LP08 Article - "The Shotgun News"
 

For those who may subscribe to "The Shotgun News" or have access to it at their news stand, a recent edition has a nice 4-page article about the Artillery Luger, starting on page 10. The article will be in the February 1, 2009 edition if you subscribe, and in the February 9, 2009 edition if you buy it at a news stand.

I had a chance to look at the article today. It isn't too bad if you can get by the rather subjective opinons as to the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the Luger as a military weapon in general and the Artillery Luger as an assault weapon in particular.

A few coments I would take to task:
- "Hiram Maxim's machine gun was in fact the first successful application of the toggle system of operation"...probably overlooked the fact that Maxim adapted Winchester's toggle mechanism.
-"The recoil impulse of the frame and barrel extension group "breaks" the toggle-joint by pushing it upwards until the axis of the cross-pin lies above the thrust axis (this could be explained more precisely by the use of Calculus)"...It could be explained more accurately without the use of Calculus by stating that the toggle joint is "broken" by the cammimg action of the toggle knobs against the frame ramps.
-"Luger pistols are notoriously ammunition sensitive and require fairly "hot" loads for reliable functioning"...I believe true Luger pistoleros find that the Luger functions quite effectively with moderate loads with the proper OAL of the cartridge, good a magazine that has undamaged feed lips and a springs, both main and magazine, that aren't over a half-century old. The necessity for hot loads has pretty much been put down as an urban legend.

The comments on the loading and use of the drum magazine was pretty good.

Is this the same editor who came and asked questions on Jan's forum 4-6 months ago? Seemed like a decent guy who wanted accuarate info before he published?


Ed

Ed -

The article and photographs in "Shotgun News" are attributed to Peter G. Kokalis.

Ron

These kind of articals by Peter G. Kokalis and many others are written by authors not collectors who do no in depth research. Relying on pieces produced years ago..what they have read.. and they more or less copy paste from previous misinformation. As Ron indicates.. there is no other explanation for replication of outdated information. Pure neglect and laziness in my opinion.
The worst part of this being produced in a national widespread periodical is that it continues to spread misinformation among those interested enough in Artillery Lugers to actually read the piece. This is a diservice to those seeking accurate information. He would have done much better by teaming up with a knowledgable collector who knew something about the subject as a co writer or editor.
Another thing that prooves Mr. Peter G. Kokalis did little research is his feeble MYSTERIOUS explination of the toggle camming. As Ron so eloquently points out...-"The recoil impulse of the frame and barrel extension group "breaks" the toggle-joint by pushing it upwards until the axis of the cross-pin lies above the thrust axis (this could be explained more precisely by the use of Calculus)"...It could be explained more accurately without the use of Calculus by stating that the toggle joint is "broken" by the cammimg action of the toggle knobs against the frame ramps.
Peter G. Kokalis is like a bad Chef...parts of the meal are palpable..

Jerry Burney

Jerry, Peter was the guy I mentioned; http://luger.gunboards.com/showthread.php?t=15610

He asked a lot of questions, but kinda came to his own conclusions if you ask me... I was forced to close the thread after seven pages of back and forth... ;)

ed

Ed..Thanks, I remember it like yesterday. Herr Kokalis came for information, had a ton of preconcieved misconceptions..did not like to hear what he didn't want to hear and left in a huff. Like many erudite literati he had a long litany of self important credentials.. he was not shy telling you about.
Jerry
Burney

Peter Kokalis is a one-time Divorce Lawyer who got into guns, mostly full auto stuff and lived out his fantasies for several years training forces under the auspices of Soldier of Fortune Magazine throughout the world.
You are correct that he is mostly a writer and his expertise is in modern automatic weapons. He does not really have a collector's passion for the older stuff and this is just another hack piece to pay the bills.

I haven't seen the article, did he mention any help he got from the forum?


He was given a lot of "in-sight" that I am sure helped his article out?

he last signed onto the forum 3 September.... not that it matters...


Ed

Ed -

I did not see any mention of "The Forum" in his article. He did list "Imperial Lugers and Their Accessories" by Jan Still and "The Luger Book" by John Walter as "References." However, I don't think some of his conclusions can be found in these two references either.

Ron

I did see the article, and it was discussed last night at a meeting covened to determine whether to make 8mm Steyr-Roth cases out of .30 Carbine, 32 H&R Magnum, or 32-20. A critical topic, I'm sure everyone agrees. I have only one question about the article:

If he took the trouble to put on the Helmet, why in the world would he neglect to remove the very unmilitary poofy white sweater?

H

I have read quite a bit of peter Kokalis' stuff on machineguns in SAR etc and found it quite usefull. Always try to remember it is just magazine journalism and not intended to be highly technical or always please the purists.

Here is Kokalis in his own words . seems he is largely a photo journalist with some military experience . No mention of him being a "divorce Lawyer"
http://www.cameraquest.com/combatph.htm

He was. He just chooses to bury history that far back.....

Return to Peter's initial question on gunboards, I'd like to extend it a little bit. Some 1917 LP08 have field applied '9' grip panels. But I have never seen a regular 4" P08 having that type of panels. Why did German only put '9' on some artilleries, not on "regular" Lugers?

Popular belief (which is probably correct) states that the artillery lugers got marked as the result of a mistake. The only guns that needed to be marked were the Mauser C96 pistols. But you can imagine that somewhere along the line the 'long Mauser with stock' and 'long luger with stock' were seen as one and the same.

Thanks. Make sense to me.

Hmm. Especially German was unlikely refer to Luger nor Mauser.... "add '9' to those Parabellum caliber pistols" :)

Upon reflection, I'd have to agree with John Donnelly...30 carbine cases. :thumbup: