Luger stock lugs - Originally fitted to stock?

[PhilOhio]

I'm interested in the observations of you seasoned Luger collectors. I've looked at a lot of Lugers, owned only a few, and never focused on this lug question until now.

I have 3 Lugers...1930 production Dutch, 1937 S/42, and 1917 artillery. Of course, only the latter two have stock lugs.

I have two stocks. One is the complete WW-I vintage rig, and it shows no significant wear on the lug engagement surfaces. It attaches to the 1917 gun perfectly. It also slides onto the S/42 lug perfectly, but the lock lever cannot be turned to secure it.

I imported the other stock from Lichtenstein in 1957, in new condition and never attached to leather. Back then, there were no repros, so I'm guessing this one is original and was made in Switzerland. It has all the cuts and holes for leather attachment. It also fits/locks onto the artillery Luger perfectly, but the lock cannot be turned to secure it onto the S/42.

When I examine the lugs on the two guns, I can see that the locking notch on the 1917 has been deepened, hand fitted, so the lock is a perfect, snug, turning fit. The locking notch on the S/42 lug is noticeably shallower, and does not appear to have ever been hand fitted to a stock.

Is this the way it was done? Leave the notch alone until somebody determines a need to attach a stock, and then fit it to that stock by progressively filling the notch to get a tight fit of the lock?

[Ron Smith]

Stocks were individually fitted and numbered to their designated pistol. The stock iron was altered to fit the lug.

Incidentally, it's illegal by Federal law to mount a stock on any 4" pistol. Repro and Original Artillery stocks can be mounted only on an original Artillery. Navy stocks, Repro and Original can only be mounted to an Original 6" Navy pistol.

The exception being any pistol with a 16" barrel, and only when (with Stock attached) the entire piece is 28" or longer over all.

Ron

[Ron Wood]

The "leave the notch alone" in your last comment is what you should do. Four inch barreled Lugers were never issued with a stock, so you shouldn't mess with your S/42. Also pay heed to what Ron posted about the legality of stocks. He is exactly right.

[Vlim]

That's one of the few advantages we have over here. We can attach any stock to any pistol (for now..).

I regularly shoot my 1937 S/42 with a short repro carbine stock and did quite some shooting tests with a stocked 1917 LP08. I retired the original stock and am now using a reproduction.

A slight wobble, or not so tight fit, isn't that bad. Since you push the pistol into the stock and the stock into your shoulder, it still provides for a stable platform.

All 3 stocks fit the 1937 S/42 just fine, btw.

[Ron Smith]

Well, there ya go Gerben. That's why we're safer here, than you are there.

Our Gang Bangers have to depend on intrinsic accuracy with their Artillery Lugers, rather than using a stock in a drive-by.

Your Gang Bangers are just a bunch of wussy's.

[Vlim]

Ron,

Naah, it's just practical. When you run out of ammo you can whack 'em with the paddle instead!

Here is an example of a short stocked P08, strictly for disabled shooters. And, for the US law makers, an illustration of a similar construction from the DWM archives.

[George Anderson]

Phil, I have sent you a private message.

[Michael Zeleny]

Originally Posted by Vlim

Here is an example of a short stocked P08, strictly for disabled shooters. And, for the US law makers, an illustration of a similar construction from the DWM archives.

If you could supply documentary proof of this archival information, BATF upon petition might exempt the P08 so equipped from regulation as a short barreled rifle.

[A.Mifsin]

Originally Posted by Ron Wood

The "leave the notch alone" in your last comment is what you should do. Four inch barreled Lugers were never issued with a stock, so you shouldn't mess with your S/42. Also pay heed to what Ron posted about the legality of stocks. He is exactly right.

Ron, If 4 inch barrel Lugers were not issued with a stock, what was the reason to produce the Luger with a stock lug ?
Alf

[Ron Wood]

Alf,
This has been a frequenly asked question. There have been lots of "reasons" given ranging from "the machinery was set up to product that type of frame, so they never bothered to change it" to "it was used in later production as a means to fasten the frame in a jig for subsequent machining operations". The truth is, nobody really knows, but it is nontheless a fact that no 4-inch barreled Lugers were issued with a shoulder stock (at least not in Germany).

[Vlim]

Ron,

Correct. But at the same time, Mauser price lists exist dating from the late 1930s, that show that the separate stock was available at extra cost. (Mauser article number 905: Flat board stock with iron, without leatherwork for 7 reichsmarks).

So there are 2 original German sources confirming that the board stock was available commercially for all lugers with a stock lug, regardless of their barrel length. It is true, however, that no proof has been found that an army issued stocked short barrel lugers.

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by Vlim

Here is an example of a short stocked P08, strictly for disabled shooters.

Vlim, what makes this stock suitable for those of us with disabilities???

[Vlim]

I have rather poor eyesight, had corrective surgery done years ago to at least make 'em look in the same general direction and was diagnosed as having a rheumatic disease 6 or 7 years ago. So when things get too bad for single handed shooting, I grab a stocked pistol

[PhilOhio]

Ron, guys,

This is the first time in my life that I have heard that the Luger stock exemption only applied to specific models of these pistols. I'm pretty sure I have read official ATF statements exempting "original Luger pistols" equipped with original or repro stocks. But I guess I'll have to review all that.

Can you refer me to any code section where these additional limitations are spelled out in the form of law?

Note that Browning HiPowers and the Inglis, equipped with stocks, are also exempt. Measuring my FEG clone (no stock cut), I see the bbl. is about 4 7/8", which would agree with what you say about this 4" rule, explaining the exemption.

All stocked Broomhandles are also exempt; not sure about bbl. length on the Bolos.

[wlyon]

Section III Firearms Curios or Relics List ATF P 5300.11. This shows those that been excluded from the provisions of the National Firearms Act. It is very specific. Bill

[Ron Smith]

Just more non-sensical , convoluted and silly rules, made up by some desk pilot who doesn't have a clue.

They are the rules however, and they are enforced.

[PhilOhio]

Thanks Bill, Ron. I went back and looked at ATF's lists. It appears that the only reason all short barrel Lugers have not been exempted from the shoulder stock attachment prohibition is that nobody has asked.

FYI: While it is not so stated in the listings, ATF has issued update letters stating that the use of reproduction shoulder stocks is also exempt; this is true despite wording in the actual list stating that it applies to "original" stocks. I'm not aware of any further rulings on how finely the line has been cut as to what qualifies as an acceptable "reproduction".

Early short barrel DWM Lugers are already exempt for stock attachment...bbls. of 4" and 4 7/8". They are listed.

Browning HiPowers are exempt, as are the Inglis guns.

All Broomhandles of any caliber, manufactured before 1940, are exempt. The exemption is short, concise, and all inclusive.

A request to exempt all Lugers mfg. before 1946 or some such cutoff date would most likely end all this pointless complexity and the need to list a host of obscure variations. The Broomhandle wording should be the model; it has already been determined by ATF to be reasonable and acceptable; at least pre-Obama.

A little perspective on pointless prohibitions, for you younger people: Back in the 1950s, when I acquired my first S/42 Luger, there was a law on the books which made all Lugers with shoulder stock lugs contraband, subject to seizure and imprisonment of the person possessing one. I learned this after buying mine, from a pawn shop owner with an FFL. I was worried. I began carefully checking around.

I learned ATF had published guidelines for legalizing one's Luger by grinding off the lug. But I never saw such a butchered Luger. Not one.

Lugged Lugers were all over the place in gun stores. They were privately owned. What in the world was going on?

It took me awhile to figure out that nobody was honoring the stupid rule and nobody was enforcing it.

So whatever happened? Was the law changed? Or is it still on the books, but universally ignored? I have no clue, but I positively know it was law in the 1950s.

I guess it's time for somebody to ask ATF for an update, worded as for Mauser Broomhandle pistols. In recent years ATF seems to have been most reasonable and cooperative. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the Obama Factor might taint this refreshing common sense approach. I hope not.

[lugersrkewl]

forgive my ignorance and the dredging up of this topic.
can you have a 4 inch luger of any model from 1900-1993 and a stock in your house as long as they arent joined? can you have two stocks and one 6'' pistol? Im sure this is discussed somewhere but I am lazy

[Edward Tinker]

some people answer no, but I find that silly

As long as you have them not joined, then its legal in my opinion.

Technically you can have a 10 inch AR15 barrel as long as its not attached, so I see no difference

[Ron Wood]

Unfortunately, and as much as it pains me to say so, technically Ed is wrong regardless of how silly he feels that is. If you own Lugers and also possess a stock, unless one of those Lugers is of the correct type for the stock, you have the components of a short barreled rifle regardless of whether you actually attach the stock or not. "As long as you have them not joined, then its legal in my opinion" is legally dead wrong and if you get caught and the LEO is hard nosed you can lose your guns and be faced with fines and a criminal charge.