A Luger can be a gun or the ammo type then?

Morf answered this just above.

-glurk

onewhoknows-

Unsure why you posted the picture above. That is not a Luger, that is a Turkish 9mm pistol manufactured by Sarsilmaz and known as the
Kilinc 2000. Here is the manufacturer’s page:

http://www.sarsilmaz.com/en-us/mega-black/676/Page.aspx

-glurk

I just entered 9mm Luger 1960s into google images and this is one I came up with
as I said I have no real knowledge of gun makes please enter some images like the gun used
to kill Dee Ferrin…

In my opinion, if a person says in effect "I shot them with a 9mm Luger", he is most likely talking about the type of gun. In this case a gun famous for being the one carried by German Nazi Officers. And used by Count Zarloff in the film "Most Dangerous Game". "9mm" is the type of ammo. 9mm ammo could be used in a Colt, Browning or other type of gun that is made to handle it.

But there is also a type of ammo called "9mm Luger". So it could be the case he was talking about the ammo, in the sense that a person might say "I shot him with a .38", meaning the caliber, not gun type.

We don’t know for sure what type of gun Zodiac used.

This is a Luger.

But here is an example of a person calling their pistol a "Browning 9mm Luger" meaning the type of weapon is a Browning and the type of ammo is 9mm Luger.

IMO it is most likely that Zodiac meant to CLAIM that he usede a Luger pistol. What he actually used, we do not know for sure.

IMO we can’t trust that telephone call.
Opinion, schmo-pinion.
"Browning" is the published opinion – I’ll stick with that for now – not that it matters much.

Nice spot on the pistol there, Glurk. (I believe! I haven’t checked.) Fact is, that’s another Browning design rip-off, just like the CZ I used to shoot. (As you probably know). That Browning design was very successful – lots of manufacturers cottoned on to the main features like the firing action, and lifted them. *shrug* (And some of them used the bad bits too, like that hammer, which WILL pinch the fleshy web of your thumb and make you squeal and drop the thing. Ask me how I friggin’ know.)

1WK – the weapon at LHR wasn’t "doctored" as far as we know, nope. It was a .22, used "long rifle" ammuntion (which has confused a few people into thinking it maybe wasn’t a pistol down the years, including perhaps the initial investigators and the person who typed up the report in the first place).
It WAS a pistol though, no doubt, and has been pretty confidently identified as a High Standard – perhaps the JC Higgins chain-store derivative.
(Don’t confuse "Hi-Power" from Browning with "High Standard" – the name of a different weapons manufacturer, will you. People do.)

The "might be tough to identify" part of the equation which makes people think the LHR pistol might have been old, or doctored, or filed, is only in there because it’s a weapon which can be easily stripped to components, and those components are easily interchangable. You could in theory, then, swap the barrel over with an another Duramatic or 101 or whatever, and you then have a weapon which would leave the "right" hammer marks on the cartridge, but would have a barrel which left completely "wrong" (different ballistic) marks, elsewhere.
You can do the same with Kalashnikovs, even those manufactured under license or as a rip-off in different countries, btw. Easily assemble one from a variety of bits, I mean. (Another amazing and much-emulated design, like the Browning.)
Clear as mud?
That’s why the reports hedge their bets and say it might be difficult to identify "even if recovered". Ta da!

It’s a stupid caveat though – and it’s also Irrelevent. Who would keep the thing and swap components? Pah!
And since it wasn’t recovered, and since anyone with a brain who’d just committed a double murder would heave the thing into the sea, or down a well, as fast as possible – if he had an ounce of sense – it’s even more, uh, irrelevent.
Lab jockeys. Forever covering their a***s just in case. ‘Cos of legal implications, maybe.
Hmmm, and ‘cos if someone came along with a 101 which didn’t quite match they could still slap the cuffs on, maybe. (An interesting thought.)

Been reading the Vallejo police report at Zodiackillerfacts.com
Has anyone noticed discrepancies, contradictions?
5th paragraph file 2/97 states writer made observation from passenger door there were 3 bullet holes to Darlene.
2 to her upper right arm and 1 in her right side below her arm pit. Then proceeded to the drivers side and DID NOT see
any bullet wounds from that position.
1st paragraph file 5/97 states writer views Darlene from drivers side, said at least 3 bullet holes in her LEFT arm & side.
Does anyone know who typed up the officer’s reports back then?
I assume whoever did, only went by what was hand written by the officers? If so, why should there be discrepancies in the officer’s
view of their account of what they saw? And if the officers typed it themselves then that’s another even bigger reason to question
those type inconsistencies.