Real damage
 

I have no real info on this as it was forwarded to me.

Apparently some fool is going around testing expensive firearms with hot loads.

Good Lord, is the frame still ok?!

To heck with the frame...is the stupid shooter still breathing?

MikeP,
Did someone say it failed during firing?

Would be interesting to have some information if you can back track it.

Send him over! :D

Well,

Just another masterpiece butchered by one of the "Magnum Boys".

Sieger

Here in Italy there is a proverb that translated says: "the mother of idiots is always pregnant" ...
some things sometimes make me think that is probably true.

Sergio

When he is allowed visitors maybe he will give explanation, more details!

"Here in Italy there is a proverb that translated says: "the mother of idiots is always pregnant" ...

Careful, here in America "idiots" are another class of protected persons and you are being offensive.
Welcome to life in the P.C. arena...
dju

Time for a different barrelled receiver. I have a 1916 dtd one now in the For Sale section. TH

Never seen this type of failure before. :eek:

I really would like to know how it happened.

It appears to have been a police pistol. It has the sear safety and had the magazine safety

More than likely IMHO it would have been a double-charged handload...that was already too hot to begin with.

Just out of curiosity, John, do you reload??? :)

(Not being disparaging; I just don't recall you ever mentioning reloading). ;)

Hi,

The Germans have a good saying..."like a pig looking into a watch mechanism..."

Ha!


Sieger

Hi,

We had a similar photo of a Luger that had been destroyed by firing some of the red hot Chinese 9mm through it about 2 or 3 years ago. The fork damage was quite similar.

If you value your Luger, please don't fire +P or +P+ ammo through it, as it was not designed to safely fire such ammo!


Sieger

I don't know... Pigs are quite clever.

I have all the equipment and got started reloading back in the late 1960's. I own an original RCBS A-2 press, and dies for every caliber I own... but I haven't reloaded anything for a couple of decades... never have time to do much shooting, but when I do get to do some shooting, I enjoy every bit as much as back then.

My comment was based on the number of pistols I saw back when I was gunsmithing that were the result of careless powder charges by both amateur and very experienced reloaders.

Thank goodness I never actually witnessed the accidents... only the aftermath. Seeing a S&W .357 magnum with the top half of the cylinder and top strap missing was as close as I ever want to get to that kind of accident... The shooter escaped with only minor injuries. I also saw a modern Colt .45 SAA in the same condition... SCARY stuff...:eek:

In the photos that started this thread I find it amazing that the "ears" of the receiver fork were damaged by the stress and NOT the toggle... I would not have expected the toggle to survive such a detonation.

That picture reminded me of those stupid experiments they perform with Glocks, of wich the Net is full.
Too bad that was a Luger not a Glock, but maybe that guy didn't even know the difference...

Our world is going topsy turvy.

Sergio

It would very hard for the toggle to fail if locked, it would be under compression, all the force being transfered straight back to the toggle axle and thus the fork.

The fork broke at the sharp cut where the opening transition is, a weak spot due to the "corner" present.

If the fork was over hard, or brittle to begin with; then use over the years could cause cracks radiating from each corner, and a final failure- perhaps even with standard ammo.

We don't know enough about this to call it an ammo problem just yet, likely a contributor- yes; for certain = unknown without more info. JMHO.

I agree with you John. I have seen these kind of mishaps(not on lugers) when the loader is using a very fast powder like Titegroup that has a very low loft, and even a max charge is a very small amount of powder in the case. It is easy to double or even triple the charge on some cases and have no overflow of powder. Fast powders don't play well when this occurs.

Also, it could be just a flaw in the forks from years of shooting hot loads, and finally just "gave up". I am not sure that I want to see the shooters face, as it may well have taken the brunt of the toggle train coming back. A bad scenario all the way around.

Interesting point about factory double charges. I was at my local Wal-Mart and I never really pay much attention to there recall board but it was near the restroom and I was waiting for a friend to come out and I glanced at the board and noticed there was a recall on Winchester 22 long rifle ammo due to a double charge so it does happen. To bad the one picture with the ammo near the top wasn't more clear with more of the ammo in it, if that is what the shooter was using. The back of the case looks fired and the primer possibly could tell us if the load was really hot. All in all I see the number 35 on a few parts and it would be a shame if it was numbers matching.

With both ears being separated, I wonder if it is a case not of excessive charge but of a missing/broken/ out-of-position locking bolt [takedown lever]. In that case, the only part holding the barrel extension together would be the axle pin, which very well might break the barrel extension at the ears.

This would also explain the relatively unbroken parts that a double charge would normally break.

Maybe...

Rich, the purpose of the locking bolt or takedown lever is simply to restrict forward movement, and keep the upper receiver in the frame while the gun is at rest, or at the completion of the firing cycle. There is no stress during the firing cycle, and in my opinion could not contribute to the failure that we see in these photos. The end toggle pin and the rear toggle link are what keeps the gun together during the rearmost movement of the gun during the firing cycle. IMHO All the stress on the upper receiver would be at the point where the forks have separated in the photos.

I would be interested in anyone else's differing point of view on the mechanics of this engineering... but I am pretty confident that I am correct in this presumption of how it functions.:rolleyes:

John,
for what it is worth, I believe you have analysed the forces correctly.

Take down latch would see no pressure at all in firing, only to stop the forward motion in counter recoil as you observe.

IMHO

Where the rear toggle link receiver ear intersects with the horizontal top of the receiver fork is a very sharp corner. Sharp corners can be points of high stress concentration.

The centerline of the receiver ear rear toggle pivot axle is slightly above the breech block centerline. This slight centerline difference introduce a bending moment into the receiver ear during recoiling of the breech block toggle assembly. The bending moment would be like tearing a sheet of paper as opposed to pulling it in tension.

As a police weapon and over almost a hundred years of use the receiver ear has been subjected to impact forces each time the Luger was fired. During this period apparently a crack was started at receiver ear-fork intersection.

Once the crack was started additional shooting would propagate the crack to ultimate failure.

That's my two cents.

Dick,
great description!
I haven't read of "turning moments" since physics class.:evilgrin:

It would be interesting to examine the broken parts to see if part of the crack line appeared to be older than the other part, like it had been cracked for some time prior to breakage. Not that it would really matter in the end...
dju

David, I think you are on the right track.

Cumulative cyclic fatigue is a phenomena that equipment designers should be concerned about. This phenomena was probably not considered when the Luger was developed.

I believe that an initial crack could be observed at the receiver ear-fork intersection. The pattern of material failure below the initial crack should be typical of tensile failure as the crack propagated.

Whatever the heat treatment for receivers was, the repeated pounding of use will tend to work-harden the material, making it more brittle. I agree with the idea of examining the mating surfaces of the break, which might give evidence as to whether a crack had been forming, long-term. Newly-snapped parts will be clean and sparkly over the face of the broken areas, and a crack that developed in the past, and finally let go, would show darkness/dullness/discoloration/oxidation in the extent of the ancient beginnings of the break. A good lesson to check these old girls out occasionally, under magnification--if not a session with leak-check and developer (harmless to the finish).