Vickers Dutch East Indies Luger

[Vlim]

Hi,

The FN link is mentioned by John Walter in 'The Luger Story'.

I don't think Vickers would tool up to produce a mere 6000 pistols. I remember reading that those involved in the Vickers plot were actually quite amused to see some old DWM stock make money this way.

In my opinion Vickers did the assembly, fitting and proofing and nothing much else. Work that could be done in any small armory or gunsmiths outfit as well, just on a slightly larger scale.

An overview of the Vickers links as they existed in the mid 1930's.
(Merchants of Death, Engelbrecht & Hanighen, 1934, 1937)



From the same publication: Sample of a Vickers advertisement in the German 'Militar Wochenblatt'.

[Herb]

G. van Vlimmeren, what you are seeing in the left side photo is a smooth spot in the otherwise sandblasted appearance of the side rail. It would appear that something had rubbed there and smoothed it out, perhaps the holster. Certainly not the marks left by a torch melting out the solder to remove a brass plate.
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload..._side_rail.jpg

Martens and de Vries speculate about the little stamping of the letter 'C" over two digits. "Some parts of the Vickers guns have small marks consisting of the letter "C" over two digits." "The meaning of these has as yet not been satisfactorily explained. The "C" has been taken to mean "Construction", indicating the year in which the part was made. However the numbers run as high as 24, and in 1924 the Dutch contract had long since been fulfilled." This particular example has two "C" stamps on the frame, one being C/15 and the other C/40. This would appear to invalidate that theory.

[Vlim]

Hi Herb,

Your other images seems to show that no plate was attached after all. I've seen an example which had gone through a home plate removal session without too much damage to the frame. It had traces very similar to those shown on the original image.

[wlyon]

Vickers ,S/N 7798,1923 barrel date,grips full S/N and GS. All matching including firing pin. witness marks off a bit. all correct proofs, no plate but it did have once , toggle is good rest is fair.,mechanically very good, clip with spring.

[Herb]

Bill, can you post some pictures of it?

[wlyon]

Here are pictures.

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/p1010056_copy1.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/p1010057.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/p1010060.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/p1010062.jpg

[Pete Ebbink]

Bill's Photos :

[Herb]

Bill, thanks for the photos, and Pete for opening them up. Bill, I've been having a problem with my magazine, Hugh was very generous by giving me a new base spring for mine as it had rusted away, but I just couldn't seem to figure out how it fit the base. I downloaded the photos of his and studied them but it still didn't jive. Scroll up to the photo he posted of his mag bases and note the difference between his and yours, especially the slot running fore and aft in the wood, that is what mine is like, not at all like his which doesn't have that slot. Mystery solved, I think I can get it to fit now, thanks for the post, it has really helped and I appreciate it. Next mystery, why the heck is the spring there at all, the base won't come out without removing the pin just like a normal mag base anyway? The condition of your Vickers is about what mine looked like the day I got it, and I spent many hours removing rust from the inside and outside before I got it to look acceptable. Your grips are in much better condition than maine are which are missing some pieces here and there. A very nice example that's hard to come by as it is also one of the 6,000 destined for the Dutch East Indies. I'm curious about the barrel date of 1923 though as supposedly these Lugers were delivered in 1922 and if de Vries is correct the first inspection and/or barrel replacement would not have been due until about six or seven years later. Does your barrel still retain the original British proofs on the underside?

[Ron Wood]

Herb,
Your magazine did not originally have a pin. The only thing holding the mag base in was the spring. The spring frequently failed to retain the base while firing, so the pin is an authorized field modification. Most Dutch magazines were so modified, therefore it is difficult to find one without the added pin.

[Herb]

Ron, thanks for the info, I was puzzled as to its purpose, that answers that question.

[wlyon]

Herb My Vickers barrel has the British proofs. I am assuming it is the original barrel. Especially with the 1923 date.,which I believe is the date the barrel went into service. Bill

[Dwight Gruber]

Originally posted by wlyon
Herb My Vickers barrel has the British proofs. I am assuming it is the original barrel. Especially with the 1923 date.,which I believe is the date the barrel went into service. Bill

Bill, "original" Vickers barrels are not regularly found date stamped, so the in-service date would not apply.

I find it interesting that we have two examples in this discussion of Vickers Lugers with original British-proof barrels and barrel dates. The only conclusion I can draw is that, Martens & DeVries assertion not withstancing, Dutch Lugers were barrel-dated for reasons in addition to rebarrel, and further research is necessary.

--Dwight

[Herb]

Dwight, I have to agree, there are just too many descrepancies popping up here that contridict the writings of Martens and de Vries, perhaps this might open a new area of information on the Dutch LUger. Hopefully other members that have a Vickers Dutch will add some info on this study.

[Edward Tinker]

okay, failing memory serving me, but I thought I remembered that barrels were marked when the gun went into service in the dutch indies. The 1923 date doesn't surprise me?

Dwight I thought the barrel on the dutchie you got from me was dated 1928 or something?


Ed

[Dwight Gruber]

Nope, no date.

Martens & DeVries (p.163) are very clear in their assertion that the date is the barrel's date (only) of entry into service.

--Dwight

[wlyon]

Dwight I am confused. According to Martens and de Vries all lugers had to bear ayear in which the barrel entered service. Since the Vickers were delivered in 1921/1922 I would therefore assume a barrel dated 1923 with British proofs would be an original barrel. Did the Indies have a supply of British proofed barrels? Or is any barrel with British proofs original ? Many questions but interesting. If we knew everything about Lugers collecting them would not be nearly as interesting.

[Herb]

Bill, how about a guess?? Martens and de Vries, on page 163 gives this exception--- "According to Army regulations, all Indies Lugers had to bear this (sic) year in which the barrel entered service. Yet, pistols without these dates are known. The most likely explanation for this is that the pistol belonged to the material reserve and never officially entered service. The earliest barrel date observed is 1914, the latest is 1941, which is quite logical since the East Indies army capitulated to the Japanese in March 1942"
My guess is that some of the pistols in the material service did in fact enter service at various times and at that time they stamped the date on the barrel. Makes sense since both of our barrels have the original British proofs and also the date that they entered service. They are not the unmarked replacement barrels.

[Dwight Gruber]

Bill & Herb,

I read two assumptions into M&DeV's work: one, that the original deliveries--be they DWM or Vickers--were not barrel dated; and two, the date stamping comment refers exclusively to -replacement- barrels.

In their text M&DeV state that "most" Dutch Lugers are found with barrel dates. Most of the illustrations in their book which show top views, however, show undated barrels. My own Vickers, with matching, British-proof barrel, is not dated. See my comments on the previous page regarding spare (proofed) barrels.

I think Herb's material reserve release date is an interesting postulation.

--Dwight

[Vlim]

Hi Dwight,

I think it's even simpler. I think the dates were added after the pistols were overhauled. Barrel replacement could be part of the overhaul, but not necessarily.

This would mean that the barrel date just signifies 'arsenal rework', not 'barrel replacement'.

[Ron Wood]

Gerben,
Bingo! That is my opinion also.