Discretionary Blueing
 

In examining this early luger it occured to me how they can blue some parts and leave original others ~ For example the insides remain original yet the outer rails seem blued but how can it be if they are one piece? Are there any videos showing the entire process? ~~Eric

My understanding of the rust bluing process used on the P.08 is that the chemical used to oxidize the steel was brushed on/applied to the surface; that is, the entire piece was not dipped into the chemical solution. The surfaces that did not receive the oxidizer did not turn blue. Once the rust developed it was carded off and then another round of application, rust, and carding occurred, with each successive round creating a deeper, darker shade.

Tks, It looks too labor intensive but appears the most proboble!

The answers are right here! http://www.lugerforum.com/FAQ.html A must read for all~~ Thanks to Ted!!

:cheers:

Although not soaked, rust blue like Luger must contain a step to clean up the interior after bluing. This was mass produced, made in industrial way -- from what I saw on original Wartime C96 samples, the oxidation liquid must be sprayed onto the surface. During wartime, they did not blue inside (unlike earlier ones), they did not clean up the interior after bluing, and left a unique interior "blow-like" bluing pattern inside the frame. For Luger, I would assume they applied similar machinery (probably a sprayer like device) doing that like Mauser, but they clean up the interior afterwards.

Nope, the solution was swabbed on. Can't pull it up immediately but I am pretty sure that original documentation exists that describes the process.

Thanks Ron! It's great to know.

I thought it over. Could the document describe the principle of how to do this, not the exact engineering implementation... say, initially, it's applied by swabbing the oxidation agent on the surface, originated from small scale gunsmith work, pure manual process, time consuming. This process could be improved to fit industrial production... but how do I know, no document, so I don't have any proof. The only hint is the later Mauser interior... if one maker implemented a quicker way, would it propagate to other makers... propagation would take time, say, DWM stayed on swabbing due to the high demand pressure from WWI was not long, so the propagation did not happen.

===

One more thought:
This was obvious finish quality gap between guns made in 1900 era and 1920 era. Both were made in peace time, both didn't have large volume. Why did the quality drop in 1920s?

Alvin, I have to disagree. Many of the "new" manufacture commercial DWM of the post war era were very well fit/finished. This was an era where craftsmanship was still an important part of manufacturing firearms. Reworks may have suffered a bit though. John

John, I definitely agree that post WWI DWMs were very well made. But the finish of 1920s was not on the same level of 1900s. As you mentioned, 1920s was an era craftsmanship still being important. One natural question, why did finish quality drop//. That observation is not limited to DWM, Mauser was same. Post WWI Bolos were well made, much better finished than wartime, "Red 9", but in average, they are not at the same finish level of those made in 1900s. Supposedly, they were made by same group of people. What happened? Attitude on life changed, culture changed, market changed, or process changed? Something changed....

Yet it doesn't explain blueing process but we know for the fact that she was wearing apron during slide assembly but no safety glasses.

As for the inner white question, could it be that the final machining was done after the bluing procedure since upper and lower had to be hand married and struck with serial?

Alvin,

QUOTE:
... the finish of 1920s was not on the same level of 1900s. As you mentioned, 1920s was an era craftsmanship still being important. One natural question, why did finish quality drop//. That observation is not limited to DWM, Mauser was same. Post WWI Bolos were well made, much better finished than wartime, "Red 9", but in average, they are not at the same finish level of those made in 1900s. Supposedly, they were made by same group of people. What happened? Attitude on life changed, culture changed, market changed, or process changed? Something changed....
UNQUOTE

Many Mod 1900 Lugers made by DWM for Switzerland can still be admired in their pristine conditions, then they were made in years of peace and for the Swiss Army.
Lugers made during the WWII are a different story I think, altough he Germans were extremely strict on standards, and the quality of fit on their "Black Widows" was still outstandingly good, undoubtedly times were a lot different from 1900, so more than culture or attitude of life what made a difference I think was in the first place the historical period.

My 2 cents

I'll offer my unsolicited opinion here.

During the wars, it's understandable that the finish went down. Factories were under big pressure from the government to deliver the maximmum production in limited time. Demand was very high. After the war, the modern, capitalist mindset came in. Corporate bigwigs realized that they can put more units out, and sell them for the same profit, even if they shorten the process, and produce 'less perfect" merchandise. This change was not limited to firearms. ALL goods that were delivered to the market, started to be manufactured with as much "corner cutting" as possible, and still retain the customer base.

So we are left with what we have today. "Disposable goods". Merchandise that is built with time and care, costs accordingly, and MOST of the public is conditioned to buy the "new stuff" all the time. That's when China stepped in, and started to produce EVERYTHING disposable, and dirt cheap. Western manufacturers had to adapt, produce cheaper goods, and the quality in almost everything, is not there any more.

Just MY unsolicited opinion.