I hear the firing pins can break sometimes. I would buy another one if i were you and take the matching one out to shoot it. I don't shoot any of my lugers. I'm more into having a piece of history in my hands. Plus I enjoy taking them apart to oil them and put them back together. That's me though, if you want to shoot it you should. Just please don't refinish it lol.

This is an ongoing debate... which won't be solved anytime soon... each has to decide for himself. There are many threads which go into quite some detail on this question.
I made up my mind not to shoot my matching 1917 DWM, and spent an extra $700 on a nice refinished matching shooter (matching that is... until I broke the holdopen)

I am VERY happy I didn't do that with my 1917 DWM!

So... I have a new part (not cheap!) on order from Tom Heller. Took me a while to get over that mishap though. Learned a few things as well in the bargain. Such as- that one can shoot very nicely without a holdopen and that many Lugers were made without them. And.... it's not just holdopens which break.... extractors, firing pins, mag bases, even the breechlocks have snapped when firing recommended quality ammo.

As one forum member said, "You takes your chances..."

Luger collecting is an expensive game. Most of the collectors here have 50+ and
they are still buying. They pickup cheap shooters and have fun. I have 3. One for
A grand one for $850, and the last one was $1750. I shoot them all. I did break
a firing pin on my first one. $40 part. I run boxes through all of them and they
shoot really well. The sights suck but still they are extremely fun to shoot. If you
have lots of expendable money they look like fun to collect too. Doubt that you
will ever loose money on one unless you buy a really rare one that is not really rare.

I don't agree that the sights suck. They were, however, intended for very young eyes, an attribute that most of us no longer possess.
dju

How about the adjustable sight on navy, artillery and carbine?

Sorry don't have a Navy, artillery or a carbine. Those are all out of my cheap range.
Yes I do have old eyes and find the sights barely usable. If yall are thinking a commercial sight is great, then you can see way better than I can. The pistol itself is really accurate, I will give it that, but find the small sights lacking. JMHO. I still love to shoot mine no matter where the bullet goes. :)

The navy sights are not really easier to see, nor the artillery; the carbine maybe. JMHO.

It is an easy enough chore to open up the rear sight on a shooter and to replace the front sight with a larger Patridge type.:thumbup:

Eric, what Don says... If you look at an examples of each, you will see that all have a tiny "V" notch at the rear sight, and a narrow front sight blade. I have to put on reading glasses to see the setup, and if it's getting dark, well, just about forget it!

At the very least, milling out the rear notch to be a wider, square cut helps a lot, although I've never modified any of mine. But lots of other shooters have, and it would definitely make things easier to see, like more modern "combat" sights. Dots, even better.

Dave all four~The adjustable sights are a great feature!

Well, I have the same problem with the sights- very hard to see!

A dot of white Tip-Ex on the sides of the V-notch and the tip of the front sight blade made a difference, especially when shooting at a dark target with a light source behind the shooter.

But then, the Luger semi-auto was not built to be a precision target match gun... even though it is accurate enough.

Yep they are made to jump up out of a foxhole and blast everything in sight.
They do work good for that. Put up a big silhouette target and run a couple
mags through at it and you will find most are in the kill zone. Love me some
Lugers. Hard to find a pistol more fun to shoot.

Good Old "White-Out"

Sights on most all early 20th century handguns are tiny. I have revolvers, Colts and Smiths, as well as others, from the period and even "target" adjustable sights are not nearly up to modern standards. And too, compare the sights on the original 1911 and earlier versions of the 1911A1. Very small. Kinda adds to the fun when I try to shoot 'em. I have only one Luger, a nice 1920 alphabet commercial, and tho' the sights are awfully small, they are right on the money.

Perhaps I was expecting too much from my 1918 shooter P08. At first I was all over the place! I am not an "Olympic match shooter," but I don't miss the black at 10 meters!

Then I realized, my sight picture was awful! A bit of that "white out" was great!
Now a question of technique and patience.

You got it wrong Tex.:D

They were not designed for that. They are very accurate pistols intended for downing an enemy at about 50 yards, way before he is breathing on you.:D

All lugers have adjustable sights, you can drift the front sight for windage (very helpfull if you are playing around with different loads), and elevation can be dealt with changind the front sights.

For close up and personnal. I much prefer the .45 1911. Go figure.:rolleyes:

PS. The remedy for old eyes (and I'm on the same boat now), is called optometrist, make sure you get a good one and preferably one that is also a shooter. Forget progressive lenses. Use correction for shooting only, never go to your optometrist without a pistol, take the one with the worst sights.:D

Its 'not really necessary, not a good ideia either, to open up the rear sights.

By the way, had an artillery in my hands the other day (to rich for me :D), but found it very confourtable in hand, much better then I expected, but, I couldn't see the front sights well, not with my all day round glasses.:p

When sighting my 1918 DWM I find I have to raise the front sight by tipping the gun back slightly, finding it, then lowering the gun to get the front sight inside the "V" notch of the rear sight. Very hard to keep my focus on that tiny front sight blade!

Tip-Ex on the sides of the "V" and the top rear of the front sight blade has helped.....

I've never seen artillery... at least... not yet :)