DWM vs. Mauser
 

I am new to Lugers, and looking for a nice condition gun that I can also shoot. I saw two yesterday at a gun show that caught my eye, but I realized I was not sufficiently informed to make a buying decision. The guns I saw were a 1937 DWM and a 1938 Mauser - both were military, with all matching numbers except magazines.

I've read that the DWM guns were among the best made (in terms of fit and finish), but in another book I read that Mausers are thoght to be the best shooters (whatever that means). Both guns were in very good cosmetic condition, and in the $1,200-$1,300 range.

I realized I haven't provided a lot of information here, but in general do people think this is the sort of gun at the sort of a price that would be a good first Luger?

Any input or opinions would be appreciated!

Depends on what you mean by "nice condition". A Luger which is worthy for a collection and a Luger which is good for shooting do not exist in the same weapon. This statement is my opinion, and many people will not agree with it.

DWM did not make Lugers in 1937, so there is more to that gun than your basic description relates.

Some folks would say, Collect the Imperial guns, Shoot the Mausers. There are two reasons for this.

One, there is more collector value in the earlier guns than in the WWII Lugers. Frankly, the value distinction between the two eras is pretty much vanishing, and this is beconimg a non-issue.

The other is a more practical reason. Mauser-manufactured Lugers are 20 years (or so) newer than DWM or Erfurt-manufactured guns. They have, therefore, had that much less use and potential for deterioration of their metal. In addition, Mauser Lugers have the benefit of 20 years advancement in metallurgy over the earlier guns.

--Dwight

Sundance -

I asked the same question on a couple of forums about 3 years ago, and the concensus then was the same as Dwight's comment above: "Mauser Lugers have the benefit of 20 years advancement in metallurgy over the earlier guns."

Having said that, I do shoot a couple of DWMs and have experienced no problems, but I must add that I don't shoot every day, just occasionally.

Good luck.
Luke

thanks guys, this helps a lot. Probably both the guns I looked at were Mausers, and I will probably just try to find the nicest condition Mauser that I can afford, enjoy shooting it (it won't see tons of rounds), and leave the investment collecting to those who know far more than I. My interest is in the unique action, the legacy of the gun, and the fun of owning (and using/shooting) something made decades before I was even born.

Careful, Sundance ! !

There is an insidious virus attached to every "first Luger" that immediately infects the brain of the first-timer and forces the new owner to think incessantly about "The Next One!"

Metal Quality
 

Dwight:

This is the first I have heard of an improvement in the quality of metal used in the Mauser vs. DWM Lugers.

DWM used excellent metal in both their rifles and pistols during the pre WWI period. In fact, I have several Mauser '98 rifles that were originally finished in the white (action only) that have not yet corroded after almost 100 years!

On the other hand, over here, our Springfields were blowing up on a regular basis because of poor heat treatment. I've never heard of such a problem with any Mauser rifle, never!!!

What I have experienced is a 1943 byf P-38 cracking a frame on me!!

I'm not so sure that the Germans made any significant advance in working gun metal between 1918 and 1939. We, however, seem to have made quite an advance during this period, as I've never heard of a 1903A3 blowing up.

Sieger

The truth of the matter is, this is speculation, Conventional Wisdom, as much as anything else. It is based on the conjecture that between, say, 1908 and 1930, science and technology advanced generally and greatly; that some of these advances would have naturally occurred in the technology of steel and metalworking; and that, perforce, any industry of steel manufacture (firearms, for example), would benefit thereby.

It is as easy to assert that this is unfounded guesswork as it is to assert the assumption, and with as much practicability. Neither assertion changes the fact, whatever that may be.

Your comment is a salutary reminder of the impropriety of unsubstantiated "conventional wisdom". I suspect that there is ample historical and technical research material available to determine the truth of the situation. As I am not currently in a position to do this and confirm or refute this speculation, I will refrain from repeating it.

--Dwight

Does anyone know where I can get the vaccination for above said virus before its to late for me.:D

If you have ever tried to file, drill, or grind on Luger toggles, you will quickly realize that those of Mauser manufacture are much harder than the DWM & Erfurt ones. I suspect the same is true of the frames.

Thor may have an opinion on this, since he has refinished all makes.

Dear Hugh:

Is harder necessarily better for gun metal? A soft center with proper heat treatment would seem a better way to go to me.

I had a 1936 Mauser rifle, years ago, that was extremely hard. It was so hard the the Smith had a hell of a time drilling it for a scope.

Sieger

Guys,

I do not have access to my books...but if I remember...I think Gibson's HK luger book had some Rockwell hardness number comparisons...??? I too remember seeing the later WWII steel being harder...

Harder is not necessarily better. On the other hand, I have never heard of a major part failure on either vintage unless there was an abusive overload involved.

Unspel.,

In my broken parts survey three years ago there were two broken breechblocks and two broken rear toggle links reported. I have seen pictures online of Lugers with chips out of the top face of the breechblock on either side of the extractor (I think I examined one, as well), and iirc there have been a couple of reports of damaged toggle-train parts since then. There have also been reports of cracked receiver extensions.

I have no record or recollection origin of any of these parts, DWM or Mauser.

--Dwight

I know nothing about metallurgy, so my assumption is that the Germans would use the best steels available in firearm production. I would further assume that 1939 is the last "normal" non-wartime year of Luger production, and that is the year in which the best quality steels were freely available. My conclusion is that quality-wise, you can't improve on a 1939 production Luger.

Dwight,

I think at least one of the guns with a "chipped" breechblock you looked at was my Mauser Oberndorf SN # 1375v, it is "chipped" on both sides of the extractor. Although these were the first guns made by Mauser in the Oberndorf facility the toggles are marked DWM and are generally accepted as being from left over parts. The rest of the gun show the tell tale machining characteristics of the Mauser made guns. The finish on the toggle is significantly different than the rest of the gun as well and this is noted as being correct in Lugers at Random (page 250, new edition). I don't know if this actually helps with the question on metallurgy of early and late production but it is curious that the damaged part was from the earlier manufacturing. Because leftover parts were used it would be difficult to tell if the breechblock in question was from the WWI or earlier era or from the after war era.

I have seen other Lugers with chipped breechblocks but never paid enough attention to them to assess if they were all from one manufacturer or one era; anyone else have any of these damaged guns? Maybe we can pull together some data to look at?

Bob M.

Dwight, you didn't say anything about the circumstances or what sort of loads were involved in your failure cases.

In the one case I've seen the breech block lost the lower front edge, the edge that would be adjacent to the feed ramp in battery. I suspect an overpressure load was involved with a case failure in the feed ramp area as is typical of 1911's when over loaded. I also suspect the luger case has better support in this area than the 1911 so the effects of an over load might be more variable.

Thats because they mostly weren't reported to me during the survey. One response noted two broken ejectors due to hot handloads, and one noted a broken rear breechblock with what appeared to be crystallized metal (a Safe/Loaded commercial).

I do recall one Forum discussion early on about a kaboomed Luger, resulting in a rather spectacularly destroyed breechblock iirc. I can't help but imagine that if something that spectacular were involved in the breakage that it would be noted. Your suggestion also implies that cartridge overload/failure happens much more often than we generally imagine--or would like to accept.

--Dwight

Heat Treatment of Metal
 

Can you explain the term "crystallized metal" as reported to you?

Perhaps the heat treatment wasn't correct on this Luger.

As discussed above, some of the early Springfield 1903s were overly heat treated and their receivers would "crystallize (blow into little pieces) upon firing.

Sieger

Sieger,

Here is the comment as posted:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYI

Was once offered a .30, 1923 Safe/Loaded, that had a piece broken off the rear of the breechblock Metal appeared to be crystalized. Barely enough metal left to loosely secure the firing pin retainer. Dont remember the serial #.

Ken D
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Dwight

Heat Treatment
 

Hi:

Yes, this sounds like a heat treatment problem.

I wonder just what the guy shot through the pistol to make the recoil slap strong enough to destroy the rear end of the breach block?

Sieger