Loewe vs. FN 1896 Lawsuit

With due respect, maybe send an FFL? I doubt if you will find any "proof", indeed I would not be surprised if M1893's left the FN factory post 1898? I don't think the "suit" has anything to do with the issue? As I recall, Loewe purchased a controlling interest in FN at some point and production of rifles/contracts were assigned to the two factories (FN and Loewe/DWM) as needed. I suspect the generic FN M1893's are connected(maybe overrun) to the contracts for Brazil and/or Uruguay and Spain......the dates for these contracts may shed light....?

We do know that DWM made M1893's post 1898, no reason to think(in my mind anyway) that if another order came it might have been diverted to FN.......?

If anyone has proof it would be John Wall but it's hard to prove a negative.... "FN did not make M1893 rifles after 1896"

Jack

PS. Many times Walter(Rifles of the World) has been proved correct. I've often wondered what his sources were?

I was an 01 FFL for many years. I HAD to use it MANY times to purchase antiques. Easier to not argue. This is the reason to get an 03 C&R FFL, makes life much easier

Hi Jack,

I had a 01 FFL also, "Second Amendment Arms". I expect I will need to run this rifle through my transfer dealer, I was just making one last effort to get proof it was an antique. It only costs me $25 and every fifth one is free but why should I pay if it is not necessary? I will not get an 03 FFL. I remember Ruby Ridge and Waco (and other examples). The less I have to do with ATF, the better I like it.

The way I understand it is this: FN had a license to make M1889 rifles. They started making and selling M1893 rifles. Loewe filed a lawsuit to stop that and won in a Belgian court in 1896. FN had made "tens of thousands" of M1893 rifles and was unable to sell them all (according to John Wall). FN stock dropped badly after the lawsuit and Loewe bought the stock, gaining control of FN. Loewe later allowed FN to sell 14,000 FN1893 rifles and carbines to Spain. Those had been made in 1896 or earlier and that sale probably cleaned out the stock at FN. FN made no M1893 receivers after 1896, so all FN1893 rifles are antiques.

I don't know what FN made from 1896 to 1914 but the important thing to Loewe was that they had eleminated the competition.

What's your longest cross-country? Mine was San Antonio - El Paso - Phoenix - Long Beach - Las Vegas - Long Beach - Phoenix - El Paso - San Antonio in a Mooney Mark 21 (Ranger).

Regards,
Bill

geladen said:

Hi Jack,

I had a 01 FFL also, "Second Amendment Arms". I expect I will need to run this rifle through my transfer dealer, I was just making one last effort to get proof it was an antique. It only costs me $25 and every fifth one is free but why should I pay if it is not necessary? I will not get an 03 FFL. I remember Ruby Ridge and Waco (and other examples). The less I have to do with ATF, the better I like it.

The way I understand it is this: FN had a license to make M1889 rifles. They started making and selling M1893 rifles. Loewe filed a lawsuit to stop that and won in a Belgian court in 1896. FN had made "tens of thousands" of M1893 rifles and was unable to sell them all (according to John Wall). FN stock dropped badly after the lawsuit and Loewe bought the stock, gaining control of FN. Loewe later allowed FN to sell 14,000 FN1893 rifles and carbines to Spain. Those had been made in 1896 or earlier and that sale probably cleaned out the stock at FN. FN made no M1893 receivers after 1896, so all FN1893 rifles are antiques.

I don't know what FN made from 1896 to 1914 but the important thing to Loewe was that they had eleminated the competition.

What's your longest cross-country? Mine was San Antonio - El Paso - Phoenix - Long Beach - Las Vegas - Long Beach - Phoenix - El Paso - San Antonio in a Mooney Mark 21 (Ranger).

Regards,
Bill

Click to expand...

Hi Bill,
The source I used for this information was the FN corporate history entitled "FN 100 Years, The Story of a Great Liege Company 1889-1989". published in English and French in Liege in 1989. The initial chapters of the book consist of a small book-within-a-book, which bears the title of "The Arms Industry in Liege" by Auguste Francotte. On page 39, Francotte states that "In March, 1896 there was also an order for 14,000 rifles and carbines and 4,500,000 cartridges for Spain and in June 1903 and November 1906 respectively two orders for 20,000 rifles for the Belgian Army etc." Unfortunately, this sentence is very poorly written and/or translated. While you and I know that the order for Spain is for the Model 1893's (which you just bought...congratulations!), it also appears from the way that the sentence was written that the 1903 and 1906 orders were also Model 1893's. The writer (Francotte) either had no competant editorial support or, more generously, he assumed that he had an informed readership who would know that the "Belgian Army rifles" were Mle 1889's and not your Spanish type M.1893.

The result of this is that this key sentence can be easily interpreted to mean that the Model 1893's were made by FN well into the 20th century. Looks like you may want to consider using your FFL dealer.
Regards,
John

Hi John,

Thanks for that info. What you and I know and what can be proven to the seller and ATF are two different things. I know I read a good article on the net about that lawsuit but I can't find it now. It was not the info given in Carbines for Collectors. Oh well, I got the rifle cheap enough that another $25 won't hurt. Much.

It was worth a try.

On April 11 I also got a Loewe crest Spanish M1893 long rifle on Gunbroker. It seems to be my month for Spanish rifles.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=406349867

Speaking of Spain, I am also waiting on delivery of an RE pistol, a Republican made copy of the Astra 400 with holster from Proxibid.
https://www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?ahid=3777&aid=76205&lid=19108158&rfpb=0#Top

And this one from Proxibid, not a Mauser or even Spanish, but nice anyway.
https://www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?ahid=4840&aid=76761&lid=19083326&rfpb=0#Top

Regards,
Bill

I'll defer to both of you but suggest that "proof" may sometimes be impossible to prove.

Another point that I've often wondered about. It has been suggested that Loewe was the primary if not the only supplier of the tooling necessary to manufacture Mauser rifles at the turn of the century.(America and GB also provided tooling but I do not recall that they did so for Mauser rifles) We do know that tooling was slow in coming for the M1898 Mauser, it was 1902 for example before Amberb got theirs....

What I'm suggesting is that at this time of change over to the M98 action from earlier models, any order for an earlier type might have gone to any one of the commercial factories(Mauser, DWM or FN) that had the available production space? We know that both Mauser and DWM were gearing up for M98 production by 1899 so maybe a M93 order would be diverted to FN. OTOH I guess we know DWM was still making the earlier model for the Serbs and maybe Chile post 1898...... I just don't think anything can be positively ruled out.

I also wonder about Francotte's work? Is it definitive? Again, hard to prove a negative, just because he doesn't mention an order doesn't mean it wasn't missed or that it was a separate "category" like maybe it was not a specific "FN" contract/order, but an order to/from Mauser or DWM that was diverted/filled by FN.....?

Bottom line. Maybe secure an FFL?

FWIW

Jack