1900 broken toggle lock ?
 

Reading thru various postings - and now am curious about the effect of 1900 Luger with the frame toggle lock ear missing/broken - such that an intact toggle lock then has nothing to grab onto when the toggle closes down at end of the charging cycle

Seems like it may not matter - since the 1906+ Lugers have no toggle lock and function safely even with stronger ammo

But perhaps there is something to consider in regard to the closure pressure of the later model coil spring versus the flat leaf spring - and also maybe the angle/contour of the frame ramps may be different between the 1900 and 1906+

And perhaps the 30 Luger versus 9mm Luger pressures/setback/etc forces would allow 30 Luger to function safely - but a 9mm conversion to a 1900 Luger donor would be unsafe with broken toggle lock and continued flat leaf recoil spring asy

So - overall does anyone have any tests/thoughts/comments about the significance of broken 1900 Luger toggle lock ?

thanks
Bill

Bill,

I believe that the original intention of the toggle lock was to prevent the action from unlocking once it has slapped into battery during a cycle--this, due to potential bouncing of the parts. It was found to be unnecessary, however, because in practice, this basically didn't happen. The 1906s were built without this unnecessary little system.

The toggle knobs of the 1900 need to be drawn back a little differently than those without the lock, whereby the knobs must first be drawn directly rearward until they move from under the lock/latch on the frame.

So there's no difference in the geometry of the toggle that makes the lock necessary?

it seems like the initial opening spring pressure on similiar examples would be interesting to compare - like between a 1906 30 cal with 4.75" bbl versus the 1900 same bbl length

the 1900 shorter coupling link between toogle and the top ears on the 1900 leaf spring versus the 1906 longer link and coil spring hanger hook / bellcrank would seem to have a different geometry to the spring aspect

also 1900 versus 1906 breechblock/toggle would likely have different mass acceleration factor due to 1900 lighter breechblock and heavier toggle

Bill

Since the toggle lock is borrowed directly from the Borchardt (like many other elements) perhaps it was necessary on the Borchardt but turned out to be unnecessary on the 1900.
KFS

I think this turned out to be the case.

BTW, there's a thread from not too long ago where a couple members were measuring the force needed to open the action fully. It was in the realm of attempting to discover if a spring was weak, and I don't remember if a 1900 was tested. There would definitely be some mechanical difference with the bell cranks of different arm length, the two styles/strength of spring, and the different masses of the toggle trains, 1900 v. 1906. However, I'm wondering if all the variables would simply work out the same when comparing a 1900 to a 1906, each of .30 Luger, i.e. the total opening force, and then force available to return to battery. A strong spring acting a short arm may be the same as a weaker spring acting on a longer arm-- same torque. One may need to account for speed in this equation, in accord with the different distances from the fulcrum.