"Mauserbacken" on the late 08
 

Hi,


as you can see in this pic


http://www.lugerforum.com/owner_gallery/Tinker/left_side.jpg


this 08 has got the so called "Mauserbacken" which are the rolling backplates (over the safety-lever) to protect the connecting pin from getting lost.


This (older) 08 has got straight plates


http://www.lugerforum.com/unsorted/rs-07.jpg


Now my question: Was this feature introduced by Mauser in late WWII or exist DWM Luger before WWI with the same feature? My East German VoPo-08 has got the rolling plates and is a DWM 1913. Maybe the handle is made by Mauser in WWII and the breech is from DWM 1913??


Many thanks!!!


JF

Yes JF, your frame handle was made by Mauser...
 

Your Luger is apparently made from two different pistols. While not all matching, the positive side of this arrangement is that the Mauser frame used better steel and will last longer than a DWM frame...


-John

Re: Yes JF, your frame handle was made by Mauser...
 

Hi John,


thanks for this information! I wonder, because the handle has no other marks (just the serial under the barrel, engraved by the VoPo I think). However, this weapon would be a nightmare for each "matching-numbers"-collector but for someone interested in (military)-history like me it is a fantastic piece of history. It was "on duty" by our emperor, the Third Reich, the GDR and now I have got it. I think this pistol has seen much more action than any "matching-numbers"-Third Reich Mauser manufaction ,eh

;-)


Best regards!


JF

Re: Yes JF, your frame handle was made by Mauser...
 

John where do you come up with the info that Mauser frames were better?


That is a serious question, I had never read that before?


Background information sir?


Thanks,


Ed

Just from an engineering standpoint Ed,
 

I have two years of manufacturing engineering experience in metal fabrication and many years as a student of engineering - just one of the things that attracts me to Luger pistols.


Back then, just as today, technology does not stagnate. Manufacturing techniques, including improvements in alloys and the methodologyies for heat treatment of steel contimue to evolve.


While I don't have a published reference I can point to for you anymore, (sold most of my Luger references too many years ago to count), I have read numerous books on Lugers, and especially gunsmithing articles, and I have certainly gabbed with enough gunsmiths to have formed a consensus that WW2 produced steel frames were made of better steel...It stands to reason that improvements in the production of machine steel were made between the time of the WW1 era and the mid 30's when Germany began its move to take over Europe.


I know that use and age has a little to do with it, but those examples that I have seen from the first two decades of last century do show some battering on the toggle ramps and I can say that I have not seen an example of this "mushing" of these ramps on pistols manufactured in the 1030's and later...


Even our own HÃ?Â¥kan Spuhr has posted many times that the durability of the Mauser frame is unmatched in his experience in building custom Lugers...


-regards, John

Makes sense John!
 

That is what I thought you meant, but wasn't very sure of. That makes perfect sense. And I have two Mauser Frames, so now I can say I got them on purpose, .


Anyway, nice to know, thnaks,


Ed

Re: Just from an engineering standpoint Ed,
 

John,

Good points you make from an engineering standpoint. Since I am not home to check, I seem to remember that in Gortz's book "Die Pistole 08", there is a comparison of the steels and heat treatment of the DWM and Mauser Lugers. Now, without the standards to compare the comparabable steels, it is difficult to prove which steel/heat treatment is better. I do have a book at my office which compares the Eureopean steels with US steel, so I can't help with proof currently.


I do remember that the frame is heat treated to a higher Rc hardness on Mauser steel than the DWM steels. What this does, is allow the wear on steel surfaces to be less. If the heat treat was too hard, the frame would be suseptable to "breaking" under stress. The DWM pistols were not as hard and the "wear" surfaces can wear at a faster rate. This softer steel will allow more "stretch" before the stress limit is met. In my opinion, either steel/heat treatment will work, but Mauser was probably able to use a better steel and maybe processing was easier, and provide a more durable handgun.


Marvin

Re: Hardness, DWM vs. Mauser
 

Randall Gibson goes into great detail in his book Krieghoff Parabellum about the rockwell hardness tests he performed on Krieghoff, DWM,Mauser and Simson frames and toggles among others. The higher the number the harder it is and Krieghoff and Simson were the hardest at 32 and 33. Erfurt and DWM were down to 21 and 22. Quite a difference wouldn't you say? Jerry Burney

Re: Hardness, DWM vs. Mauser
 

Jerry,

What you say is most probably true to some extent, but would only be truly proportional if the steel were of the same analysis.

I cannot say for certain but there probably could have been several steel alloys that would be equally strong at R-c22 than another alloy at R-c30.

There is a great "3-D" over lapping range of hardness, ductility and tensil strength which vary with the proportions of carbon, tungsten, molybdenum, sulfur, and other rare elements.

The difference in hardness is not an invariable test of the best or strongest alloy and physical condition of the steel.

It should be looked at as an indicator of the quality of the application of that particular alloy.

The subject is far to complex to generalize in any one situation and should be approached with much study and caution.

ViggoG

Re: Whoa Pardner!
 

ViggoG, Undoubtably you are right about that but as little as I know about the subject of different steels I would need a lot more education, say a degree in metalurgy to speak about the subject without sounding foolish. I would assume for several reasons that the German engineers took all of this into account and mixed the steel with the best available components at that period. The Germans were pretty advanced with metalurgy at the turn of the century. The composition of steel between 1914 and 1936 was different and the Germans ideas about what was required for the frame and toggle obviously changed over that time. We know this for sure, The Luger pistol whatever it's properties has held up better than many of it's contemporaries. While as you say the subject is too complex to generalize I think it is fair to say that the rockwell hardness tests are nonetheless indicitive of the German mindset to improve their product and as a practical matter it is proven to have done just that. WW1 DWM Lugers show much more wear on the frame than do Mausers . Significant improvement was achieved with harder steel. Jerry Burney