1897 Borchardt U.S. Military Test Piece

[drbuster]

Check out:
http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/Vie...?Item=10326334

This Borchardt, in immaculate condition, purports to be a U.S. Cavalry "test piece", with what appears to be a special Rock Island Arsenal holster stock. Did Michael Reese mention this "test piece". Is this generally known to have been tested by the U.S. Army BEFORE the 1900 test pieces?

[drbuster]

Try:http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=10326334

[FileaPhal]

Better yet, just click here:

http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/Vie...?Item=10326334

[ViggoG]

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
Call It Anything That comes To Mind !!!!
It is ONE BEAUTIFUL OLD WEAPON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sure wish it were mine !!!!!!!!!!
<img border="0" alt="[jumper]" title="" src="graemlins/jumper.gif" /> ViggoG <img border="0" alt="[jumper]" title="" src="graemlins/jumper.gif" />

[Jim Keenan]

FWIW, it looks "right" to me as does the holster.

Very nice and I envy the guy who can afford it.

Jim

[Brew_Ha_Ha]

Just think what has been thrown away, and what is in people's attics and basements. I saw a website showing ads from a 1960's military surplus magazine, 59 bucks for a g43, p38's for under 100 bucks, k98k's for 20-40 bucks.

I want this beauty also!

[Big Norm]

Heck, I'd take that gun without the holster! It going to be fun watching this auction. Actually, there have been a number of nice guns coming up on the auction boards lately. If I keep those two M2 Portuguese Lugers I bought then I will have to wait for my next welfare check before I get into play.
Big Norm

[Ron Wood]

When you see a marvelous weapon like this, you rejoice at what history has been preserved. But in the same breath, you begin to look at the details.

Herb, the statement that the Borchardt was tested by the US Army (and Navy) before the 1900 test pieces is accurate. However, the exact serial number of the Borchardt tested is not documented to the best of my knowledge. It can be said with some certainty that this Borchardt that is being auctioned is not one of the test pieces.

1)It is not the weapon demonstrated to the Navy by Georg Luger on November 21, 1894, since that would have been manufactured by Loewe. DWM did not exist prior to 1896.
2)The US Army test conducted beginning on December 23, 1897, most likely was conducted with a DWM produced Borchardt, but it is also most unlikely that it was this particular Borchardt that was tested. Quoting from the auction statement: â??There is no wear evidence of firingâ?�. The Borchardt tested by the US Army was fired a total of 2262 times! Of those, two shots were fired using â??defective cartridgesâ?� that were created by drilling a hole in one case just forward of the groove, and drilling a hole in the groove of the second case. When fired, the case with the hole in the groove blew a chunk of the extractor out of the bolt. The extractor was replaced and the test continued. Further testing included blasting with fine sand before firing, and then degreasing the firearm, soaking it in sal ammoniac for five minutes, and letting it stand for 24 hours in the open air before firing it the last 8 rounds. To its credit, the Borchardt performed rather well, but it most definitely would have exhibited signs of firing!

The Borchardt at auction is a beautiful example; with all parts other than the barrel exhibiting no wear in so far as can be determined from the photos. This seems a bit odd. If you look at the muzzle end of the barrel, there is very noticeable wear/discoloration that is consistent with being carried in the accompanying holster.



However, if you look at the holster, there is a fair amount of wear and a quite well defined impression of the butt of the grip showing on the flap. It would seem that the right side of the butt of the grip would exhibit some wear but it looks nearly flawless, as does the remainder of the weapon. I have performed the same color, contrast and gamma correction on both the front sight and butt photos to enhance the wear patterns and provide a common basis of comparison. It does beg the question of why the entire piece is not the same condition.



Now let us examine the â??US Calvary [sic] Holster for the Borchardtâ?�, that is presented as â??This has to be a one-of-one, museum type historical holster...â?�:
1)The attachment of the holster to the board stock is with two buckled straps so arranged to hold the holster to and against the stock. When the Borchardt would be holstered, the knob on the toggle assembly used for cocking would lie on the side of the holster next to the stock. On an original Borchardt stock, there is a hole drilled to provide relief for this knob and allow the holster to lie flat. This hole is missing on the stock illustrated; therefore the holster would cant outward from the stock and make it most unhandy for carrying.
2)The carrying strap is fixed quite nicely to the stock with a strap and buckle riveted to the stock. However, the other end of the strap is fixed with a single rivet to the flap of the holster! This seems a most unlikely arrangement since it places the entire strain of supporting the weight of the holster, weapon and stock on a single rivet placed on a very vulnerable and flexible part of the holster.



3)The Rock Island Arsenal stamp appears to be exactly like that found on the 1900 Luger test holsters. The holster does look like an authentic period US Cavalry holster.

When you look at the auction post, there is a link, www.phoenixinvestmentarms.com/borchardt.htm for additional information. At this web location, it is clearly titled â??C/93 Borchardt-Luger (US Test Model)â?�. For the aforementioned reasons, I find it difficult to believe this Borchardt has provenance as a â??US Test Modelâ?�. To be perfectly fair, the auction itself does not directly claim the Borchardt being sold is a US test example, but you have to read it carefully.

I would welcome comments and criticism from Forum members concerning my assessment of this beautiful firearm

[Dwight Gruber]

Ron,

Thanks very much for addressing questions which I didn't know enough to know how to ask when I first saw the posting.

An excellent forensic analysis and education.

--Dwight

[Russ]

Ron

That was a great write up. <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />

Russ <img border="0" alt="[bigbye]" title="" src="graemlins/xyxwave.gif" />

[Ron Wood]

Thank you for the comments gentlemen. In the write up I forgot to mention that the toggle lock is fire blued...it should be strawed.

[unspellable]

Ron, You obviously know way more about this piece than I do, but if the holster is a one off, is it not possible or even expected that there would be oversights and design flaws?

Ho;ster wear o nthe muzzle and nowhere else does seem odd.

[drbuster]

Ron, Really appreciate your learned and extensive reply. You have a wealth of knowledge and apparently unlimited resources and a willingness to share these with us on the Forum. It's a real pleasure, not to mention a great learning experience, to have such a gentleman as you around. Will look forward to meeting you at a show, such as Reno or Las Vegas.

[Jim Keenan]

Ron, your points are valid, but it still looks good to me. My feeling is that it may be too darned good for a gun that old, but everything looks right. The finish and markings are identical to mine, and there are none of the common signs of "restoration". The only thing odd is, as you note, the toggle lock, which could be a contemporary replacement (see below).

IIRC, it was common for persons wanting an Army test to submit at least two pistols. One would be tested (rust, sand, etc.); the other would be kept intact as a reference model and a source of spare parts if needed (the toggle lock, later replaced?).

The order to perform a test would not necessarily indicate how many pistols were submitted. If this was a test pistol, it was the reference model. It could have been the test pistol that was in the holster rather than this one.

As to the holster itself, I don't think it would stand up, but then this was not a field test. The holster(s) would have been produced only to see if RIA had an idea of what was involved in case the pistol was adopted, not to develop a production model.

The RIA stamp is either correct or an excellent fake. I sure can't come up with any previously marked holster that it could have been made from. FWIW, "E.H.S." was Emil H. Schmitten, an inspector in the leather shop.

I didn't see any mention of a serial number? Did he give it?

I still think I would pay the current bid price ($6500) if I had the money. It would (IMHO) be a bargain.

Jim

[Edward Tinker]

I saw that it is up to $7,000, reserve not met.

But as others have said, it is sweet, and would be a fun one to own, {of course, I have no, none, zippo, oop-so knowledge on these puppies}

Ed

[Ron Wood]

If you follow the link to the other site, you will see that the serial number is 1896 (in the photo of the bottom of the magazine and grip - kind of coincidental isn't it, since that is the year DWM came into existence). It also has an asking price for gun and holster of $26,000. Thus it would seem that the bidding has a long way to go to reach reserve.

With regard to this Borchardt being a "reference" piece, in Hans Tauscher's letter to the Chief of Ordnance concerning "testing the Automatic Pistol-Carbine, Borchardt Patent" he wrote "...I shall personally bring Wednesday, 20th inst., such a weapon with 5000 cartridges to the Springfield Armory for this test, arm and cartridges then to the entire disposition of the War Department". Notice that all mentions of the piece are singular, no indication of more than one example.

There is no mention of a holster in the initial test. However another attempt was made to "sell" the Borchardt to the Army. Herman Boker and Company of New York had been named as the agent for Borchardt sales in the U.S. In a letter of March 28, 1898 to the Chief of Ordnance, the Boker company offered to deliver 2000 pistols with stock, holster, straps, extra magazines, screw driver and cleaning rod for the princely sum of $17.50 each (groan!!) and an advertisement for the Borchardt pistol accompanied the letter. The ad displays the conventional stock and holster for the Borchardt. The Borchardt, along with eight other pistols were submitted for testing in November of 1889. Again the Borchard was rejected.

I have no account of the conduct of that test, so it may have been less rigorous, and a great leap of faith might attribute the Borchardt being offered as this test piece. The origin of the holster remains an enigma.

The condition of the Borchard and the appearance of the holster speak for themselves. I present the foregoing information for you to consider and I leave it to each individual to accept or reject the items as you see fit.

By the way, I think that it is only proper that I give due credit for much of the historical information presented to the excellent work of Edward Scott Meadows in his book "U.S. Military Automatic Pistols 1894-1920".

[Navy]

Folks,
Ron's insightful write up is the result of a knowledgable "eye", lots of study and careful attention. In short, exactly what I have been preaching on the Navy part of this little boit O'heaven we call the forum. Someday, we are all diligent, work hard, drive the miles to the shows, invest in and study the books, we may all be as good.
Great write up and photography; thanks a million!
Tom A.

[Jim Keenan]

Ron, again excellent points, especially on the singular use in Tauscher's letter, which would seem to rule out a "reference" piece.

As to the holster, I dunno. Certainly the Army could buy holsters if they wanted, but they did have a record of wanting them made by the government or at least of the government having the capability of making them. (The production of the 1911 at Springfield, for example.) Maybe some research on Schmitten would tell when he was at RIA.

Before groaning too loudly on the price, that $17.50 would be about $700 in today's dollars, not a bad price, but not such a tiny amount as it sounds. I don't know whether the $26k would be "right" or not, as Borchardt sales are pretty uncommon, especially one of that quality, test piece or not.

BTW and FWIW (boy, I like those abbreviations) the serial on mine is 1629, the magazine is 1635. Why the mismatch on such a rare gun? I don't know, maybe it was a test piece and I can get big $$$$ for it????

Tom, I fully agree with you and would like to add that an overall look with an experienced eye is often worth more than details from books. At one gun show, I watched two guys looking at a Krag "carbine". They checked the "C" on the sight, and concluded that it was OK because "the book" said that was the way to tell a carbine. They completely ignored the unevenly sawed off barrel, the 1903 front sight band, the sling swivel cutout in the buttstock, and, just incidentally, that the "C" was the wrong size.

Jim

[Navy]

Jim,
I share your disdain for those who know and believe ONLY what is in the books. Granted the books are a great place to build a corpus of knowledge, but authors are human. And, it should be noted, perhaps that the works that we refer to so often are almost exclusively collaborative efforts with many people contributing photos and data points. Statistically, the probability for error is pretty high; we should be glad that most books have an accuracy rate that is in the high 90%.

Having said that, errors do creep in and there is simply no substitute for hands on examination and long, sometimes painful talks and correspondence with the greybeards. The older guys have forgotten more than many newbies will ever learn and were able to learn much when the price of an error was not the cost of a medium priced automobile.

My zwei pfennigs
Tom A.

[mauro]

Hello guys,
very interesting discussion. I am not expert in the Borchardt history and I have appreciated what you state.
Thank you.
BTW, Jim, what FWIW does it mean?
Ciao