Navy Luger on AuctionArms

[Michael Zeleny]

http://www.auctionarms.com/search/di...temnum=8548750

[JoeP.08]

Michael,
If you are planning to place a bid on this Navy, I suggest you read and re-read Tom A's article on inspecting Navy Lugers. If you are looking for an opinion based on the seller's description and pictures, I will hold mine in reserve and digress to those who are willing to give theirs. I will admit this, there are some questions raised by the pictures. A wise "advanced" collector gave me this advice, "Sometimes you have to give up something to get something". The pistol would need to be physically inspected. Once that is done, you will have to ask yourself "are you willing to live with what you find or may not find". Bottom line is, it's gonna cost you shipping to look at this pistol (or any pistol) if you have to return it.

Joe Pirolo

[alvin]

No intention to bid, just curious and put a little thought on this gun.

The blue looks innocent from those pictures. This one has C/RC on the frame, and "GERMANY" under the barrel so it could be reconditioned before exporting.... may that be the reason for mismatched grips, and so many unnumbered parts? Could that also be the reason for its impressive shape, because it's a semi-military, and semi-civilian gun? If it's reconditioned at one point in its life, who could tell that's factory rework.

[John Sabato]

IMHO, I am suspicious about the number "31" on the bottom of the upper receiver lug... and also the same number on the rear of the toggle/rear sight. They do no appear to my untrained eye to be of the same font as the rest of the numbers on the gun. I would request very good photos of the serial number areas with any "white" being removed, in good focus and good lighting. Get an opinion from the Navy Luger Cabal (Tom A, Leo11, or Derek Seltzer) before you plunk down your money on this one.

I am not a Navy Luger expert, and try not to play one here on the forum, so my suspicions may be groundless... but I have a lot of experience examining number stamps on Lugers and these just don't sit right with me. The fact that they appear to be the only numbers with "white" in them makes them all the more suspicious to me...

In the now famous words of Tom A. ... the tuition at Luger "University" can be VERY expensive...

Caveat Emptor.

Good Luck.

[Navy]

This is an interseting ensemble to say the least.

First, it is IMPOSSIBLE to make any definitive statements based on photos-even the best photos-alone.

That being said, here is what I see...

The cannon seems right, note the halo around the GERMANY. This gives me a warm fuzzy.

The bottom half seems re-blued. I say this because:
a. No halo around revisions comission mark
b. Unit property mark seems blued over as no halo present and inside of the stamping appears blued
c. Ears on right side appear to have been machine turned, inconsistent with normal production machining

Yet, ensemble is still interesting because:
a. Holster is from a RARE maker; have never seen this maker on a Navy holster before
b. Gun saw sea service; a re-furbishment prior to export sale would be expected
c. C0ncentric mag bottom appears period; would like to see it up close.

Conclusion: If it were me, I'd spend the $50 or so to get a good look.

Tom A

[Big Norm]

Mike,
would have to ditto a lot of what has been said above. Next time that you take pictures, try using some indirect lighting. The glare off of you navy obscures of lot of important stuff. A little lightening of the pictures would also help.

I'm not interested in the gun. But the comments on the holster by TomA has perked up my ears a little. I have a lot of those squares with the question marks in them, am I missing something? I don't see the makers marks on the holster that TomA alluded to. I'll take another look for them. The pictures that I do see seem to be slightly out of focus. I am thinking particularly of the one of the left side proof marks.

Right now, I am going to go back and take a second look at that holster. I've been burned a bit on navy holsters. But when someone of TomA's stature says something good about one, I listen up.

Big Norm

[alvin]

Without a light box, it's not easy to create high quality gun pictures. The unit mark (II.T.D 118.) does show halo, but it's not easy to see from those pictures. The replacement grip panels do not fit well. We can see rust and pits (?) along the edge of the grip. The grip front strap also shows light rust.

As John mentioned earlier, the numbers on receiver and toggle tail were not original. The basic assumption of "reworked gun" may explain that. The question mark remains: it's reworked, but how do we know it's a factory reworked gun or not? Probably no way to tell.

[lugerholsterrepair]

As Tom says this is an interesting holster from a maker mark standpoint.
It does however have pretty serious issues.

The tool pouch is missing.

The ears are missing on the rod sleeve top.

The stock block has been removed and a belt loop replaces it.

The pull-up strap is gone.

And what might be the most serious is what appears to be a missing chunk of the edge of the barrel sleeve where it has come apart. This would be a disaster because it cannot be repaired....I would want to ask Sonar if this is indeed the case as it would deffinately affect my bid.

Jerry Burney

[Vlim]

Factory rework: No chance at all.

The factories had better things to do than to rework surplus guns for export. That would have been left to smaller outfits or perhaps the exporting dealers themselves.

It's well documented that companies like interarms, who did a large amount of surplus imports in the 1950-68 time frame, did their own refurbishing and rebuilding if needed.

[Navy]

I don't think this is Interarms work; their work was super high quality and, if memory serves- been 20+ years since I saw an Interarms re-do, pretty hard to distinguish from a minty original.

Tom A