Another find! 1906 Dutch.

[Lugers down under]

Hi Guys,
A nice little find at the last week-end local gun auction.
1906 first contract series DWM Dutch, serial number 1471




The gun still has the original unit mark and gun number on the rear frame
(AO 163) but has been crossed out and been reissued with the brass plate on the frame side 3-Inf .III over 5.




All matching numbers except side plate which is 75 rather than 71 but the number is in the correct place.
Has Crown/W proof on the right hand side receiver. and 1914 date on the top of the barrel.



Coarse chequed grips, DWM on the toggle. Holster looks good but I am not sure if it is correct for the period.
Complete with early DWM cleaning rod and bottle.
Regards
Murray

[Imperial Arms]

Congratulations on a fantastic set! The holster looks stunning. Just out of curiosity, does the magazine have the indent at the bottom of the spine to release the magazine wood bottom?

Well done,
Albert

[Russ]

Boy, I think I will have to go down under. I can not even find a parts gun lately.
Russ

[Lugers down under]

Albert,
The mag does not have the indent on the bottom of the spine and I think the mag may be a later arsenal replacement.
The grips certainly are as they are the coarse chequed type made in the Indies with the correct number 1471 and the letters GS in an oval stamped on the inside.
It will go very nice with my Vickers Dutch.
Regards
M

[Imperial Arms]

Hello Murray,

Knowing that these M1906 Dutch lugers entered service, I am not sure how a reissued pistol would alter the value of a M1906 Dutch Luger, but I like the brass plate applied on the side of the frame - it might make collectors more excited resulting in a higher value. Maybe Ron, who is a Dutch Luger expert, can also share his opinions/comments with us.

Does the left side of the chamber have the Dutch 'Crown W' proof, and is both sides of the extractor marked 'Geladen'? I assume that these particular details are present, but it is always good to check it out.

I cannot figure out how you get so lucky finding these great Lugers in New Zealand. I better come down under to do some 'hunting' myself!

Cheers,
Albert

[Lugers down under]

Albert,
The Dutch 'Crown W' proof is on the Right hand side of the receiver where it is supposed to be on this model and the extractor is marked Geladen on both sides.
Apparently the first issue numbers were filed out and the new unit marks were placed on the brass plate, but in this case the earlier number have only been struck out and have not been filed out. Makes it kind of interesting.
By the way, there was a very nice Persian P08 Long complete rig with matching stock, holster and mag pouch in the same auction.
Regards
Murray.

[Herb]

Very nice find Murray, is there a date stamped on the top of the rear portion of the barrel?

[Vlim]

A very, very nice example. Certainly with the holster. Those are incredibly difficult to find.

[Pete Ebbink]

Hi Murray,

What a wonderful luger rig find !

Your holster is a KNIL 1st. type and is the nicest one I have seen. Perfect/correct for your luger. Normally realy ratty ones sell for $ 1K...I would guess yours to have a $ 2K-2.5K value...

Does it have any unit markings stamped in the leather ?

Could you post a photo of the back of the holster so we can see if the belt loop was modified/relocated as many do...?

[Imperial Arms]

Excuse me for my mistake regarding the placement of the 'Crown W' proof - it is suppose to be on the right side. It is a good sign that the extractor is properly marked on both sides.

I was reading in 'LAR' (and reference to Herb's question) that sometimes the serial number is also found stamped on the top of the barrel. However, I have examined a couple of M1906 Dutch Lugers which did not have have this additional stamping/marking. Can anybody comment on this irregular numbering on the top of the barrel?

Thanks,
Albert

[Ron Wood]

Albert,
The reissue does not detract from the value of the pistol at all, in fact, it only adds to the colorful background of the piece. The original AO marking indicates that it was first issued to a Fortress Artillery unit. The brass plate is of course for the 3rd Company, 3rd Infantry Battalion, weapon #5. The reissue occurred some time after 1939 when the use of the brass plate on the left side of the frame was initiated. Without seeing the back side of the holster, I suspect that it is a second type KNIL holster rather than a modified first type. This would make it totally correct for this pistol, as Pete has indicated, since the second type dates from June of 1939 making it contemporary with the reissue of the pistol.

Your reference to the â??LARâ?� marking of the serial number on the top of the barrel is not quite correct. LAR indicates that this is a â??dateâ?� stamp, which is correct. LAR goes on to say this is the date of refinishing/refurbishing. Another interpretation is that this is the date that the barrel was placed into service. Since there are a few known examples of Dutch Lugers with the original factory barrel but also having a date stamp probably indicates the date when the weapon was released from reserve stocks and placed into service, and the armorer dutifully added the date stamp as he had done for all the other weapon barrels being placed into service. Very likely all three interpretations are correct.

Murrayâ??s gun and holster are beautiful examples and once again I congratulate him on an excellent acquisition. The only critical comment that I might make is that the cleaning rod is not a Dutch type. The Dutch rod is slotted at the tip to hold the cleaning material and not seriated.

[Pete Ebbink]

Dutch cleaning rod/oiler Ron mentioned :

[Lugers down under]

Thank you Pete and Ron,
To add to some of my earlier post and to answer some of you questions.
The barrel is numbered exactly the same as the gun and I feel that it could be the original barrel. It is dated 1914 on the top.

From the serial number 1471, I have determined that the gun was manufactured in the first week of August 1912 and issued into service in 1914. (Ref: Bas J Martens & Guus de Vries )
Thank you Ron for identifying the original unit marks and the brass side plate marks.

The holster is as Ron has described and has been arsenal altered.
It has the following marks on the flap.

CW
N
2 42
Z






The gun had two rods with it. The one I have shown plus another which I assumed was a home made one but could have been issued with the gun in 1942.





As the holster is marked 42 which I under stand from Bas J Martens & Guus de Vries book to mean February 1942.
There are no other marks on the holster.

I really appreciate the input from you all.

Regards
Murray.

[Imperial Arms]

Hello Guys,

Thank you for the additional valuable information which serves as excellent education.

Any idea why the Dutch cleaning rods have are slotted plain tip unlike the threaded/seriated type from DWM? Is one better than the other? Was this type of different cleaning rod made by DWM or by a Dutch arsenal in the Netherlands? Ron, the choice of the word 'critical' for the wrong cleaning rod is a bit strong in my opinion. I am sure that Murray can find someday the right slotted cleaning rod. (just pulling your leg).

Ron, if you mention that the holster is a second type KNIL which is correct for the reissue date of 1942, do you reckon that the pistol was initially issued with a first type KNIL in 1914 when it entered service and then later with a second type KNIL?

I am fascinated by the history of this Dutch rig and how it was maintained all these years (in service) in order to retain excellent condition. Somebody really cherished this pistol for a long time! Can you make any connection how it went from an Artillery unit to an Infantry unit? Using a word from Ron's vocab, the addition of the brass plates makes it 'colorful' indeed!

Cheers,
Albert

[Vlim]

Hi Murray,

About the barrel's originality: Does it have the gun serial number and a crown/N proof at the bottom of the barrel?

I still suspect, that when it has a 1914 date on it, something was done to it in 1914.

I have a mismatched 1912/1928 version, where the upper has the original barrel, no barrel date added and the serial number and crown/N proof at the bottom.

I would expect that combination (apart from the mismatched frame ) on an unaltered pistol.

Value-wise it really doesn't matter.

[Lugers down under]

It does have the serial number 1471 in the correct place under the barrel in the same stamp font as the number on the front of the frame.
It has the date 1914 stamped on the top of the barrel in a small but different font. There is no proof on the barrel of this gun and most of my other 1906 contract Lugers such as the Brazilian also do not have such a crown/N barrel proof but the Brazilian does have a Brazillian barrel proof.

Kenyon does not mention a barrel proof for the first contract 1906 Dutch in Lugers at Random although he does mention barrel proofs on later models.
Bas J Martens & Guus de Vries on page 158 of thier book "The Dutch Luger" also state that the guns delivered prior to WW1 only had the Dutch acceptance mark a Crown over W on the side of the reciever. The guns were not subject to the German proof law of 1891 if they were accepted by a foreign military authority.

I am now a bit confused, should it have a crown/N ?
Regards
Murray

[George Anderson]

As the rod appears somewhat crude, I would bet that it was made as a replacement locally in the Dutch East Indies much as the grips were.

[Vlim]

Murray,

Nope. It's fine without the proof. Should've mentioned that

I still believe the 1914 is not so much an issue-date as well as some sort of fix date. Perhaps one of the locals messed it up while it was brand new

I agree with George that the rod may well be a locally made (late) replacement. As these rigs did serve during WW2 some improvisation must have occurred here and there.

[George Anderson]

What really intrigues me about the pistol is its history...did it come to New Zealand with some Dutch troops escaping the Japs early on or was it among the many Lugers captured by the Japs and later parceled out?

The holster seems to be in super nice shape.

[Ron Wood]

I am really enjoying this topic as Dutch Lugers are one of my favorite subjects.

Albert asked why the Dutch went to a slotted cleaning rod. I suspect it was because it would hold the cleaning material more securely than the jag type tip. When I got my holster, the cleaning rod was in it and still had a piece of cloth threaded through the slot! (Made it a bit tough to pull the rod out the first time). It could be that it was carried this way to be able to make a quick swipe of the bore while in the field.


The Japanese connection is true in some cases. On the inside of my holster is the name of the individual that acquired the gun and holster in 1945. There is no rank listed, so I don't know if it was an American GI or an Aussie or what. But on the back is evidence that probably it was obtained by convincing a Japanese soldier he didn't need it any more. If anyone can read the inscription I would be most pleased to know what it says.