Post by Mike Powell on May 2, 2015 12:37:07 GMT -6
I picked up Michael Reese's 1900 Luger U.S. Test Trials covering the U.S. Army's evaluation of the Luger semi-automatic pistol in 1901. 1,000 such pistols in 7.65 Luger were acquired from DWM and issued out, principally by sending five to the commanding officer of each of the 185 troops of cavalry, including 60 sent to the 7th Cavalry then stationed in Havana.
Reese's booklet is inexpensive and packed with info, including reproductions of numerous original letters, memos and tabular reports though some squinting is required to parse these. Clear photos of a few of the surviving pistols give ample guidance on markings and features. I found the booklet excellent value for the $8 spent.
Most interesting was the report on the trial pistol by Captain M. W. Rowell, commanding Troop "D", 11th Cavalry, Gerona, Tarlac Province, Philippine Islands. Captain Rowell thought the Army ought not to adopt the Luger and he gave along with his opinion quite a lot of his experience-based thoughts on appropriate weapons for cavalry. I have no idea of his career but it sounds he had seen fighting on Samar. He had experience with Colt's single-action .45 and double-action .38 that replaced the .45 and now with the Luger. The carbine he references would of course have been the .30/40 Krag-Jorgenson, though it is likely he had earlier in his service been exposed to the .45 Springfield carbine which the Krag replaced.
Here are excerpts from his report, explaining his reasons for rejecting the Luger and other thoughts:
1. Very great danger of accidental discharge. This danger exists with all pistols, but with this type it is increased.This danger is always present, even with fairly well trained troops and it becomes greater with partially trained men or with horses not thoroughly broken, conditions which now exist and which will recur from time to time in the Cavalry, under existing conditions.
4. With reference to this pistol as a secondary arm it is not seen that either rapidity of aimed fire or a greater number of cartridges than six or even the ability to reload the magazine are really essential. The pistol is not the real arm of the cavalry. The carbine is the arm of the cavalry soldier, the pistol and saber are merely secondary arms which have very limited special uses.
5. ...In the case of a mounted melee in mass the officer or soldier with a loaded revolver is as dangerous to friends as to foes.
Elsewhere in his lengthy comments Rowell was emphatic that the Colt .45 single-action was the best of pistols. It was surer to work, it was safer to handle (than a double-action revolver or, especially, a semi-automatic pistol) and it had real stopping power. His emphasis on safety led me to wonder if he had not seen an accidental discharge or two.
Reese's booklet is inexpensive and packed with info, including reproductions of numerous original letters, memos and tabular reports though some squinting is required to parse these. Clear photos of a few of the surviving pistols give ample guidance on markings and features. I found the booklet excellent value for the $8 spent.
Most interesting was the report on the trial pistol by Captain M. W. Rowell, commanding Troop "D", 11th Cavalry, Gerona, Tarlac Province, Philippine Islands. Captain Rowell thought the Army ought not to adopt the Luger and he gave along with his opinion quite a lot of his experience-based thoughts on appropriate weapons for cavalry. I have no idea of his career but it sounds he had seen fighting on Samar. He had experience with Colt's single-action .45 and double-action .38 that replaced the .45 and now with the Luger. The carbine he references would of course have been the .30/40 Krag-Jorgenson, though it is likely he had earlier in his service been exposed to the .45 Springfield carbine which the Krag replaced.
Here are excerpts from his report, explaining his reasons for rejecting the Luger and other thoughts:
1. Very great danger of accidental discharge. This danger exists with all pistols, but with this type it is increased.This danger is always present, even with fairly well trained troops and it becomes greater with partially trained men or with horses not thoroughly broken, conditions which now exist and which will recur from time to time in the Cavalry, under existing conditions.
4. With reference to this pistol as a secondary arm it is not seen that either rapidity of aimed fire or a greater number of cartridges than six or even the ability to reload the magazine are really essential. The pistol is not the real arm of the cavalry. The carbine is the arm of the cavalry soldier, the pistol and saber are merely secondary arms which have very limited special uses.
5. ...In the case of a mounted melee in mass the officer or soldier with a loaded revolver is as dangerous to friends as to foes.
Elsewhere in his lengthy comments Rowell was emphatic that the Colt .45 single-action was the best of pistols. It was surer to work, it was safer to handle (than a double-action revolver or, especially, a semi-automatic pistol) and it had real stopping power. His emphasis on safety led me to wonder if he had not seen an accidental discharge or two.
