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

I first wrote this as a response to the thread on the "telltale mark", but then decided maybe it deserved its own thread.

So here it is food for thought, and request for info or reference on subject, I really need to read the US trials results, should be informative. May need to buy another book.:evilgrin:

If you have references for information, please quote and/or list them so others can go to the sources and read them.

I'm not looking for "opinion" there is plenty of that written already, but data, facts, actual experience with complete or catastrophic failure. A broken extractor or ejector doesn't count- these are expendable and replaceable in my book- but something that can't be "fixed" by parts replacement.

Remember the luger and the "reliable tank" the K98K rifle were issued with a spare parts kit for field use- which contained pretty much every part for either! Out of a million or two units, some will fail for sure, but is that a design flaw or just a fact of life in manufacture?

What started me thinking:
Food for thought::confused:

Can one define "dramatically" or life ?
I don't disagree- only curious as to where this comes from- is it 10% less life, or half, or 90% less.
Do we really know this by testing or is it anecdotal "common knowledge".
Is it just some parts, or what is it that fails?

If an extractor or ejector breaks, is this a "life" failure?
I don't think so.

Has anyone ever done a controlled destructive firing test with Nato or +P ammo? with a control? Two of those modern 1970 Mauser copies of the luger might be ideal to test, they even have better "metallurgy" according to some.

Folks write all the time about how weak the luger is and to not use this or that- but what does this really mean?

In comparison, some new, "modern" pistols in 9mm P and/or .45 acp come with instructions to change the mainspring every 500 or as few as 50 or 100 (old Rohrbaugh) rounds. Some even come with a spare mainspring packaged with it. Others require "special" grease to prevent pre-mature wear- so which is the "weak" design?

Please take at least 10 minutes to think about your response to this question before you write.

:cheers:

What killed off the luger design was the production price. It was simply too expensive to produce, as opposed to other designs. Roughly 2 P38's could be made at the expense of 1 P08.

Even Mauser in the 1970s had difficulties keeping the prices low (and failed). And they were using all the cost cutting measures they could come up with, without compromising the design.

I ran boxes of NATO spec 9mm through my 1937 S/42 without problems. Just minor parts (ejector/extractor) that failed during 7 years of shooting mostly 124gr S&B ammo.

Interarms is a good candidate for stress test. I fired around 1000-1500 rounds from an Interarms. It worked fine, no broken parts. The problem experienced was its front sight falling off. I heard similar issue from other shooters.

One day, I will find an Interarms to shoot it to break.... and see how many rounds it can handle. Everyone can try that, it's not a very expensive item.

Loading Luger magazine was painful. The designer obviously did not expect user to shoot hundreds of rounds from a handgun in one session.

I would call it sophisticated rather then weak design.

Only testing that was done by the USA that I am aware of was the SEVERAL trials of the Luger in the early 1900's

I would imagine that independent testing has been done - even in Guns and Ammo I don't ever remember anyone wanting to do a destroy test. You tube shows none on a Luger (mud test though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_IeAaR5AmU )

Don, you are talking about a design older than yourself, so comparing newer testing to it is a bit much? I mean, Thompson's testing of the assorted calibers was done on live cows, would that be allowed today? And cadavers if I remember right....

-----------

Alvin, you were using a loading tool?
I have experience, I would say, almost vast experience loading thousands of rounds into 45 magazines, Beretta magazines and the M16 - multiple times at ranges, sometimes twice a year, without a loading tool. So, I do know how that feels...

A reblued ''shooter'' luger, any year you can pick up for less than $900 - much less if you are determined, which is cheaper than an Interarms :D
But what is more expensive, even if reloading is to fire 5 thousand rounds through a minimum of two lugers in nice shape. Which would be needed for an accurate testing of reliability?

Also shot boxes and boxes and boxes of our defense industry 115gr NATO spec ammo through my BYF 41. When something actually broke I was shooting my reloads(supposedly much milder) for 3 years. :rolleyes:

A Swiss shooter actually shot a Mauser Parabellum to its breaking point and sent his comments to Mauser.

I will look it up. Think its a relevant piece of info.

Thanks Guys,
keep the good thinking up.

Ed,
my point of mentioning modern pieces was that they are "not" any better and require parts change to keep functioning- at least according to the mfg.! My personal opinion is that the luger is a very robust and elegant design, but to read many posts- some think they will break if you look at them crosswise!
And for sure the ammo would/could cost way more than the luger.
But using a luger of unknown previous history, i.e. one that is not new- would be only a test of that individual piece- to do a good test one would need to "test" 10 or 100 with each ammo type.
Yikes!

Kurusu- What broke when you finally did "break" your BYF 41? Did it kill it or just require a part replacement and move on?

Vilm-
that would be super info to read/know. Hope you find it.

A picture is worth a thousand words (even my lousy pictures :D).
Replaced with one from another BYF 41 that I was lucky to find.

And another 2 pictures.

Be fair!
George Luger and DWM made fine products that was designed for each other.

The 9mm is 34kpsi (SAAMI) and 47kpsi (NATO) that is an 34% increase in chamber pressure.

Take a 1903 rifle in 30-06 (60kpsi SAAMI) and feed it solely on ammo running 80kpsi and see how long that will last.

The problem is'nt the neat old guns and from what they were made the ammo was designed to suit it and not break it.

Now along comes some numbnut and fires hundreds of NATO cartridges he got from a friend in the army, and all of a sudden the old firebelcher curl up it's mortal coil.
Stupidity killed that gun and they're out there multiplying rapidly.
Artificial intelligense is no match for natural stupidity.
And as Ron White said: You cant fix stupid!

First those rounds were tailored for the Luger, that we used as a military sidearm up until 1961.

Second it was the only 9mm available in this country at the time and it wasn't bought from an Army buddy..

Third it wasn't a collector piece. It was bought as a competition shooter at a shooter price . It wasn't all matching already.

And fourth maybe it wasn't the ammo. But the non matching striker that undone the breechblock.


And it wasn't hundreds of rounds. It was thousands of rounds.

And it is my pistol. Bought with my own money. Payed for the repair too.

Take care of your own stuff and have a nice day.

Maybe you could link yours to metal fatigue, or could have been a poorly built part.
A lot of the time things just break. It happens with such regularity here we invented a bumper sticker ,saying it happens.

Chickenthief,
I bought a Ruger Redhawk 44 magnum. I trotted to the range with a box of 44 special wadcutters. I loaded 6 rounds aimed and pulled the trigger. It blew the barrel off. All the people on the firing line ran. They came back eventually and accused me of reloading C-4 in the pistol. Sent it back to Ruger and they said the stainless
fractured on some of them when they tightened the barrel. So don't be so quick to name call someones problem.

When Webley revolvers was imported into the US in the 60's no ammo was avaliable so the cylinders got shaved and 45 ACP in moonclips was the ticket.
What noone thought of is that standard 45 ACP pressures are higher than .455 proof pressures.
Many a webley has been turned into paperweights on that account but most survived which is a testament to the inherent strength of the design.

Nope, not enough said.:evilgrin:
I asked for information/facts- not opinion.

I don't agree at all with your opinion that the 9mm used up all the safety margin in a luger- but then what is or was the "safety margin"?:confused:

PS- as loaded back in the day, and in many loading comparisons today, the 7,65 parabellum generates more muzzle energy than the 9mm. Check the specs.

kurusu-
Thanks for the pictures, I'm with the Texan on that failure, probably a flaw in the metal from the beginning.
The pictures do help show how the striker retainer engages - like a "cut a way" picture.

:cheers:

True,
but totally irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

Food for thought on the Luger limits
 

2 rounds with 75% more pressure to get proofed.

Edit. Side note: The BYF 41 mishap was 9 years ago. Won a few Nationals and Regionals, both on the Service Pistol matches and the Pistol Sport 9mm matches, with that same pistol since then.

Thank you, Don.

--Dwight

Post #8 in this thread includes hardness tests of various Parabellums. While the author cautions that the sample size was small, the data tends to support the oft-read assertion that steels used in Parabellum manufacturer got better (harder) over time.

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...irst-Stock-Lug!

Broken part survey in the FAQ is interesting although not definitive.

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...-the-Luger-FAQ

This article strikes me as informed opinion, and is critical of the pistol. http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-c...unFacts%29.pdf

I have wondered the same as the OP, and like the OP prefer actual data. Here in Colorado we have world class experts in metallurgy at the Co. School of Mines; this thread reminds me that some day I'd like to take a few Luger components out there and see if they would test and comment re: metal quality and suggestions for preservation.

I did find some notes on Mauser doing an endurance test with an early Mauser Parabellum. They fired 3000 rounds in succession, using multiple magazines. The pistol was cooled intermittantly in a bucket of water :)

The gun was ok. Only malfunctions were holdopen fails on empty mags. They did manage to break the bottoms of most magazines. Also the width of the mags changed by .3 mm on average.

Thanks for your info and references.

To your first comment, "harder" does not mean "better or improved"; only harder. Harder Could show less wear, but at an increase in brittleness .

The real key to the metal used and its forging and/ or heat treatment is its suitability for its intended use.

Some parts need to be hard, others, ductile or malleable; so a change in hardness viewed alone is not very meaningful.

As to the Stevenson article, while it does contain much real data and facts, the total and only negative conclusions in the last part are only one man's opinion, and obviously one who had his mind made up. For each negative point he makes, an alternate positive can be written. His most telling "opinion" is that the luger is an "ill balanced" pistol- perhaps in his hand, but not in mine nor anyone I know who has held one!

With respect the article's comments on hardness apply only to the frame. Absent compelling data to the contrary, hardness in such a part would seem a desirable property. Of course harness alone is not the sole criteria, nor did I say it was. I look at it as, the data suggest the steel spec changed and when competent mfgrs. change specs, they do it to improve either cost or performance. As my references don't mention any P 08 cost declines due to changes in the steel spec., I estimate it is performance ('better'). YMMV.

In your last post, I find your opinions interesting, well said and I share many of them. But I thought the rules were 'facts only'.;)It is an interesting thread, thanks for starting. I find my views as to Parabellum design and materials are continually evolving and I will check back to see if there is new info.

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

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.:thumbup:
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.:evilgrin:

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.:rolleyes:
And believe me. It is a weaker design than the P08 just like it's Italian counterpart, the Beretta 92.:rolleyes:

Here is the Broken parts list from the FAQ,
thanks 4square for reminding me where it is:

What parts tend to break on
a Luger? (Broken Parts
Survey)
Those of us who shoot our Lugers are alert to
the possibility of breaking the occasional part
on these 60- to 100-year-old guns. Those of
us who collect as well know how much a
broken/replaced part can reduce the value of
our guns.
But, what parts are likely to break in use? This
brief survey was taken in the fall of 2002 to
try to determine a pattern of potential parts
breakage. The intent was to identify parts
which break as a result of shooting, but a
couple other noteworthy results cropped up.
Lugers are a robust, sturdy pistol, designed to
use ammunition more powerful than that
found commercially, at least in the U.S.
Although they are finely crafted (and
considerably hand-fitted) machines, they are
in no way 'fragile'. They are great fun to
shoot, and incredibly accurate. Over the
course of 60-100 years, however, metal can
become fatigued, crystallized, parts can
develop microscopic cracks. Care should be
taken for one's personal safety, as well as for
maintaining the value of our Lugers.
--Dwight Gruber
There were 19 respondents to the
survey, although by the nature of the
answers this represents more actual
pistols than this number.
1. Ejector** 11
2. Take-down spring 7
3. Extractor* 6
4. Grip screw** 3
5. Breech-block* 2
6. Rear toggle piece* 2
7. Hold-open spring 2
8. Firing pin* 2
9. Grip safety spring 1
10. Rear toggle axle pin*** 1
11. Trigger lever pin 1
12. Hold-open* 1
13. Upper receiver* 1
14. Recoil spring, flat 1
* serial numbered part
** proof stamped on Erfurts and most
Simpsons


I do believe this list speaks volumes about the question posed.

Comment on the list of failures above.

My breechblock failure was atypical. You've seen the pictures. There was a sliver that parted from the side of it. The common fail is the breakage of the rearmost tip that does away with the striker retainer slot rending the pistol inoperable (what happened to mine didn't). This generally happens when by excess of headspace the primers get pierced, the more common cases I've seen (and I've seen or heard of some 4 cases) happened with .30 Luger pistols that used ammo with the bottleneck set to far back. Some folks say that Fiocch ammo is underpowered and causes jams. When getting malfuntions using Fiocchi ammo my advice would be to check if there are pierced primers. If so don't use that lot of ammo in a Luger, there will be no big problems with conventional Browning type actions(besides poor accuracy :rolleyes:) and the fired brass will be correctly fire formed to the chamber and be quite safe for reloading.

How does excess headspace cause pierced primers?

--Dwight

Immediately after firing the pressure dislodges back the primer from it's pocket and slams it hard against the still protruding firing pin, that's how it gets pierced. As the pressure builds up the case also comes back against the breech face relodging the primer in it's pocket.

Edit. The descripted above happens in all situations, but with proper headspace the primer backtravel is kept to a minimum, not enough to piece the primer.

Thanks Thor,
interesting picture; a crack radiating from a sharp corner is a pretty "classic" metal fatigue type problem. Should have been an easy replacement.

A good lesson for "inspecting" your working firearms when cleaning after use.
Not related to anything, but the retaining pin for the mid-axle has been out and in more than once also.

I have seen a number of similar cases in the last 20 years, about 4 that I am aware of, always on DWM or Erfurt toggles, never seen one in a Mauser (never seen a Krieghoff on the firing lines :rolleyes: and only saw one refinished Simson and as far as I know it's still without problems). I am convinced that metal fatigue and not overpowered loads are the reason.
I have 2 DWM Lugers, an M2 1909 Portuguese Army contract and a 1916 P08, I have tried them for function (and they funtioned flawlessly) but those are my collector items that won't get shot ever again as long as they belong to me. Even though their collector value is relative. The M2 albeit in excellent original condition was defaced( something I still would like to have a good explantion for) and the 1916 P08 has a few cold blue retouches. Both are all matching. But I do believe those old soldiers deserve a rest.

I have always defended that the best shooters are almost all matching Mauser made P08s.

Off topic but to address Kurusu's comment - I just purchased a "defaced" Portuguese Army M2 (M2 crest scrubbed off). Kenyon in "Lugers at Random" notes the crest was removed from some Army M2s but does not address why. In reading the history of the Portuguese Revolution, it seems there was a determined effort to replace old symbols (flag, anthem, official bust) with new ones. Until I find more or better data, I will suspect the removal of the crest was related to this effort.

The lesson I will take from Thor's picture of that Swiss is, next range trip I will do a tape test on all my shooters to verify the toggle strike on the frame is not excessive. Tape test = place a piece of tape at the strike point and inspect.

Please apply the tape only after you have manually operated the toggle action, and report the results.

--Dwight

On the tape test,
can you not "tell" by just looking at the back of the receiver?
Excessive wear would be apparent, as metal wear or depression.

I've seen a lot of marks, most seem just to have removed the bluing. A few may show a hint of wear. Weapons "re-built" once or twice that I have seen show no significant wear in the metal at
that location.

Do report on the results of your testing- with pictures.
Perhaps even in a separate, instructional thread for those who have no idea what a tape test is.:thumbup:

This potential strike/wear area is related to our previous observation about metallurgy ; an example of where a too hard frame(brittle) would crack if impacted multiple times, instead they are softer(malleable or ductile) so they do not crack-but may show some wear. Harder would eliminate any wear(not to the bluing), but also make the rear of the receiver more likely to crack. Again JMO.

So... it appears that the evidence discussed in this thread is anecdotal. The 19 results from surveying collectors is probably not statistically significant.

There have been more scientific studies of the Luger design, which is - after all - 115 years after the start of commercial production at this point.

The formal studies that took place involved destructive testing of a number of pistols as well as long term abusive firing of thousands of rounds. There was, of course, politics and market influence involve with the selection of candidates for those military evaluation tests. Even with that consideration, the tests were more comprehensive than anything we have from other sources.

The complete report on the 1907 US Pistol Trials can be downloaded from:

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-c...stoltrials.pdf

This is but one of the comprehensive trials that the Luger was subjected to. Other governments selected the Luger as a service pistol. Switzerland... Germany... But, this is what the US military said at the time:

"The Luger automatic pistol, a lthough it possesses manifest advantage in many particular . . is not recommended for a service test because its certainty of action, even with Luger ammunition. is not considered satisfactory. because the final seating of the cartridge is not by positive spring action . and because the powder stated by Mr. Luger to be necessary for its satisfactory use is not now obtainable in this country."

In essence, they found the design sensitive and unreliable in their testing. They were also concerned about cross-border sources for ammunition components. In effect, a political influence.

The study details the things that broke in their destructive testing.

There were US tests and trials in 1899, 1900, and 1907. During this period, the army "preferred" John Browning's designs, but continued to test other designs. The 1907 field trial was the most extensive, but the 1,000 Lugers were purchased by the US government for trials starting in 1902.

The three .45acp Lugers were procured fo rthe 1907 field trials. Luger subsequently rejected an order for 200 more pistols in 1908, even though it was already considered the third best of everything tested. DWM must have seen the handwriting on the wall - their Luger was not the "preferred" design.

Colt and Savage delivered pistols for the final testing, and (of course) Colt / Browning was selected.

So, considering everything else that was in the marketplace at the time it was designed, I don't think that the Luger was a "weak" design. In fact, it was probably one of the strongest designs that existed in that era. It was not the preferred design for the US Military for a number of reasons, but it was stronger than almost everything else on the market, performed better and was a formidable design. It was also refined, relatively unique, and a vast improvement over the revolver being issued at the time.

Today, after more than 115 years, there have been simpler, more reliable, stronger and longer lasting designs that can fire the 9mm Parabellum and 7.65 Parabellum cartridges. Of course, many things embodying technology have also improved over time - and most at accelerating rates.

Is the Luger Parabellum pistol an old design? Yes - one of the earliest successful semi-automatic pistols. It has been superseded by better and stronger designs - In particular the Pettier SIG P-210 which is a remarkable achievement.

But is the Luger Parabellum pistol a "weak" design? No... I don't think so.

Marc, thanks.
All true for sure, been a lot of water under the dam.

I would only add that the US Trials were for the leaf spring luger, and the change in 1908 to the coil mainspring was a major improvement to the design and it's reliability, but again IMO.

You mention a number of govt. trials, and destructive testing, are these accessible to read, other than the US trials? Reference appreciated, I'd like to read more.

Would someone please add the link to the U tube video of the firing of the "mud test" luger?
I can't get it out of my mind! ;)

Don,
Try this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z_IeAaR5AmU
Jim

There is a fair summary of earlier trials in the USA in this thread:

http://www.militaryhorse.org/forum/v...ic.php?t=11193

I'm not sure where the Swiss Military Committee reports are available on the web, but their work took place form 1897 through 1899 when they selected the Luger.

Charles Petter received patents embodied in the French military Modèle 1935 pistol in France (FR782914), Belgium (BE408077), Germany (DE686960), Switzerland (CH185452), and the United States (US2139203). SIG licensed the Petter design in 1937. It served as the starting point for the new Swiss service pistol that realized the culmination of Browning’s tilting barrel design. Max Müller, who headed SIG’s pistol design program, replaced the Browning-style swinging links used by Petter with a novel locking method using a patented kidney-shaped cutout in the lug under the chamber (CH270873, GB673028, FR1002900, and BE492638). The final credit for the SIG P210 belongs to him.

Yes, Jim, that is it. Thanks.

Everyone should watch that video and see for themselves how "sensitive" the luger is.:cheers: