American Eagle Luger
 

Gents

Is this a American Eagle Luger? Can anyone give me any info on it? When it was made etc, there are no numbers on the parts, is this normal for one of these guns? Again many thanks for any info :thumbup:

Cheers

Ben

It is one of the post war Mitchell Stainless lugers, that changed names several times.

It is not one of the 1970's Mausers

made in texas by aimco, i recall.

Rick, but if its Aimco, it might also say Stoeger, but Aimco, Mitchel, etc, they are all the same owner / maker in Texas....

http://www.lugerforum.com/lugerinox.html

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...d-Aimco-Lugers

Gents, many thanks for the info, facinating stuff and I am learning more and more about these enigmatic as I go along. I am selling all of my other deacs and belt buckles and my main focus of collecting will be lugers. Again really appreciate the info :thumbup:

Cheers

Ben

Mitchell Arms stainless steel Lugers were manufactured by a company in Texas, then I read that Stoeger who owns the trade marked name "Luger" sued Mitchell Arms for trade mark infringement. Mitchell Arms settled the suit by dropping the pistol from production, after that, if I'm not wrong Stoeger began offering that sort of gun with their name stamped on it.

Some collectors apparently get Mitchell and Stoeger Lugers mostly for curiosity or for their "future" collector value as they are no longer made, BUT, for what I've heard both the Mitchell and the Stoeger stainless steel luger were not that good at all. IMHO.

This one looks fairly good as far as the flatness of the surfaces and sharpness of the edges, not extremely "wavy" looking as a result of buffing.

The pic of the upper grip strap illustrates the result of their cheap-o machine-applied checkering, as I was trying to describe in a post the other day.

Somewhere, among all the specs and different brands, is a run of nice, straight ones that work OK. Although the one I bought from a fellow forum-ite is one of the wavy ones that had some issues--loose grips, slightly peened toggle ears on the frame, and an extractor that needed a bit of filing to re-shape its claw so as not to karate-chop the empty on an edge on the left side, on its way out--but I got it sorted out and it now functions just fine. I'm considering dressing the wavy surface with filing or block sanding to improve its appearance. The good part of this project is that it does not need to re-blued afterwards, just need to install, say, a #4 finish/grain overall!

I've seen pics of ones that were date stamped over the chamber, in addition to the great seal. 1991 or 1992-ish.

I'm intrigued by the ones mentioned as .30 Luger, w/pencil taper to the barrel. Anyone have a pic of one?

NAPCA stainless "Luger"
 

Thank you all for an interesting and detailed discussion of the Stoeger and Mitchell stainless steel Luger pistols.

I recall some years back that NAPCA (National Automatic Pistol Collectors`Association), offered a limited number of similar Lugers to their membership. They had the American eagle on the receiver ring, and a special serial number. I am not sure any longer if these were made in Texas or in California. Anyway, an interesting variation for the collector of these pistols.

Thanks Rick, I checked them out, and the last several pages were comparisons of a stainless 1900 to a "real" one. It is a CFM, same as mine, which is a P.08.

It's interesting to see the differences in how these were put together. For example, comparing the stainless side plate to the original, on the back side, one can see where the tempered, offset little bar that holds in the trigger lever was replaced with a roll pin, on which the lever pivots rather loosely (on mine). The dished toggles are regular stainless P.08 toggles, dished for effect. I'm also a little disappointed that the knurling around the circumferences of the knob is absent on the stainless ones. Though other stainless variations are different, mine, like the 1900, has a straight body extractor--without the lobes. These differences can be reasonably explained by the difference they'd make for the bottom line when building these things.

They remind me of a cheap S.O.B. for whom I used to do T&M contract work, constructing some of the audio-kinetic sculptures designed by George Rhoads. Since he paid by the hour, "That isn't necessary." was his most repeated line. Every lick with a file was his nemesis.

To all new collectors, and all old collectors who didn't already know...

ALL the post-war stainless steel Lugers, ...I REPEAT ALL the stainless steel Lugers regardless of the name they were marketed under, or sold by, (Mitchell, Stoeger, Etc.) were manufactured by the same plant in Houston Texas. They were manufactured in the 1990's.

The name of the company changed several times... "AIMCO" is just one of those names.

I personally wish that the product had been more successful... I always liked the way they looked.

+1 on that, John. Timing was really bad for these. They obviously could have used more development of the grand concert of design, tolerances, and materials. It would seem that the concept might have been sound--applying modern technology such as CNC and quality casting--but a shame to offer a line which was still having the bugs worked out of it. Another forum member once advised that the examples produced towards the end work best and have the best outward finish. I do like the 1900 pictured in the gallery, as far as configurations go.:)

Mitchell did a repro of P-08s.

They are modern repros of a pistol that is all over to buy in original form. I had a Mitchell and it was not a firing pistol as I found out at the range. It was shooting a yard high at 10 yards and it jammed with regular factory ammunition from S&B FMJ. I was "learned a lesson" that Mitchell or Texas in Huston had tried to recreate a P-08 without success or value.