The only part that is not the same is the locking bolt spring. They use a ball bearing/spring combo instead of the bent rod spring. Have not tried to change out every part but that was the only thing that stood out. Paid $900.00 on GB and it turned out better then the photos. Looks like new out of the box (which it came with) extra mag and I found an original Mitchel loading tool (SS) on EBay.

GB item: 433651114

That And...
 

The take down lever stands out. I made a picture comparison of the post Stoeger version of the stainless Luger and a BYF 42, showing some differences. It is in the gallery. For instance the back pivot pin is larger in diameter on the stainless. I couldn't swap out the breech block. Other dimensions were just enough different to stop parts swapping on many things I checked. Even the wood grips are larger on the stainless. Now I am talking about the Stoeger and newer, as the Mitchell version, appears to be very close or the same...

I have a Mitchell SS luger.
Pretty sure most everything is interchangeable with a German PO8. Mine is now fitted with a German sear spring and after a little fitting it works fine.My original one flew off at the range never to be seen again. :eek:
I have had mine since new and I have posted pics of it on the forum.
Have you gents seen the nice velvet bag and original black vinyl holster that was available for the gun?
They are really pretty guns.:thumbup:
Bob

I have a Stoeger 6 inch Luger.It has the slab sided magazines.A Mecgar magazine will insert fully but won't latch into position.I haven't done any measurements on the magazines but it might be possible to modify a standard type magazine to work.
The trigger lever pin is a spring pin.External finish is good.Interior finish less so.Burn marks on the interior right hand side of barrel extension in the ejector area.Probably from a dull milling cutter.
It works well enough but may have a weak extractor spring.

My toggle train in my stainless completely fit in my DWM and worked, The striker interchanged as did the magazine, I know this is an old post, but...the parts do interchange.

I viewed a You Tube about SS lugers made in Texas. The company's website is: newworldordnance.com. Is this where the above SS lugers came from? They do look rather cool

Randy, do you recall the name or URL of this 'service'??? :rolleyes:

Edit: Randy only made three posts. Randy may be gone. :(

Here in Italy Lugers are pretty scarce, and the stainless steel ones are almost non existent...

Ok, this is my very first post on this forum, so be gentle! I recently purchased an Aimco Stoeger p08. This is not marked as Mitchell, but Aimco and Stoeger. Anyway, I have not fired it yet.
I was looking for a second magazine and found one for a Mitchell that I thought would work, but it does not latch in place. I also heard that the early Mitchell marked p08's had soft metal and would destroy themselves while firing.
Should I be concerned about my new acquisition? And what magazine will fit it, since I can't find any specific Stoeger lugers. Thanks in advance!

The magazine is held in place by the top flat edge of the triangular hole in the side. It may be a couple of thousandths of a inch too low on your 2nd magazine to engage the magazine catch. I recommend that you smoke the area around the hole with a candle. Then holding the magazine catch in, insert the magazine full depth and then manipulate the mag catch a couple of times. This should let you know where the mag catch is attempting to engage the hole in the magazine. If you find that it is higher than the hole, just enlarge the hold slightly with a needle flat file to the point where the engagement was shown. Then the new mag should fit and stay retained. It may take several trial and error runs with this smoke trick to get it just right. Let us know how it works out for you...

Thanks much for that info! I will give that a try.

Welcome, Chris.

I have two stainless Lugers. One is a straight Aimco commemorative 1900/2000 which is Cerocoated black and not shot in regular rotation with the others. The second is a CFM branded stainless P.08.

When the P.08 arrived, it showed signs of peening on the frame ramps and the top of the chamber, so the reputation for soft metal is confirmed at least in this example. I filed off the displaced material and it looks better.

This pistol may have been shot quite a bit...since there was no immediate reappearance of the problem, it would seem that it developed over time and that whatever limited use I will put it won't to be enough to reestablish the damage for the foreseeable future.

These guns take the special mags that were made for them. The usual configuration is a smooth stainless body and a brown plastic bottom with a rudimentary eagle molded into the concave knobs. The Aimco guns have a mag well that is, at least, bigger than an original Parabellum, and their mags definitely will not fit into an original. As you've discovered, an original mag will fit into an Aimco, but not necessarily work.

Watch eBay and Gunbroker like a hawk, and you may well succeed in finding an Aimco style mag...I'm pretty sure I saw one recently--if you're patient, diligent, and don't mind the likely high price.

My P.08 came with four mags. I think a previous owner may have done some competition shooting of some sort because they were numbered. So, technically, I have a spare I might part with if you don't have any luck otherwise.

greatly appreciate the information! I am waiting for the weather to clear before I go out and shoot.
I am going to continue looking for an extra magazine for it. I haven't had any luck yet, though!

I enjoyed this thread. One thing that bothers me is the photo of the woman shooting over water. Big NO NO!!

Depends on what is on the "other side of the the water", JMHO.

PB,

I am thinking you have a 9mmx19 Stoeger Luger in stainless. As I recall they came with 4 or 6 inch barrels, with the later named by them as navy. You will note Luger on the side of the firearm, Stoeger owns the Luger name in the states.

I think perhaps we should remember that these stainless Luger came out early in the use of stainless in firearms. Lots of companies had issues with stainless guns early on. Some galled surfaces or flat broke. I am hoping today that most of that is behind us, with newer recipes for stainless, and using different stainless types on adjacent parts.

My first stainless Luger came to me fairly well beat up, the old stars in the eyes routine and I bought it anyway. The ramps were beat and the sear bar pin area was cracked, needless to say the barrel extension was toast, but saved the rest. In looking at that particular pistol, appears someone ran a lot of very hot rounds thru it, was battered from end to end.

My second was a 6" navy by Stoeger. I initially lost an extractor because I did not check the ability of the extractor to slip over the case without bending the extractor arm(extractor spring stack up), at least that is what I think; and my own opinion for naysayers. I replaced the extractor with a vintage blued one and checked it for travel and lack of nose hit to the barrel.

I am afraid I have succumbed to other stainless Lugers over the years, guess I like them.

If you are a factory ammo type guy, I would say winchester white box 115gr is one to consider. Hot loads will pound any Luger, will work fine, but the toll will be there sooner or later. If you are handloader, I would recommend what just works the action, fairly slow burning powder(I use Unique still), and read a little about overall length in this forum. 9mmx19 has changed a little over the years I think in dimensional aspects.

Some stainless parts wiill interchange with vintage parts. To say that nothing will interchange, I think is short sighted. One might consider the fact that the early vintage Lugers were all hand fitted.

Your Stoeger was made for the newer flat sided magazines as described by postings here in this thread. The Stoeger and the Mitchell differ as you have noted. Early stainless Mitchell clips are similar to vintage ones. I have some vintage magazines that will function in my stainless Lugers, but some will not; so the luck of the draw. I would try to buy a good condition flat side if it was me.

I have a lot of rounds thru my old 6" stainless navy, but I was careful with it as to loading, also checked some of the fitments before shooting my Stoegers; like most shooters here will do with any new acquisition.

Everything you read on the net may or may not be true. Your own judgement will go a long ways of course.

Rick W.

Appreciate the info, Rick. I have done a field stripping and it looks in very good shape. I may take it apart further, and get some pics. The action, and trigger feel smooth.

I have been told and I believe it says it in our FAQ, that Aimco, Mitchell and a couple of others are all the same company, that has just had to change names over the years.
I don’t believe that Stoegers are the same but I’m unsure right now?

Never bought a stainless but I have to say that when I was in my teens I would go down to the local hardware store and I would look at the stainless lugers and I would look at the colt 1911 and 1911 A1 commemoratives and I wanted one! And for some reason o just haven’t run across one.

I think that the Stoeger name was also used by Aimco.

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...d-Aimco-Lugers

This post in Jan Still's forum from 2005 discusses it. Alas, the photo is no longer available. The author indicates that they were active from 1990 to about 2000.

2000 sounds about right. This one was likely the made for the last gasp.

It looks decent at a glance, but the fit is terrible--check out the rear toggle...

The extractor in the '06 pattern breech block was made to resemble a 1900 version by eliminating the ears.

The toggle knobs' knurling is in the wrong place, and it's obvious that they were regular ones that were simply dished, similar to what Rich did to create a set.

The grips art typically very fat, it's like holding a section of downspout.

Top view shows the sprayed-on finish.

The front sight is improper, and there is no toggle lock.