Portuguese Navy Lugers

[LugerVern]

I am getting ready to add a Portuguese Navy Luger to my collection and want to make sure I have the basics of what I am looking forâ??please comment on anything I donâ??t have correct.

Two variations: from a 1910 DWM contract

First:
Crown/Anchor or Royal Portuguese Navy Crest
350 made serial numbers 1 thu 350 approximately
CARREGADA left side of extractor
Polished lower safety area
MP proof left side of receiver

Second:
R.P./Anchor or Republic of Portuguese Navy Crest
300 made serial numbers 351 thu 650 approximately
CARREGADA left side of extractor
Polished lower safety area
M proof left side of receiver

Correct magazine for both guns have Circle/Triangle proof
Spare Magazines have cal 9 M/M

Question:

In â??Lugers at Randomâ?� page 137 the RP/Anchor Luger is shown with an anchor that is different than what is shown for the Royal Crown/Anchor Luger on page 133â??are there two different types of R.P /Anchor crests? All of the anchors on the RP/Anchor crests I have seen so far do not show this variation.

Any suggestions for buying one of these Lugers would be appreciated.

Thanks

Vern

[Imperial Arms]

Hello Vern,

I display images of my complete M1906 Portugese Royal Navy Luger Rig in the members gallery. Without the intention of 'blowing my whistle', this pistol is the finest known to exist. The information you mention above is along the right lines including the spare magazines.

If you need any additional information or guidance, you are welcome to contact me at [email protected].

Best regards,
Albert

[Pete Ebbink]

Hi Albert,

Which one of the Navy Portuguese lugers should have "MP" on their receiver and not the circle/triangle stamping ???

Hi Vern,

If you let folks know the general area in which you live, you might get a more seasoned collector coming forward and willing to help you in person.

Such a Portuguese Navy purchase can be an expensive one and one we would hope you do not make a mistake.

The folks at PIA have some nice photos of Navy Portuguese chamber markings. Their offereing of the "RP" has some unique 'ticking lines" through the scrolling part of the anchor which I do not know if it is proper or not.

http://www.phoenixinvestmentarms.com/693royalpnavy.htm

Doug Smith and Ken Clark of FGS in Ohio also have some current Navy Portuguese offerings. They have a couple of RP offerings as well with photos of the chamber crests.

Most folks would certainly give FGS high endorsements; especially for a less-experienced collector buying from a retail dealer :

http://www.fgsinc.8m.com/photo.html

Finally, here are some illustrations John Walter has in his book titled "The Luger Book" on page 233 :

[Imperial Arms]

Hello Pete,

The M1906 Portugese Royal Navy Luger has the MP proof stamping on the left side of the receiver. However, it is the M2 model which is found with the circle/triangle stamping on the left side of the receiver.

Cheers,
Albert

[Pete Ebbink]

I noticed Vern described the 2nd. gun he is considering to purchase with a "M" only on the left side, not a "MP".

Vern, might this be a "typo" in our opending posting ???

[Imperial Arms]

Hello Pete,

Apparently, the book 'Lugers at Random' states that the Portuguese Republic Navy (RP) Lugers only have the 'M' stamped on the left side of the receiver.

Cheers,
Albert

[LugerVern]

Thanks to everyone for their help.

I have been studying the RP/crown Lugers and there maybe a couple of variationsâ??this worries me because of so many fakes, coupled with mistakes in some references.

Lugers at Random page 137 shows just a â??M â?? proof on their example gun but states that the proof is an â??MPâ?� proof; the M is pretty clear.

Lugers at Random also on the same gun show a different RP /Crown stamp than is usually encountered , hard to explainâ??the rope is longer. Are these different variations?â??I have know idea! I have recently found another RP Luger with this same long ropeâ??but it looks suspect to me from the pictures.

In the Luger Story (2001edition) page 125 there are several mistakes, one is in the order of the chamber marks shown in the pictures and the other is in the numbers of guns produced. Really just a honest mistakes but enough to drive a new collector crazy.

Walterâ??s does say that all Portuguese Navyâ??s should have the â??â??MPâ?� proof

I do not have Stills Imperial Lugers and I would be interested in knowing what his book shows for he RP/Anchor Luger can someone help with this?

Thanks Pete for your references and suggestions. I have been discussing a couple of FGSâ??s RP Lugers and hope to see his examples and talk to them in person at their next gun show in Va.

PIAâ??s web site is a favorite mouth watering area I visit often, but glamour does not make a gun collectableâ??they have some absolutely beautiful guns though!! To many it doesnâ??t matterâ??they just love beautiful Lugers touched up or not.

One observation I have made:

The MP proofs often have a very very faint P associated with them, with age the P almost disappearsâ??this might explain the gun in Lugers at Random the P may have been blotted out with the flash of the camera.

If someone has an explanation for the long and short roped Chamber markings I would love to here it?

Thanks again, wish me luck!

Vern

[Pete Ebbink]

Vern,

I did a quick flip through my copy of Still's IL last night...I do not see any mention of Portuguese lugers.

[LugerVern]

I donâ??t want this post to get out of hand, I am just seeking information.

Attached is a picture of the two types of RP Luger chamber markings I am encountering.

I am calling them Type One and Type Two

Type one is like the one shown in â??Lugers at Randomâ?�, it has a long rope and the cross bar at the top of the anchor has a flat bottom/more square.

Type Two has a short rope and the cross bar is rounded at the bottom

I know some of the forum member own RP Lugers from your other posts, could you please describe your Chamber Markingsâ??Type One or Type Two?

Thank you so much!

Vern

[Pete Ebbink]

Vern,

A couple of additional questions you might pose for owners of a RP Portuguese luger :

1. Is it proper for the "MP" to be run together and have the two letters share the right-hand leg of the "M" for the backbone of the "P" ???

I think I see this on one of the vendor's web site...

2. The right-hand "leg" of the "R" in the last two photos you posted vary; maybe that is significant as well. The photo on the right has a "base" at the bottom of the right leg. The photo of the left has a tapering end to the right leg that flairs away to the right...with no base. Which is proper ?

[Pete Ebbink]

Photo details from the FGS web site :

[Ron Wood]

I have been looking at this thread and trying to sort out what is being presented.

Pete, from what I can see on my tired old Portuguese Royal Navy, the "MP" is cojoined on the right leg of the "M".

For the life of me, I can't see the "long rope" difference. I have been studying the images for a couple of days and there is nothing in the photos shown that, to me, offer any differences in the "RP" images that can't be attributed to wear/damage/corrosion and differing camera angles.

The crossbar on the anchor is segmented and depending on the crispness of the photo and the angle observed, it may seem to be varying in the photos presented. I think they are all pretty much the same in the examples shown. If there is any question about a Luger under consideration for purchase, a crisp photo of the chamber marking of that Luger would be much more beneficial than second guessing whether it is right or wrong based on other examples.

[LugerVern]

Just so everyone knows what I am talking about; I have included a small scan of the chamber marking from Lugers at Random. It is hard to get clarity from a small picture in a book but you can see the extension on the left side.

Now I would like to invite everyone to use a jewelers loop of at least 10 power and examine the Type One picture in the original post, you can do it directly on your computer screenâ??what you will see is a very detailed chain attached to the left side of the cross bar.
I called it a rope before but was mistaken, I apologize for the misleading information..
I can see 3 links plus the attachment to the cross bar very clearly using this method.

I have no preconceived thoughts as to what is right or wrong with the two different chamber markingsâ??they might both be correct for all I knowâ??that is my question to the members of this forum? .

I am gathering information only in this post, it should not be used to analyze specific gunsâ??that will come later in a separate post.


Albert & Pete have been great in helping me get it straight as to what I should be looking for, thank you Albert & Pete!


Thanks to Everyone!

Vern

[Ron Wood]

Now I see what you are talking about. That is the part I was referring to as "damage" because it should not be there. It does sort of look like chain links but it is not part of the original crest. I am virtually positive that the illustration in "Lugers at Random" and the photo that you posted as "Type One" are the same gun, only the white filler in the crest is not present in the "Type One" photo.

[LugerVern]

I think Ron may be correct; that the two Type One guns are the same and not necessarily correct.

Ron; I have a couple of questions for you:
1) Below is part of your frame post; can you confirm what type of frame the Royal & Republic Navyâ??s should have?
Am I correct in saying that it should be the Type V for both?

2) Have you examined your R. P. Luger for any other markings/proofs; front & rear frame wells, back of side plate, back side of grips, frame under grips? I would be very interested in the breechblock as well, particularly on the section under the lever?

Thanks

Vern

[Ron Wood]

Vern,
Yes, the frames for both are Type V. Unfortunately I can't provide any information on RP markings since I have only a Royal Portuguese Navy. It is a nice early serial, #85, but it shows the effects of use and less than proper storage for many years.

[Pete Ebbink]

Vern,

I would certainly question if the one RP chamber marking on the PIA website I listed above is proper.

It is the 1 RP chamber marking that is shown side--by-side with another Portuguese chamber marking. The one I am questioning is the right-hand photo of the 2 chamber marking photos shown.

The rope is a double line with more width than other photos in books show and the middle of the rope seems to be shown with perpendicular 'ticking" lines across the thick rope. More like a rope ladder.

[Ron Wood]

Pete,
I suspect that someone "freshened up" that RP that didn't know what they were doing and tried to make a chain rather than a rope. Maybe they thought it looked better that way!

[LugerVern]

Pete/Ron

I agree with you on PIAâ??s picture of the R.P Crest and thatâ??s not all thatâ??s wrong with the two comparisons.
One of the lessons Albert taught me was how detailed, a stamping, roll dies make.
Knowing that; now take a good look at the PIAâ??s Royal crest and then compare it to the Royal crest from FGS you posted previously. Now tell me which one is correct?
There really is no comparison!
Albert is correct when he says roll dies make very detailed stampings- a very big lesson learned for me.

Vern

[Ron Wood]

Actually, in my estimation both the FGS and the PIA Royal crests are correct. Chances are really high that the PIA has been restored, but I believe it is an authentic gun.