Artillery Luger

[Dean Dennis]

Has anyone seen the September/October issue of American Handgunner? Talk about gorgeous photos! Nine page article "Luger P-08 The Gun That Nearly Beat the 1911" All the great photos are of a mint 1918 DWM Artillery Luger. You experts won't learn much but the photos are sure worth picking it up for!

[Johnny Peppers]

I haven't seen the article, but would be interested in knowing when the P08 was ever tested by the US, or where the author came to the conclusion that the P08 almost beat out the Colt 1911. The 1900 model was tested with a recommendation that the pistol not be adopted, and the .45 cal Luger was to be tested with the intent of adopting a .45 cal sidearm in the tests of 1907. After testing one of the hand built .45 Lugers prior to the formal tests the testing board made these recommendations:

"From a careful consideration of the characteristics of each weapon and of the tests made by the board, it is of the opinion that..the Luger automatic pistol, although it possesses manifest advantages in many particulars, is not recommended for a service test because its certainty of action, even with Luger ammunition, is not considered satisfactory because the final seating of the cartridge is not by positive spring action, and because the powder stated by Mr. Luger to be necessary for its satisfactory use is not now obtainable in this country."

Initially Savage turned down the request to submit 200 .45 cal pistols for the tests, and the recommendation was made that 200 of the Lugers be bought in order to proceed with the tests. Luger initially agreed to furnish 200 of the .45 cal pistols, but later changed their mind and declined to submit the pistols.

Savage did later submit the 200 pistols, but was beat out by the Colt.

[Dean Dennis]

I just read "em" I don't write"em". Article says" As a result of these army tests the Ordinance Department submitted an order for 200 Parabellums. Nothing became of this request as the DWM agent in New York failed to follow through, and the rest, as they say, is history"

[Johnny Peppers]

What I said had nothing to do with you, but was a question as to where the author indicated his information came from.This all happened before Germany adopted the Luger as the P08.

Hans Tauscher was the DWM representative for the US, and as such was the point of contact between the US Ordnance Department and DWM. The decision was made by DWM not to follow through with the order for 200 of the .45 Lugers, and Hans Tauscher informed General Crozier that he could not accept the order for the pistols. It is very understandable why DWM would not want to build the pistols. They would have to completely tool up for a different model which stood a good chance of not being adopted. Also at this time DWM had enough contracts to run at capacity without taking on another assembly line in the remote event that they should get the contract.

[BILL]

Well, so much for the article being historically correct. The pictures, on the other hand should be of interest to us all. Again, there are much more knowledgeable Luger historians on our forum (which specializes in Lugers) than there are who actually write for the gun magazines.

[Marvin]

Johnny,


I don't have my reference books with me, but if I am not mistaken, John Walter, in his latest Luger history book does give a very good description on the test trials and I think I remember that the US was indeed considering adopting the Luger, but the biggest problem was the "mud" tests. If you have a copy, see what Walter had to say. I do remember that the Luger was in the final competition. Remeber, I don't have any reference books with me and I can't confirm this.


Marvin

[Johnny Peppers]

Marvin,

The .45 Luger never made is past the preliminary testing due to DWM deciding not to enter the tests. The tests of the 1900 Luger were handled in much the same way in that two pistols were purchased for the preliminary tests, and enough interest was shown to purchase 1000 for field tests. Also remember that this was long before the tests for a .45 automatic.

The reports from the field in favor of the pistol were: great accuracy, great penetration, rapidity of fire, increased number of shots, long range, good balance, and high velocity. On the negative side were: caliber too small, frequent misfires, requires two hands to ****, lack of stopping power, too complicated, liability to jam, difficult to load when mounted, failure to extract/eject, no indicator for loaded/unloaded, can't ascertain number of cartridges remaining, and liable to accidental discharge. To sum up the report of the board after all the reports were in, it said in brief "the adoption for use in the military service of the Luger automatic pistol in the stage of development in which they have been tested if not recommended."

The initial tests before purchase of the 1000 pistols consisted of: time to dismount and assemble, working of pistol, endurance test, dust test, and rust test. No mention of a mud test was in the original correspondence.

[Dean Dennis]

Like I said in the beginning, the "Experts" won't learn anything but I thought someone would enjoy the pictures! I won't make that mistake again.

[Marvin]

Johnny,


Thanks for the info! It just seemed to me that that I remembered that the Luger was in the final stages of competition, but I did not remember the details. Countries sure are funny about what pistols they adopt; take Czechoslovakia in the late Thirties when they dropped the CZ-24 in favor of the ugliest double action only .380 caliber, Mod. CZ-39 pistol. I have never understood whey Germany ever issued these pistols?????? I guess they were OK for rear area soldiers.


Marvin

[HÃ?Â¥kan Spuhr]

I belive that Germany issued all pistols they could get their hands on.


Regards HÃ?Â¥kan

Dean. Don't let them get you down there are many of us who do appreciate the efforts of people and also some of the contoversy gets more new info out. Keep your chin up I have been through this type of response also and am now careful about posting some things.

[Big Norm]

I bought the magazine 'Americam Handgunner' Sept/Oct issue and found it interesting and I agree with the writings of the people on the forum. It was timely for me because I just acquired six rounds of the original ammo that the magazine article described (cylindro-conoidal bullet with a flat tip). My first reaction was 'What the heck is this?'. The article saved me from just using them up. My ammo was made by W.R.A.Co.


Then I got interested in the photograghy, The pictures looked great until I took a closer look. The side plate looked a bit rough and there was some pitting on the rear 'rabbit ears. But that OK. The gun and the photography were very good.


But in an earlier discussion on the 1914 chamber dated DWM artillery I made the statement that all artillery barrels were made at Erfurt. I was rightfully challenged on this statement. Beaten but not bowed, I have not given up. The picture in the magazine was of a 1918 artillery. But has anybody noticed that it has an Erfurt army proof mark on the barrel? While the picture of the proof mark isn't great, the Erfurt eagles bird legs can still be seen sticking out to the side.

Big Norm

[Johnny Peppers]

Dean,

Again, if I said or implied anything in my posts that you took as personal I publicly apologize right here and now. If you didn't like the information I presented in my posts or found it offensive, I certainly can't find fault with your opinion of the posts either.

Norm, I agree. Every ORIGINAL LPO8 barrel from the 1914-1918 period that I've seen, has the Erfurt (Imperial) eagle on the right side.

[Johnny Peppers]

I hate to be the exception, but none of mine have the Erfurt eagle. The firing proof for Erfurt and DWM are distinctly different under magnification, and the proofs on mine have the same distinct DWM eagle on both receiver and barrel.

[Big Norm]

Johnny,


I agree that there are Erfurt as well as other proof marks on the artillery barrels. I have about 15 artilleries in my collection and I swear I have seen both markings on them. As soon as I get done canning some tomatoes and peaches I will take an inventory of these markings.


Maybe this is one of those war time situations where things did not run in a real production line logic. Something like the adjustible front sights. According to military contracts, the sights were supposed to end on the 1916 artillery. But we have all seen the adjustible front sights on the 1917 artilleries.


Now, according to Walthers book, Erfurt began screwing around experimenting with the developement of the artillery in 1911. Plans to produce the artillery began in 1913. the war began in 1914. At the beginning of the war, life was cheap on the front lines. Factories had a hard time finding workers. Erfurt makes a huge batch of artillery barrels in antipation of projected pre-war production. Erfurt needed bodies to produce the rifles for the army. No Erfurt Lugers produced in 1915. Artillery barrel inventory is transferred to DWM. Inventory barrels are in various stages of finish. Some barrels are finished and proofed and some are not. We have to transfer our thoughts from a small country about to enter a major war and the unanticipated adjustments it has to make to accomodate that war.


Now, what is the difference between the artilleries and the military 4 inch Lugers. Sights, barrel length and a little notch on the receiver. The notch was already being put on by DWM. The rear sight on the 4 inch military is not really a big problem to remove from the rear toggle. So that only leaves the barrel and the artillery front and rear sights. Erfurt had the machinery developed from before the war to make the barrel and sights for the artillery. The rear sight did not change throughout the war, so there might have been a crate of those made before the war began and bodies of people were available. The front adjustible sight was dropped in 1916 and inventory was used up in 1917. I don't think that there would be a problem just throwing a few crates of barrels and sights inventory on a truck at Erfurt and sending them to DWM during the war.


All this is just conjecture on my part. There is a remote possiblility that I could be wrong. (Gosh! I may have just used up my mistake allotment for this year). I have to admit that I do not know how large, war-time quantities of barrels are made and at what point the inspection and proof mark is applied. It seems like this would be a time consuming proposition where warm human production bodies were at a premium. And we all know from looking at all the inspection marks on Erfurt Lugers that Erfurt production may not have been as efficient with labor as was DWM.


Finally, it looks like Tom H., Johnny Pepper, myself and others may all be correct. I am just trying to deal with this in a logical manner. But I am open to discussion.

Big Norm

[John Sabato]

different from all the other gun related forums, and the study of the Luger pistol different from all other collecting...


I call it the pursuit of knowledge excellence. Nothing serves better than the truth, and research and conjecture are the tools we use to arrive at the truth.


You guys make this forum what it is! EXCELLENT.


thanks,


-John