of the various precursors to the .45 ACP. Excellent write up on the history of the .45 round. It shows once and for all that the 1907 field trials in which the .45 Luger competed did not utilize the .45 ACP round. If the Aberman .45 Luger can be proven to have been sold by the Springfield Armory in 1913 and was indeed a pistol brought to the trial by Luger, it must have been re-barreled either before or after it was sold and four to five years after the trials were complete.

Lugerdoc - Alas, and - sigh - you may be right on the brown grips. Although my 42 Code falls in the correct serial number range where approx. 3% of the production pistols reportedly received brown grips, the toggle pin is nu-numbered and although the barrel shows the correct serial number and gauge mark, a close look at the index mark indicates that it may be a replacement. Interestingly, a very close examination of the front sight fudicial mark shows that the blade has been moved ever so slightly. I doubt that anyone other than the Mauser factory or a field armorer would have sighted in the weapon that precisely, so maybe the gun is a legitimate war-time field or factory repair. On the other hand, maybe just a hodgepodge of parts.

Would a field-replaced barrel at an armory level have been marked with the pistol SN and gauge marks?

Norme · 08-05-2012, 04:13 PM

Pardon my ignorance, Steve, but what is a fudicial mark? Are you perhaps talking about a fiducial mark? I should tell you that neither term is commonly used in reference to firearms. Regards, Norm

sheepherder · 08-05-2012, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve D

Postino - The web site you posted, http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/histor...ge_History.htm has a table comparing the dimensions of the various precursors to the .45 ACP.

Yes it does, and the dimensions don't match your statement -

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve D

It is chambered for the .45 ACP round, while the trials pistol was chambered for the .45 M1906 round (1mm longer than the .45 ACP).

1mm longer than the .45 ACP would be .938" (using .898" as case length for the .45 ACP) which is not the same as the .918" shown in the table...

...Which is why I asked...I don't believe everything I read on the Internet (much less in Wikipedia) unless I see it multiple times and it is discussed in length...

Which is not to imply that I don't believe what you've written...I'd just like to see/know where you got it from...

(For instance, you may have read it in COTW - a book which I don't have...and I would believe that over the Internet site "45 Auto Cartridge History"...)

Edward Tinker · 08-05-2012, 05:44 PM

Quote:

.... It shows once and for all that the 1907 field trials in which the .45 Luger competed did not utilize the .45 ACP round. ....

I sure don't agree with this statement; it may be convincing but I don't think many folks have held the .45's in their hands, let alone done measurements (except Mike Krause who made / makes 45 Lugers that were measured from the Aberman). I just don't think things are so B&W, but I will pull out my books and re-read those sections plus Meadows.

And from wikipedia

1mm is very small, 1.0 mm — 0.03937 inches or 5/127

And the brown grips were interspersed throughout the ranges, if armorer replacement, they could have been put on whatever was in service at the time, that means a WW1 gun could have them on it, and technically be correct, you would just never know unless a bring-back from someone you knew.

Steve D · 08-05-2012, 06:30 PM

Norm - My spelling error. Gortz and Sturgess in their three volume reference work refer to the mark struck across the underside of the assembled barrel and receiver as a "fiducial mark". Maybe "index mark" is a more commonly used term?

Postino - Checking the chart, you are right. The M1906 case is 0.56 mm longer than the .45 ACP case. I was, again quoting Gortz and Sturgess (Vol. 3, p. 459) who reported the difference as 1 mm.

nukem556 · 08-05-2012, 07:40 PM

It just seems very odd that DWM or anyone else would rebarrel 2 or 3 or 4 pistols for the .45acp round...machining a couple new barrels for sample pistols just to recompense a few dollars, at a time when DWM had many other irons in the fire?

And for what it's worth, I'd bet a Luger that indeed had a 1906 chamber would fire standard .45ACP ammo fine..... the diference would only be about .022, and I've got many times fired .45 cases that vary as much as .012 from each other

08-03-2012, 10:11 PM	#1
Steve D User Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 23 Thanks: 7 Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts	Those Mysterious Forty-fives Still consider myself a new-comer to the Luger fraternity, am fascinated by the .45s and would like to ask a few questions of the experts: 1. Is the current thinking / research that the Aberman gun provenance is genuine? As a beginning student, I think it is highly suspect. I know it is not now believed to be the elusive number 2 trials pistol - first and foremost due to the fact that it is not the correct caliber, and second that there is a host of physical differences between it and the archive photo of the number one gun. Most authors report a provenance of the Aberman gun back to the Springfield Armory from whom it was supposedly purchased in 1913. But, why would the Springfield Armory have this gun in the first place? The Aberman gun was either manufactured for the .45 ACP, or re-barreled for the cartridge after the trials were over and forgotten. It seems logical to me that if there was a second trials pistol, a dejected and defeated Luger would have simply stuffed it in his bag after the trials and returned to Germany, thus ending any involvement of the US Armory in the .45 Luger. 2. Is there any documented provenance of the second, believed-to-be-genuine .45, the so-called "Norton" gun? It seems logical that if the DWM Tool Room made a handful of .45s, that a survivor or two could migrate to the US, but I would like to know how far back the documented history of this gun goes? When and why did it get to Canada? 3. Do modern researchers believe there are any others out there, hidden by elusive collectors? To me, these two .45s certainly remain some of the most mysterious guns ever. I wonder if in Luger's wildest imagination, he could have thought that the .45s would evoke such fascination by students 100 years after the fact.

08-03-2012, 10:22 PM	#2
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,909 Thanks: 1,986 Thanked 4,500 Times in 2,076 Posts	In Central Powers it is discussed at length, and on Jan's forum, there was a huge discussion before the book came out. Not sure where you felt that the 45 was rebarreled and chambered to 45 / this can easily happen from 7.65mm to 9mm but the 45 requires a bigger gun. The pictured 45 has a different grip angle than the two surviving 45's. You can see the Norton at the Shreveport, LA museum. The Aberman I can't remember who has it now, a private collector, but not sure where it went after it was sold and then not sold. I personally have always believed that if they were making up guns to be used at trial, that 3-5 would have been made; seems logical that 3 would be here in the USA and 1 or 2 left in Germany. There is much speculation that others exist, but these are generally just wild rumours or modified 9mms. Ed __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV

08-04-2012, 04:39 AM	#5
alvin User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: US Posts: 3,843 Thanks: 132 Thanked 729 Times in 438 Posts	My knowledge on .45 Luger is limited to the first 3 posts of this topic. Following is wild thinking . Different angles of the grips could be valid: for test gun, German most likely built and submitted a few samples with minor difference in configuration.... "Each one has plus and minus, and you pick up the one that fits you" type of theory. On GMA catalog, the gun is in super condition and does not look like that it went through a very tough testing process. That could be valid as well.... like a team player in Olympics Games does not have to compete in the actual game as a backup member, he/she could still win a medal by sitting there when the team wins. Even the team loses, he/she still officially joined the Game of year xxxx, as a member of a team. Nothing wrong with that. GMA Luger might be in the similar situation. Attached Thumbnails

08-04-2012, 10:17 PM	#11
sheepherder Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: ...on the 'ol Erie Canal... Posts: 8,181 Thanks: 1,398 Thanked 4,438 Times in 2,327 Posts	Interesting...I pulled out POTW and looked up developement of the 45 caliber auto - This is a quote - Model 1905 .45 Automatic "...The 45 rimless round, which was developed for the new pistol, turned out to be less powerful than was really needed, and this was to lead to the .45ACP cartridge, though this round was still some years off when the 'Model 1905' appeared..." I looked through HMOCC and could not find any reference to the .45 rimless round...But this reference in POTW does lend credence to an earlier .45 rimless cartridge... Here's an Internet site with a 'history' of the .45 Auto Cartridge - http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/histor...ge_History.htm One interesting comment in one of the .45 cartridge sites was that the .45 ACP round was developed from a cut-down 30-03 case (not 30-06)...I had never heard of that round...(But I've read about it now)... Interestingly [to me], I made 44 Automag cartridges out of commercial 30-06/.308 Remington brass back in the 80's or so; cut to length and seating the 44 bullet...I would hazard a WAG that the M1906 .45 cartridge was made the same way (either from a 30-03 case or the then-new 30-06)...(It is also possible to make a .45 ACP cartridge by cutting down a 30-06/.308 case the same way)... In this thread, Mike Irwin states - The .30-06 cartridge was created by shortening the neck of the .30-03 by .07". No other changes were made to the brass itself. It seems the 30-03 [cartridge & chambering] was only used in military rifles in those three years [1903 - 1906], when the 30-03 chambered rifles were recalled and the barrels were shortened (at the breech) and the chambers re-cut...for the 30-06... Fascinating stuff... __________________ I like my coffee the way I like my women... ...Cold and bitter... Last edited by sheepherder; 08-05-2012 at 12:00 PM.

08-05-2012, 10:08 AM	#12
Lugerdoc Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: POB 398 St.Charles,MO. 63302 Posts: 5,089 Thanks: 6 Thanked 736 Times in 483 Posts	Steve D, I would bet that the brown KH grips on Mauser or DWM lugers, were field armour's replacements. Long ago, I picked up a GI bring back WW1 DWM with the brown plastic KH grips. Most likely installed from a LW spare parts kit. Tom __________________ Tom Heller POB 398 ST.Charles, MO. 63302 Tel 636-447-3006 lugerdoc@charter.net

08-03-2012, 10:38 PM	#3
drbuster User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Mateo, California Posts: 1,432 Thanks: 2 Thanked 71 Times in 56 Posts	Ed, you just scratch the surface. One has to mention the two different grip angles on the original prototype and later to be production gun that never materialized. A good resource to read is the last series of Charles Kenyon's Lugers at Random column in the now defunct Gun Report. Also, required reading on this subject should be pages 457-467 of the Pistole Parabellum by Gortz and Sturgess (the first edition). I think that most of Steve D.'s questions would be answered by these references. Also, the Aberman .45 luger rests in deep seclusion in the safe of a brewery magnate in Southern California after its acquisition at a recent Greg Martin auction.

08-04-2012, 01:26 PM	#6
Steve D User Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 23 Thanks: 7 Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts	The "Aberman" gun in its present condition could not have been associated with the 1907 trials. It is chambered for the .45 ACP round, while the trials pistol was chambered for the .45 M1906 round (1mm longer than the .45 ACP). Additionally, the Aberman gun does not have the "stepped chamber" - patented by Luger - of the Number 1 trials gun. If it was indeed a supplied trials gun, it must have been re-barreled at some later date. Gortz and Sturgess report that the magazine for the Aberman gun fits the slightly longer M1906 round which lends credence that maybe it was a trials pistol later re-barreled for the standardized M1911 round, possibly so that it could be fired as a serviceable pistol. The "Norton" gun exhibits commercial German post-1912 proofs. It was probably re-barreled for the .45 ACP and then sold commercially as factory odds and ends. (Gortz and Sturgess report the discovery of several non-proofed .45 barrels after WWII). The Aberman gun is not proofed, which leads me to believe that it may have been re-barreled (or possibly simply re-chambered?) in the US after it was sold by the Springfield Armory in 1913 according to its provenance. It might be interesting to conduct a microscopic examination of the fudicial mark on the barrel/receiver of this pistol to see if their is any indication that the barrel has ever been removed.

08-04-2012, 01:32 PM	#7
Mike Jones User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Torrance, Calif. Posts: 67 Thanks: 10 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Steve, "first and foremost due to the fact that it is not the correct caliber" Can you point me in the direction for documentation of this statement? Must say its the 1st time I have heard this. Regards, Mike

08-04-2012, 02:21 PM	#8
Steve D User Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 23 Thanks: 7 Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts	Mike - I referenced Gortz and Sturgess, Vol. 1, pp 457 - 467. Quoting from P. 461, "If either or both of the surviving examples of the Model 1907 Parabellum had been used for the US trials or as development models, both must have been re-barreled, since they both now have chambers, without the Kropfungsliderung step, cut for the US standard 1911 (.45 ACP) cartridge and not the 1906 cartridge used in the trials, which is 1mm longer." That said, Stills (Central Powers Pistols) lists the caliber of the known (only from a photograph) trials gun as .45 ACP (Table 1h, page 7). Wikipedia also says that the 1907 trials utilized the new Browning-designed .45 ACP and makes no mention of an earlier, longer .45 M1906 round. Keep in mind I consider myself a beginner. I deferred to Gortz and Sturgess as the final authority as to what round the 1907 US trials actually utilized, but there may be some controversy there. They do show a photograph (page 460) of several Parabellum barrels discovered following WWII, at least one of which is chambered for the longer .45 M1906 cartridge. Maybe more research needs to be done on origin and use of that round. As a side note to picking and choosing researchers - imagine my dejection when Gortz and Sturgess said in the same three volume set that Mauser NEVER used brown grips, as I have a beautiful 1940 42 code Mauser with brown Kreighoff grips! But then Hallock and Van de Kant (The Mauser Parabellum) come along and report brown grips in my same serial number range! So I guess I'll go with the latter researcher on that one!

08-04-2012, 03:36 PM	#9
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,909 Thanks: 1,986 Thanked 4,500 Times in 2,076 Posts	Steve, if the guns are of this other round, couldn't a person shoot 45 acp through these guns, but the other cartridge you state could not be shot out of a 1911?

08-04-2012, 08:57 PM	#10
Steve D User Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 23 Thanks: 7 Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts	Edward - I'm not a gunsmith, but I would guess, no. It's not like shooting .22 shorts in a Long Rifle chamber. The .22 is a rim fire which headspaces on the rim, while the .45 is a rimless cartridge which headspaces on the entire case. A shorter cartridge (.45 ACP) would enter the firing chamber of the .45 M1906 too far as the headspace would be too long and would probably not allow the extractor to to grab on to the rim to pull it out as the gun recoils.

08-05-2012, 03:40 PM	#15
Steve D User Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 23 Thanks: 7 Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts	Postino - The web site you posted, http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/histor...ge_History.htm has a table comparing the dimensions of the various precursors to the .45 ACP. Excellent write up on the history of the .45 round. It shows once and for all that the 1907 field trials in which the .45 Luger competed did not utilize the .45 ACP round. If the Aberman .45 Luger can be proven to have been sold by the Springfield Armory in 1913 and was indeed a pistol brought to the trial by Luger, it must have been re-barreled either before or after it was sold and four to five years after the trials were complete. Lugerdoc - Alas, and - sigh - you may be right on the brown grips. Although my 42 Code falls in the correct serial number range where approx. 3% of the production pistols reportedly received brown grips, the toggle pin is nu-numbered and although the barrel shows the correct serial number and gauge mark, a close look at the index mark indicates that it may be a replacement. Interestingly, a very close examination of the front sight fudicial mark shows that the blade has been moved ever so slightly. I doubt that anyone other than the Mauser factory or a field armorer would have sighted in the weapon that precisely, so maybe the gun is a legitimate war-time field or factory repair. On the other hand, maybe just a hodgepodge of parts. Would a field-replaced barrel at an armory level have been marked with the pistol SN and gauge marks?

08-05-2012, 04:13 PM	#16
Norme Always A Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,414 Thanks: 224 Thanked 2,591 Times in 930 Posts	Pardon my ignorance, Steve, but what is a fudicial mark? Are you perhaps talking about a fiducial mark? I should tell you that neither term is commonly used in reference to firearms. Regards, Norm

08-05-2012, 06:30 PM	#19
Steve D User Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 23 Thanks: 7 Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts	Norm - My spelling error. Gortz and Sturgess in their three volume reference work refer to the mark struck across the underside of the assembled barrel and receiver as a "fiducial mark". Maybe "index mark" is a more commonly used term? Postino - Checking the chart, you are right. The M1906 case is 0.56 mm longer than the .45 ACP case. I was, again quoting Gortz and Sturgess (Vol. 3, p. 459) who reported the difference as 1 mm.

08-05-2012, 07:40 PM	#20
nukem556 User Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Irmo, SC Posts: 625 Thanks: 35 Thanked 168 Times in 107 Posts	It just seems very odd that DWM or anyone else would rebarrel 2 or 3 or 4 pistols for the .45acp round...machining a couple new barrels for sample pistols just to recompense a few dollars, at a time when DWM had many other irons in the fire? And for what it's worth, I'd bet a Luger that indeed had a 1906 chamber would fire standard .45ACP ammo fine..... the diference would only be about .022, and I've got many times fired .45 cases that vary as much as .012 from each other