Beautiful!

Hi Guys,

I don't regard any comments you make that help me to get a better model/assembly as criticism. Helpful information given as above is exactly why I joined a specialist forum in the first instance.

That said, I think there is a little confusion here. The gun in the background is a standard 1942 BYF 4" barrel P08 with numbers (and placement) matching a deactivated pistol. I take on board your comments re the slide cut-out for the artillery sight. It should not be present on either gun, It is an easy fix. I guess I got lazy and tried to use it for more than one gun, although (as you mentioned) I have seen it on standard issue P08's.

Whilst I cannot make the physical changes to my models just yet, as I am currently re-building my PC, I can show you a revised image that has the grip chequering corrected. If this is still not 100% right please let me know and I will adjust it.

I am also going to have a try at re-creating the DWM logo. If it works as it should then some of these gun markings may change to go with it.

Thanks for your help and your comments, they are appreciated.

Regards,

Dave

If it is a BYF 41 represented, all the parts should be blued.

Thanks for the heads up Kurusu, I should have known that! In truth I was using the gun to experiment with the straw finishing and I will correct it before I create any final renderings. It is actually a 1942 gun, not a 41 though. Not that I know if there is any difference between the two!

I think I have already said that the finishes on the guns could be fine tweaked at the end, and of course, I should have realised that I can get nothing past you guys :-).

Please keep the information coming. I am making notes and will address all your comments in due course.

Regards & best wishes to you all,

Dave

9×19 Dave, amazing work. Keep the refinement editions coming so I can keep drooling. :thumbup:

I made a mistake in one of my post dealing with this topic~ Sorry!! It was never intentional!! Eric

The difference between a 41 and a 42 is....one has 41 over the chamber the other has 42. :D

And black bakelite grips are more common on a 42.

Hi guys,

After finishing the Navy Luger and making the corrections you advised above I went on the hunt for the missing information I needed to complete the Artillery version (see attached screen grab). Getting this information took longer than expected so I started work on a P38, but that is a whole other story, suffice to say that I hate Mauser drawings!

The Artillery Luger is finished with the exception of the butt stock, which I will go into in a moment.

Although my models already have serial numbers I wondered if anyone would like to have their own pistol markings on either the Artillery or Naval Lugers? If you wish you can email me some detailed jpegs of the markings and where they are situated. Please note that both the front and rear sights of my Artillery version have fine screw adjustments for windage or elevation.

Now, the real reason for this post - I have run into an issue that I wonder if you can resolve for me. My latest set of drawings show that the butt stock and metal end cap are asymmetrical in thickness (23.15mm wide in total (I don't understand why two decimal places for a wooden gun stock?)), yet on a separate drawing the metal end cap is actually detailed as being 20mm thick and symmetrical (see attached screen grab).

A search of the internet did reveal some pictures of an asymmetric stock fitted with the symmetrical end cap, but I could only find them on Ebay, and I did not trust that as an accurate source.

Can anyone shed some light on this form me?, and if possible PM me with some decent photos of a genuine military issue stock?

Thanks for your help once again.

Regards,

Dave

You are correct. The gooseneck on the artillery buttstock is asymmetrical. :)

Top view shown -

Hi,

If the stock then takes the symmetrical end cap as shown in the image below (and my model above) it would leave a lump of wood stuck out that I am curious to know what it's purpose is?

The butt stock drawing that you have taken a small section of in your post has no dimensions as to the exact positions and shapes of the two cheek pieces. I need someone that owns one of these stocks to be willing to send some pictures and possibly a couple of dimensions - anyone help please, or am I better moving this post to the Artillery section of the forum now the Naval Luger is complete?

Regards,

Dave

Probably as simple as an error on one of the drawings.
The wood on the stock is = to or slightly wider than the metal.

Hi Guys,

This is probably my last visit to the forum as I have finished all three guns and it is time for me to move on to a different project.

I promised you a look at all three guns and they are open to any final comments you wish to make. As no one has come forward to have their own gun's serial numbers on the models I will leave them with the ones they already have.

It has been a pleasure to converse with you all. In truth this project has turned out to demand a lot of my time, more than I ever expected, but it is with a little relief that I am actually at the finishing post.

Regards, best wishes and may all your shots hit the bulls eye,

Dave

Well, if you do come back. There is something not quite right on right side of the P08. You did not show a right side image before, so it went under the radar.

Very nice work,
As Kurusu said, right side view would be good- straight on.
And if it is not much trouble, the artillery stock should not be red/pink! But "amber" colored wood.

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the comments. Unfortunately "amber" is slightly ambiguous, but hey I have tried a new wood. Is this a better match?

I also included a better r/h view of a 4" P08. If there is anything wrong with it please let me know ASAP and I will correct it, but in all honesty I can't see anything.

Regards,

Dave

That second right side is better. But the tip of the ejector should be rounded not square. It appears a triffle too short also. The magazine release also needs improvement

On the group image there's a wavy look on what should be a flat surface. And, with the action close, the ejector is also flat with that flat surface. The front tip only goes in with the action open.

Hi Kurusu,

Can you please post some images of how these things you mention should look. Thanks.

Regards,

Dave

Yup!
Attachment 68142

Attachment 68143

Edit. Never mind the dirty look. It went to the range yesterday. :D And it's fitted with the "go to the range" VoPo grips.:rolleyes:

Just FYI
 

Ejector with an open action
Attachment 68144

Hi Kurusu,

OK, got that!

I still have 3 parts in my assemblies that I downloaded from the internet - all the others I have remodelled. These remaining three seemed to fit OK. I checked only the major dimensions. It seems that I should have re-done all of them - D*#$n!

I am currently remodelling said parts, one of these is the ejector spring in question, and that is why it is not sitting in the correct resting position.

You also mentioned the magazine release button. Can I have pictures please, This is one I remodelled exactly as per the manufacturer's drawings (see attached image). It might be the lighting in the images, maybe not. Those pyramid chequering patterns can look odd in some views.

Regards,

Dave

The left side is OK. It's the right side that is iffy. Report to my second photo. You'll see what I mean.

Hi Guys,

Kurusu, you have a keen eye, my friend.

I totally remade the last three parts that I had previously accepted as being OK - the bolt housing block, the "Geladen" indicator and the ejector spring. Springs are not particularly well handled by today's solid modelling programs, especially leaf springs as their movement is so complex. I had to create fixed geometry that matched the shape of the part as it would be in situ. I cannot drive the shape with mating constraints.

The depth of the cut-out in the frame for the magazine ejection button was my error, and was 0.2mm (nearly 0.008") too deep. That is why the button was sitting flush and not slightly proud as it should have been.

Here are the subtle effects of the changes I have made (thanks to Kurusu):

Looks much better now.:thumbup:

Looks great! It appears that you have used a reflective property on the receiver which gives a double image of the knurled toggle knob and the frame ramp, making them look twice as thick. The demarcation line between the object and the reflection is evident, so I hope the "fix" merely involves eliminating the reflection.
Ron

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your comments. Yes, the reflection of the toggle is unfortunate, but in truth black or blue/black is a very difficult colour to light well. A small movement of the model within the lighting zone can make colours change totally, and as you have seen cause surfaces to create unwanted reflections. It is difficult to get the detail out without getting too many reflections or blown highlights. The human eye has a much greater dynamic range than any camera made or any imaging software can duplicate.

Attached is another image viewed from the top of the Luger. Notice how flat looking the back strap of the framework is. Also note how queer the reflection of the ejector spring looks. It takes an age to get each viewpoint to look just right (at least for me it does). I am no graphic artist and all I know about the imaging software I use is self-taught.

Now that the mechanics are sorted I am going to update all three assemblies and then start playing around with the lighting, adding emissive planes, etc.., etc., until I get the results that hopefully best display each individual gun.

When I have that done I might go on to producing some cut-away images to display the inner workings.

Before I finally depart this forum I will post the end results. It could be a while yet though!

Regards,

Dave

Hi Guys,

I will be starting on the cut-away views soon, but in the meantime I have adjusted the lighting on the 3 gun image:

Regards,

Dave

Interesting. Are you planning on doing any revolving images??? :)

An interesting question Sheepherder,

I have never done a pirouetting assembly before, but I do know the software I use has turntable capabilities. Not sure how well the lighting will work under those circumstances. I also don't think there would be any chance of posting it on this site as the file would be far too big. What you have already seen in the images above is vastly reduced in quality.

I may try your suggestion at some time in the future, but as I already have two projects on the go at the moment - a P38 and a British Sten Gun MkII, I don't think it will be any time soon.

Regarding the P38, I have all the parts fully modelled with the exception of the slide and frame. These are about 75% done. They are in limbo at the moment because the drawings I have are not very clear and have some "blown out" details. If any of you guys have better copies of these two drawings (or know where I might get them, I don't mind paying for good quality copies) I would be most grateful.

Regards all,

Dave