LP08 help needed!

[WarPig1976]

but there was never any intention of issuing them with a stock

But you could use one if you wanted to so why not use a LP08 without one.
If the issue is sight radius like you suggest Villers, Patrick may be SOL.

[Johnny Peppers]

The discussion was whether the first LP.08 was originally issued with a stock, and according to Sturgess/Görtz they were. If you have information disproving their information, please post it. I am not aware of any 1914 dated DWM LP.08 matching rigs due to their rarity, but there are several known 1914 dated LP.08 matching Erfurt rigs.

From your post:

First deliveries and distribution of the LP08: 1914
Design of the holster/buttstock had not been finalised by 1915
First issue LP08s were without the hoster/buttstock and various holsters and straps were `improvised´.

[Johnny Peppers]

But you could use one if you wanted to so why not use a LP08 without one.
If the issue is sight radius like you suggest Villers, Patrick may be SOL.

Use one if you wanted to on what? None were ever issued with the P.08, and were issued with the LP.08, but nothing was said about having to use one on the LP.08. As to the sight radius, the P.08 has a longer sight radius than the LP.08.

[villiers]

This is getting boring and (as usual, going around in circles)

(a) The stock lug is provided in order to attach the stock,
(b) Most (but not all) LP08 were issued with the stock. Exceptions: First issue from 1914 to late 1916, holsters/stocks and written military instructions were not sufficiently available and `Seebattallione´ on the Belgian front were issued with the LP08 in holsters with belt loops and without the stock later in the War.
(c) No available, written military instructions specifically ordered the use of the stock as a permanent fixture, nor prevented its use whenever necessary.

The following is from the `Artillerstische Rundschau´ (Artillery Panorama) as quoted by Sturgess, Vol II, pages 932, 934, 935):

"Within a few seconds, it was ready for use both the handgun and the carbine mode, also in the case of mounted personnel."

[Patrick Chadwick]

Thanks guys for your answers! It all helps to demonstrate what I suspect: that the list is erroneous. It allows the P04 (Marine) which has a longer sight radius and was intended also for use with a shoulder stock (True? Not so? - please comment).

To some extent, the tightened rules are intended to prevent unscrupulous and unsporting shooters from smuggling non-service equipment into service competitions. I agree with this aim, as there is not much point in using a genuine historical service pistol in a competition where others are using high-tech modern equipment from SIG, Les Baer and the like. According to the present ruling, that is precisely what I would have to do - participate in the free pistol section. Ridiculous, unsporting, or what?

Unfortunately, such plausible aims often miss the target, when those who wish to make rules for absolutely everything do not possess the necessary boundless knowledge. Alas, my experience is that if you have the effrontery to query any ruling, you are likely to be treated like a heretic querying holy scripture. Hence the real necessity to have everything supported by proper documentation.

As far as I am aware, I am the only shooter who actually uses an LP08 in the service pistol competition, so I am not expecting much support from other affected users - there aren't any. I just want to demonstrate that a particular item of one-time service equipment can also put up a respectable performance today. And although a lousy handgun shooter, I was by no means last (beat about twenty others, in fact). If that is not acceptable, then what is the purpose of service competitions?

In this sense, I appeal to those who have responded, to send me (by forum e-mail) scans of the complete pages of helpful documentation, with book title, edition, page number (if not visible in the scan). I just cannot afford to spend a month's pension on getting the "full-bore" works of Görz, Sturgess, Still etc. for this single purpose, and am therefore grateful for your help!

P.S: Warpig, what is "SOL"?

[Johnny Peppers]

The major difference in the LP.08 sights is that on the early models they are adjustable for fine tuning on both windage and elevation where the P.08 and Navy are not. Maybe their rules don't allow adjustable sights?

I use the CD that came with the set of books published by Sturgess after his problems with Collector Grade Books, and the information about the adoption of the stock on the LP.08 and the stock lug are found on page 1109. The pages cannot be copied to my computer, or I would post it.

[villiers]

As I suspected, the main objective is to prevent use of pistols with a longer sight radius (the length between the front and rear sights). This affects the P04 (Marine Luger), but not the LP08. Personally, I am more accurate with the shorter barrel and find it easier to concentrate on the target. The stipulation regarding the stock is a new one on me. BdMP has the DP3 discipline which is specifically aimed at use with the stock.

[Johnny Peppers]

This is getting boring and (as usual, going around in circles)

(a) The stock lug is provided in order to attach the stock,
(b) Most (but not all) LP08 were issued with the stock. Exceptions: First issue from 1914 to late 1916, holsters/stocks and written military instructions were not sufficiently available and `Seebattallione´ on the Belgian front were issued with the LP08 in holsters with belt loops and without the stock later in the War.
(c) No available, written military instructions specifically ordered the use of the stock as a permanent fixture, nor prevented its use whenever necessary.

The following is from the `Artillerstische Rundschau´ (Artillery Panorama) as quoted by Sturgess, Vol II, pages 932, 934, 935):

"Within a few seconds, it was ready for use both the handgun and the carbine mode, also in the case of mounted personnel."

So boring you just can't leave it alone?

(a) That is absolutely correct except on the P.08. There was never any intention of issuing the P.08 with a stock.
(b) The original orders called for the LP.08 to be issued with a stock, and this is documented. What happened later doesn't delete the original orders.
(c) The stock was detachable from the pistol by necessity, as it was attached to the holster and the assembly was carried slung over the shoulder.

[WarPig1976]

Patrick, PM sent..

[Patrick Chadwick]

(b) The original orders called for the LP.08 to be issued with a stock, and this is documented. What happened later doesn't delete the original orders.

That may well be the crucial point. What was intended, not what happened.

---------- Post added at 12:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 AM ----------

Patrick, PM sent..

Well, it's still on its way - nothing in the inbox. Or did you mean Patrick Villiers?