!!! LUGER on TV today !!!
 

February 10, 2010 04:00 p.m. EST

"Guns of the world - The Luger" :rockon:

HISTORY-INTERNATIONAL Channel,

Here on Comcast, it's channel 116, pls.
check your local broadcast provider.
:jumper:

It can also be seen on Youtube. Neat segment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfXQRLr-1Cw&NR=1

Charlie

great video! wish I could afford one of the 100 but...... I'm happy with the one grand dad brought home.:)

Thanks, Charly
 

I didn't know that. Youtube is a really nice place to spend hours and hours and hours....:typing:

He used CNC. But "Nothing replaces laborious work".

So, what people said putting a chunk of steel into CNC, then a gun automatically appears on the other end, is not true. At least, there are lots of filing work on video.

Yes,

For example: the postwar Mauser frame still needed about 90 machine steps to take it from a forging to a finished in-the-white steel frame.

Vlim -- Could you share us the list of those 90 steps? Curious on what was done. Or a subset, so I could get some idea?

====

BTW, postwar frame was cast, right? Where did forging come from? I am very confused. 90 steps were address to barrel and barrel extension only, correct?

Making a Luger from a chunk of steel took him 10-month full time work, using conventional lathe:

http://www.craftsmanshipmuseum.com/M...20bulletin.pdf

Smaller, but nothing really saved here, except a little bit less steel. And he's a very skillful person.

?? eh?

...and I always thought the purpose of making a smaller version
of a thing was to, ummm, well let's see.. oh yeah make it smaller!

nothing really saved? what a curious thing to say! As a person who has been known to make a smaller version of some things from time to time myself it's just one of those statements that makes me go hmmmm...

Please don't construe my observation of what you said as a
personal attack, rather I found it extraordinary.

I wish I had that kind of skill. never mind the patience...

Jerry

So, you mean it's harder, because the parts are smaller? But the statement "nothing saved" is still legitimate in that case, although it's a under statement.

====

[Edit] The article did mention "many parts were rejected, scraped and remade because their aspect, dimentions and/or tolerance were not perfect". Making a single gun amplified this problem. I would think that's the core difficulty, not the size (1/2, 2/5 of a Navy model is small but not tiny).

Or, I missed something?

I don't want to risk going too far off topic but I'll respond just this once.

I am not a tool and die class of machinist but even a production run of one is going to require a number of fixtures and jigs, not to mention test pieces, trials, etc. I just didn't see how the statement " nothing saved" fit a discussion on such a subject.

If I made a model, 1:10 of course in my case, that's what I do; of a Jeep and made a number of wasted parts that didn't work out would you still say " nothing saved" ?

Perhaps you were just being funny and I missed it?

Perhaps I should have rephrased my question:

Nothing saved with respect to? making a full sized Luger?

I'm sure the fellow had the skill and resources to make a full size example.

The statement containing "nothing saved" would be be non sequitur with respect to the topic. How does the possibility
of saving anything enter into the decision to make a miniature?

If that was true we'd fight all our wars in 1:10 scale, think of the materials we'd save!

Anyway that's all :bigbye:

Jerry

Actually, ML's original statement explained well: "This [raw material] is negligible compared to the enormous number of hours of labor spent at the work-bench".

Obviously, full size gun or small miniature, no labor can be saved, equivalent of those 1180 steps were still needed, even if not exactly followed. "nothing saved" because the cost of raw material is almost nothing comparing with the cost of labor. Raw material in this context -- we are talking about 2 lb steel, not 2 lb gold.

Probably not news. Considering the production volume, fitting must be harder than original German work, there was no pile of parts could be chosen from, everything was single piece, so it's harder. That's not said, but implied in the PDF.