did I miss the discussion on this rig?

[trigger643]

carbine with silencer

http://www.collectorfirearms.us/Handgun/HG-129.htm

[George Anderson]

Some comments on this piece would be interesting.

[Imperial Arms]

In my opinion, the device does not appear to be a silencer, but some sort of simple muzzle/flash suppressor which would serve no purpose or benefit using a 7.65 mm cartridge. In fact, I would expect the device to cause jamming considering that a Luger Carbine requires a powerful (DWM 471A) cartridge to operate the accelerator spring assembly. It is difficult to determine the period of this device.

Albert

[Pete Ebbink]

Here is the text description of the carbine and its unusual muzzle tip...from Randy Bessler's web site :

" sn:2196X. The Ultimate Collectible Luger! With 11-3/4" Barrel, 3 Position Adjustable Rear Sight, Checkered Walnut Forearm and Buttstock! This Example is Also Factory Threaded at the Muzzle for a Vintage Period Maxim 'Silencer'! A Non-Functional Copy of the Original is Included! Complete with the Original Thread Protector Cap! In Beautiful 99%+ Condition! Superb Straw and Fire Blue Colors! Perfect Walnut Checkered Grips, Stock and Forearm! No cracks or chip in the Original 'Horn' Buttplate! Mint Bore! With Proper 'Flaming Bomb' Proofed Magazine! In my opinion the Luger M1902 Carbine is The Most Attractive Pistol Ever Produced! A Beautiful Un-Touched Original in Outstanding Near New Condition! The Very Best! *$19,995. "

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

[Imperial Arms]

If we were to accept his description that it was factory threaded at the muzzle for a period vintage Maxim silencer, I think it would useful to refer to the information in 1924 Pacific Arms catalog which I posted on the Member Gallery.

In my opinion, DWM did NOT thread any M1902 Luger Carbine for a Maxim silencer and this job, if original, was done by Pacific Arms in the US in the 1920's. The front page of the catalog shows an LP-08 with mounted with a Maxim silencer.

Knowledge and research is king!

Albert

[Randall M. Bessler]

To Albert Beliard and members,
The barrel on this particular carbine is slightly longer, extending almost to the tip of the thread protector.
The Pacific Arms Catalog you refer to dated 1924 came out long after this gun was produced.
I doubt if any retailer would make a longer barrel just for attachmet of a suppressor.
The 'dummy' suppressor that is with the gun is not functional.
In certain states here in this country owning a original suppressor is permitted with U.S. Federal Government Registration.
Best!
Randall M. Bessler

[trigger643]

My only personal experience with the 1902 carbine came in the late 1980's when I purchased one from a widow in Yakima Washington (and sold at Reno in 1991). It was threaded at the barrel, barrel about 0.75" longer than a friend's 1902 carbine.

Did not mean to put you on the defense, Randy. But I think that was my gun, without the can. If it isn't, it certainly came from the same batch. I had hoped members of this forum would enlighten and expound upon it's history. I did not entend for them to jump on you, sorry. You may want to look closely at the right side of the receiver for evidence of a peep site placement that was removed and refinished (if it was my gun, it would be evident by looking from the back forward - a dish in the receiver with 2 bumps - the guy that removed it for me promised he could match the finish, which he did, he just didn't tell me he was dangerous with power tools). Mine had the orginal sales receipt from Coast Arms, Seattle, dated 1925. However, the sales receipt, as I recall, made reference to it being used, and did not mention the can.

[Imperial Arms]

To Randy and fellow members,

Without the intention of degrading the originality of the carbine in question, I just do not feel that it was a DWM factory option to add a thread for a maxim type silencer. The DWM factory made the M1902 Luger carbine for sporting and hunting purposes and not to be fitted with a silencer. Furthermore, none of my early catalogs listing/retailing a M1902 Luger carbine mention the availability of a silencer. Based on the various literature I own or I have read, it is only Pacific Arms Company which promoted these types of 'fancy' combination Lugers using equipment such as silencers, telescopes and high capacity magazines (100 rds).

It is most likely that the threaded barrel extension or entire barrel was fitted in the US by a company such as Pacific Arms after 1920. The information provided by trigger643 gives good reason/evidence that the addition/modification was done in the US and not at the DWM factory. If you carefully read the Pacific Arms catalog, you will note that they can convert any Luger to any configuration for a customer. I would even venture to say that fitting a silencer to a Luger Carbine would only allow single shots because plenty of energy would be lost through the silencer which would leave insufficient power to cycle the action.

Besides the comments which have been mentioned, your carbine appears to be in fine condition according to the image. Maybe you will be lucky to find a collector in the market who is desparate to buy a Luger Carbine for $20k which is threaded for a silencer.

Albert

[Pete Ebbink]

Could someone explain how the ramped front sight on a carbine is made and/or attached to the barrel ?

Is it brazed/silver soldered on the barrel once the barrel is shaped/turned ?

Or is it milled out of a barrel block as one piece ?

Or other methods...???

This might give some clue as to whether the threaded ends of the muzzle on this particular muzzle are original to the carbine or done as a bit of rework (i.e. 1920's era, possibly...).

If a rework, the ramped front sight would have to had been moved back to make room for the threading on the end of the muzzle.

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

[John Sabato]

Just from appearances of the ramp Pete, I would venture that they are silversoldered on... This would be compatible with the rust-blue methods of the time, but would not work using the hot salt blue methods as the solution would eat the silver solder...

Attaching a sight this way instead of indexing a machine operation while the barrel is being made makes alignment very critical during the soldering process...

[Ron Wood]

I have to tell you, I looked at my carbine and I can't tell for sure how the front sight ramp is made. I think it is silver soldered but it is so well done it is hard to tell. I know the Borchardt front sight ring is soldered on, but it too is so well done you can't see any evidence that it isn't machined integrally with the barrel. I laugh when I hear people say something couldn't have been done in the late 1800s or early 1900s because they "didn't have the capability or technology". From about 1850 to about 1918 was what I consider the "Golden Age" of gunmaking. The level of machining, fitting, finishing and craftsmanship reached a pinnacle that is rarely matched today except for a handful of artisans.

If you read Glenâ??s (trigger643) post, you will note that the barrel on the carbine he found was 0.75â?� longer than a standard carbine. It sounds very much like what Randy Bessler describes for his carbine. That would indicate a barrel made from scratch to accommodate the threads for the silencer. Albertâ??s observation that the data accompanying Glenâ??s carbine could support a 1920s Pacific Arms fabrication is compelling. But regardless of whether it was made by DWM or a US firm, Randyâ??s carbine is a nifty item. Just one more â??out of the ordinaryâ?� examples that makes the hobby interesting.

[Randall M. Bessler]

To: Trigger643 & members,
What was the serial # of the one you had? The one I had (it has sold), shows no evidence of any repairs or restoration. The barrel is bug proofed, has the full serial number of the gun and the index (-) with the receiver was perfect and original.
The correct term is 'suppressor'. 'Silencer' is a term created in Hollywood by the motion picture industry.
As far as operation, recoil forces occur at the time if ignition. Suppressors do not effect the velocity of the bullet to any extent.
The only suppressors that affect operation are the large ones made for pistols such as the Colt M1911 that are so heavy the return to battery is delayed.
Thanks!
Randy

[Imperial Arms]

Randy,

I agree with your correct use of 'suppressor' and not 'silencer', but you still had used the word 'silencer' in your original description of the carbine which Pete had provided to this discussion! However, allow me to provide some general information which may shed some light on this subject.

A Maxim silencer/suppressor (as shown in the 1924 Pacific Arms catalog) probably contained baffles and/or a diffuser which was intended to reduce the speed of the escaping gases and to some degree the speed of the bullet. If this was the case, the action of the Luger carbine would have been limited to single shots as a result of energy being absorbed by the suppressor. Bearing in mind the high velocity of the DWM 471A cartridge, a sonic crack would still be heard/created with this bullet at the muzzle or down range and, therefore, the use of a Maxim sound suppressor with this type of cartridge would hardly make any noticable difference in sound reduction. Do you believe the DWM factory would make a special barrel and extension without knowing these facts, or is this your imagination? If we consider another German manufacturer, the Mauser factory in this case, they never adapted a suppressor to a Mauser C96, so why should the DWM factory be any different considering that Mauser was more 'adventurous' in design and marketing than compared to the DWM factory? Furthermore, I do not think that during the early 1900's a suppressor was a widely used device for a small caliber pistol or sporting carbine and, therefore, its limited use had no important or practical benefit for the manufacturer or customer. For these likely reasons, I believe that this modification was done in the US and not at the DWM factory.

Now, let us consider the other scenario of a simple suppressor similar to the dummy one which you show with the carbine. Well, that type of suppressor would serve no useful purpose in sound suppression except maybe as a flash suppressor which would not affect the functioning of the action. So, why should the DWM factory go through all the headache of making a special barrel when I am nearly sure that the carbine would not create muzzle flash (during the daytime). This leaves the question(s) if all the additional work was done for 'esthetics' or actually a useful reason.

Albert

[Ron Wood]

Albert,
Your analysis is probably correct for the most part, but I think there is room for additional interpretation. If a suppressor was not practical for DWM to make, why would Pacific Arms make them (other than a marketing gimmick).

Ever hear of â??Zimmerschie�?enâ?�? It was a relatively common practice to use a suppressor for â??parlor shootingâ?� or indoor target practice. Naturally, as you have pointed out, this was only practical with subsonic ammunition, which would not operate a semi-automatic action. However, for target practice either a single shot firearm was used or the action was cycled by hand. For precision target practice, particularly indoors, rate of fire is not a prime objective. On the other hand, when using a suppressor, the diameter of the attachment usually required some kind of supplemental sights for target shooting.

The â??canâ?� supplied with the carbine sold by Randy is at best a showpiece. If it was intended to represent a functional suppressor, it would have to be nearly 3 times as long as the short dummy suppressor shown. Also there is no provision for supplemental sights to compensate for the interrupted sight path. It would seem to reduce the weapon to a "point and shoot" plinker.

One other possibility comes to mind...poaching. Dispatching an animal in a trap or at close range without alerting the game warden seems like a handy feature.

As to whether this carbine barrel was made by DWM or Pacific Arms, I have no idea. It would seem that Randyâ??s description of the markings and indexing would indicate a factory installation and would rule out Pacific Arms manufacture. That doesnâ??t rule out some other â??WaffenfabrikUSAâ?� but that is another topic. Bear in mind that some 1902 carbines were special order items from the factory (note the odd-ball occurrence of a few in the 50,000 serial number range).

If I sounds like I am defending this carbine, that is not the case. I just have fun presenting both sides of the argument.

Cheers,
Ron

[Randall M. Bessler]

Albert,
In no way would the balffes in a Maxim suppressor affect the funtion of a Luger Carbine.

Maxim suppressors were introducded long before 1924 (1897) if I recall correctly.
They were used extensively to reduce the noise of the shot, not the sonic crack.

Currently military forces around the globe use suppressors not to silence the weapon but to reduce the noise made at the point of firing. When only the sonic crack is heard it is nearly impossible to detect the point of orgin of the discharge.

If you contact Mr. Geoff Sturgess in England who who you may know, suppressors in that country were required (and still are)on most shooting ranges.

Maxim supressors were used extensively on pistols and rifles worldwide from the late 1800's thru 1934 in the U.S. and much later where they were not restricted. In all calibers.

The hard facts and Bottom line is this,
1) The barrel on the Carbine I sold was longer than a standard M1902 Carbine barrel.
2) The barrel was original to the gun.

Whatever else is assumed or surmised is pure speculation.

Thanks!
Randall M. Bessler

[George Anderson]

Randy, well said.

[Imperial Arms]

Ron & Randy,

Thank you for your input and comments regarding this interesting topic. My way of thinking in regards to old German semi-automatic pistols and carbines is from the 'old-school' and the most probable manufacturing techniques of the period.

Hereunder are my comments to the various points which you have outlined which are not intended to attack the general originality of the carbine; I am not saying anything about being fake, but only questioning whether the special barrel was made by the DWM factory (or using Ron's word) by 'WaffenfabrikUS'. I welcome Ron's comments/theories supporting both sides of the discussion (without making an argument!):

1) Ron makes a very valid point that the sights would be obstructed/interrupted using a large size silencer such as a Maxim suppressor and, therefore, a 'point and shoot' plinker can be accepted;

2) I must admit that I have not heard of 'ZimmerschieÃ??en' using suppressors and I shall accept Ron's description of these shooting events. In addition, I agree with Ron on the single shot explanations by using a large suppressor even for target shooting;

3) Ron's explanation of a suppressed Luger carbine for poaching is reasonable, but the DWM factory would probably not supply a firearm which was intended for illegal hunting. I also doubt that DWM would sell a Maxim silencer as an accessory and this was only available through a (US) retailer. I wonder how much it could cost a customer to have DWM manufacture a special order barrel just for a suppressor which would not cycle the action, obstruct the sights and not be effective in sound reduction when using high velocity ammunition - was it practical and worth it?;

4) The use of a silencer points more to the US market than compared to the European market. I have never seen a silencer listed in an old (pre-1920) European dealer catalog;

5) Giving the benefit of the doubt, more Luger Carbines with threads/extensions would need to be discovered and closely examined. If only a few are known to exist today, this is not an adequate sample to make a conclusion if the special barrel was made by the DWM factory or not. Bear in mind that the carbine is in the 21000 serial range and not the 55000 special order serial range;

6) It would not be completely impossible for a US company such as Pacific Arms to add a thread and only reblue the barrel which would result in it being undetectable to our eyes. Look at some of the 1920 Long Barrel Lugers and you will notice that the quality of the blue practically matches the frame. I can accept the fact that the barrel is longer and original to the gun, but the thread could be an US made extension.

7) Even though I know Geoff Sturgess, I do not agree with many of his theories or research. For example, his article on the 'Anglo-Swiss Lugers..' was a bunch of **** which has been severely criticized by a few authorities/experts in the field. It was more of an attack against certain collectors and dealers instead of a professional presentation! Therefore, whatever the possible regulations (past or present) which were required in the UK does not mean that it can be applied to other countries. How come we do not see more Luger Carbines (without forgetting Mauser C96 pistols and carbines) which were destined to England having threaded barrels?

Would you like me to continue? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Cheers,
Albert

[Randall M. Bessler]

To All,

Final post from me on this subject.

Maxim was a German Company.
His water cooled machinguns, (incidentally most of which were made by D.W.M.) were one of the most sucessful items produced by D.W.M. dollar wise in their production history.

Hiram Maxim was a contemporary of G. Luger.
It is known that one of the very few Original M1902 'GL' hallmarked Presentation Carbines was presented by G. Luger to H. Maxim (R. Shattuck Collection).

Perhaps one of our German Members or Mr. Sturgess can provide scans of contemporary European catalogs to show the availability of Maxim Suppressors.

Maxim Suppressors were made in different lengths and diameters. I have never seen a Maxim greater than about 1-1/4". Most were made 1" and under so that sight interference was not a problem.

Like it or not, Mr. Sturgess has assembled one of the finest and most complete Original Luger (and automatic pistol) collections in the world. He has selflessly shared information that he has acquired with other collectors and has been a major contributor to almost every book on Lugers published in the last several years. I probably have sold him under 5 guns total and the above comments are not 'ass kissing' in any way. In my opinion is a wonderful man all around.
Thats All!
Randall M. Bessler

[Pete Ebbink]

Cannot speak for anyone but myself...but I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion and debate about this unique carbine and appreciate the lively and civil discussions... <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />

Even better than this discussion would have been the chance for all contributors and others to meet in Reno and go over this carbine in person and in detail.

Maybe we can entice the new owner of this piece to stop by Reno and do a show & tell...maybe at dinner. I would even buy the carbine's owner dinner and drinks for the chance to see his gun !!!

What a hoot to have a carbine lay on the table while we all enjoy a good steak, strong drinks, and great companionship...! Not sure if the Steak House folks would appreciate that, though...

Thanks again to all...from this luger novice...

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

[Edward Tinker]

Yes and although Randy's gun he sold, was discussed at length, his comments were fair, and very well thought out.

This was an excellent discussion, I am closing it, only because I believe all have stated their beliefs as fully as will be allowed.

Ed