Food for thought: is the luger really a "weak" design?

[kurusu]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

4scale,
Well, I guess when you start a thread, the OP can get off topic or into "opinion".

I really only meant to comment or "opine" on the fact that harder is not necessarily better- but as you point out- it is not that simple- point well made.
I would not assume though, that a specification change is for a performance improvement- my experience(opinion) in industry is that it is more or at least "just" as likely to be a cost reduction effort.

Luger metallurgy is an interesting, important, and complicated subject - and should be the topic of another thread; also with facts and not assumptions. Perhaps someone with mechanical engineering or metallurgical credentials would like to research and start such a thread.

I think responding to the summary pages of Stevenson's "negative opinion" is ok ; if he were around I'd sure challenge many of his facts as only opinion.

In whole the articles on the history of Mauser 1960-1970s production are very interesting and full of facts. Anyone interested in the post war Mausers should read it for sure- and probably should own the book " The Parabellum is back".

Some day I'll pick up a copy, but my collecting interest ends in about 1942- with exception for the EG and Vopo lugers; so I have not felt the need for the post war book.

Well the cost effective solution for the P08 was called P38.
And believe me. It is a weaker design than the P08 just like it's Italian counterpart, the Beretta 92.