LugerForum Discussion Forums

LugerForum Discussion Forums (https://forum.lugerforum.com/index.php)
-   All P-08 Military Lugers (https://forum.lugerforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=122)
-   -   Mauser Hump (https://forum.lugerforum.com/showthread.php?t=4308)

Thor 06-12-2002 09:31 AM

Mauser Hump
 
The late collector Berny Lafferty wrote a great article entitled "Collecting the Mauser Military Parabellums" that was published in the Jan/Feb 1977 issue of The American Handgunner. He discusses the added hump, which is an extension of the rear of the frame to better contain the toggle axle pin. He also mentions the later Navy models accomplishing the same thing by enlarging the head on one side of the pin. He says somewhere within the K and G dates transition the OVERALL FRAME was lengthen, and when they wanted a hump on a model then just ground some of the material away. My question is, since the extension of the frame on all Mauser Military Lugers from G date had the extended frame and in doing so contained the pin better as intended, why o why did they go to the trouble to grind the metal off at all?? Seems like an ineffecient step as it is really not needed unless they were trying to keep a visual reminder that this frame was lengthened as opposed to earlier frame. It really makes no sense to me. Am I missing something, or just need more coffee?? What ya think? [img]confused.gif[/img]

Dwight Gruber 06-12-2002 10:07 AM

I may run into a descriptive terminology problem here, so bear with me...

I can visually compare an Erfurt, an S/42 1936 (has a "thick" casting) and a byf 41 with hump. I note that the grinding on the byf which results in the hump, puts the rear of the frame (where the toggle stop stikes it) back to the original dimension, i.e., where it is on the Erfurt.

It would take a micrometer (which I do not have) to make an objective determination.

Is it possible that the thicker Mauser casting disturbed the geometry of the pistol's operation, and they discovered that it worked "better", somehow, if it was put back to its original dimension? Grinding this back, but leaving the extra metal to retain the toggle pin, would naturally result in a hump

--Dwight

Thor 06-12-2002 10:20 AM

Interesting question, since the G dates have a thickened frame and seem to work fine, I would guess that there is another answer as well??

John Sabato 06-12-2002 10:42 AM

I submit that though the grinding of the Hump from a thickened frame may seem like a lot of wasted effort, I think that it was intended to keep the Luger's weight down close to it's orginal "fighting" weight...

my $0.02 worth of speculation.

unspellable 06-12-2002 11:23 PM

The Interarms Mausers have a larger head on the pin. Seems like a simpler fix all the way around. I never heard of any trouble with the original DWM setup anyway.

unsepllable

Karl 06-13-2002 02:38 PM

The original DWM setup works fine as long as the head on the reciever axle is intact, but if part of the head chips off (which happens) the pin can catch on the back edge of the frame in its extreme rearward travel and jamb. KFS


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1998 - 2024, Lugerforum.com