Food for thought: is the luger really a "weak" design?
 

I first wrote this as a response to the thread on the "telltale mark", but then decided maybe it deserved its own thread.

So here it is food for thought, and request for info or reference on subject, I really need to read the US trials results, should be informative. May need to buy another book.:evilgrin:

If you have references for information, please quote and/or list them so others can go to the sources and read them.

I'm not looking for "opinion" there is plenty of that written already, but data, facts, actual experience with complete or catastrophic failure. A broken extractor or ejector doesn't count- these are expendable and replaceable in my book- but something that can't be "fixed" by parts replacement.

Remember the luger and the "reliable tank" the K98K rifle were issued with a spare parts kit for field use- which contained pretty much every part for either! Out of a million or two units, some will fail for sure, but is that a design flaw or just a fact of life in manufacture?

What started me thinking:
Food for thought::confused:

Can one define "dramatically" or life ?
I don't disagree- only curious as to where this comes from- is it 10% less life, or half, or 90% less.
Do we really know this by testing or is it anecdotal "common knowledge".
Is it just some parts, or what is it that fails?

If an extractor or ejector breaks, is this a "life" failure?
I don't think so.

Has anyone ever done a controlled destructive firing test with Nato or +P ammo? with a control? Two of those modern 1970 Mauser copies of the luger might be ideal to test, they even have better "metallurgy" according to some.

Folks write all the time about how weak the luger is and to not use this or that- but what does this really mean?

In comparison, some new, "modern" pistols in 9mm P and/or .45 acp come with instructions to change the mainspring every 500 or as few as 50 or 100 (old Rohrbaugh) rounds. Some even come with a spare mainspring packaged with it. Others require "special" grease to prevent pre-mature wear- so which is the "weak" design?

Please take at least 10 minutes to think about your response to this question before you write.

:cheers:

What killed off the luger design was the production price. It was simply too expensive to produce, as opposed to other designs. Roughly 2 P38's could be made at the expense of 1 P08.

Even Mauser in the 1970s had difficulties keeping the prices low (and failed). And they were using all the cost cutting measures they could come up with, without compromising the design.

I ran boxes of NATO spec 9mm through my 1937 S/42 without problems. Just minor parts (ejector/extractor) that failed during 7 years of shooting mostly 124gr S&B ammo.

Interarms is a good candidate for stress test. I fired around 1000-1500 rounds from an Interarms. It worked fine, no broken parts. The problem experienced was its front sight falling off. I heard similar issue from other shooters.

One day, I will find an Interarms to shoot it to break.... and see how many rounds it can handle. Everyone can try that, it's not a very expensive item.

Loading Luger magazine was painful. The designer obviously did not expect user to shoot hundreds of rounds from a handgun in one session.

I would call it sophisticated rather then weak design.

Only testing that was done by the USA that I am aware of was the SEVERAL trials of the Luger in the early 1900's

I would imagine that independent testing has been done - even in Guns and Ammo I don't ever remember anyone wanting to do a destroy test. You tube shows none on a Luger (mud test though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_IeAaR5AmU )

Don, you are talking about a design older than yourself, so comparing newer testing to it is a bit much? I mean, Thompson's testing of the assorted calibers was done on live cows, would that be allowed today? And cadavers if I remember right....

-----------

Alvin, you were using a loading tool?
I have experience, I would say, almost vast experience loading thousands of rounds into 45 magazines, Beretta magazines and the M16 - multiple times at ranges, sometimes twice a year, without a loading tool. So, I do know how that feels...

A reblued ''shooter'' luger, any year you can pick up for less than $900 - much less if you are determined, which is cheaper than an Interarms :D
But what is more expensive, even if reloading is to fire 5 thousand rounds through a minimum of two lugers in nice shape. Which would be needed for an accurate testing of reliability?

Also shot boxes and boxes and boxes of our defense industry 115gr NATO spec ammo through my BYF 41. When something actually broke I was shooting my reloads(supposedly much milder) for 3 years. :rolleyes:

A Swiss shooter actually shot a Mauser Parabellum to its breaking point and sent his comments to Mauser.

I will look it up. Think its a relevant piece of info.

Thanks Guys,
keep the good thinking up.

Ed,
my point of mentioning modern pieces was that they are "not" any better and require parts change to keep functioning- at least according to the mfg.! My personal opinion is that the luger is a very robust and elegant design, but to read many posts- some think they will break if you look at them crosswise!
And for sure the ammo would/could cost way more than the luger.
But using a luger of unknown previous history, i.e. one that is not new- would be only a test of that individual piece- to do a good test one would need to "test" 10 or 100 with each ammo type.
Yikes!

Kurusu- What broke when you finally did "break" your BYF 41? Did it kill it or just require a part replacement and move on?

Vilm-
that would be super info to read/know. Hope you find it.

A picture is worth a thousand words (even my lousy pictures :D).
Replaced with one from another BYF 41 that I was lucky to find.

And another 2 pictures.

Be fair!
George Luger and DWM made fine products that was designed for each other.

The 9mm is 34kpsi (SAAMI) and 47kpsi (NATO) that is an 34% increase in chamber pressure.

Take a 1903 rifle in 30-06 (60kpsi SAAMI) and feed it solely on ammo running 80kpsi and see how long that will last.

The problem is'nt the neat old guns and from what they were made the ammo was designed to suit it and not break it.

Now along comes some numbnut and fires hundreds of NATO cartridges he got from a friend in the army, and all of a sudden the old firebelcher curl up it's mortal coil.
Stupidity killed that gun and they're out there multiplying rapidly.
Artificial intelligense is no match for natural stupidity.
And as Ron White said: You cant fix stupid!

First those rounds were tailored for the Luger, that we used as a military sidearm up until 1961.

Second it was the only 9mm available in this country at the time and it wasn't bought from an Army buddy..

Third it wasn't a collector piece. It was bought as a competition shooter at a shooter price . It wasn't all matching already.

And fourth maybe it wasn't the ammo. But the non matching striker that undone the breechblock.


And it wasn't hundreds of rounds. It was thousands of rounds.

And it is my pistol. Bought with my own money. Payed for the repair too.

Take care of your own stuff and have a nice day.

Maybe you could link yours to metal fatigue, or could have been a poorly built part.
A lot of the time things just break. It happens with such regularity here we invented a bumper sticker ,saying it happens.

Chickenthief,
I bought a Ruger Redhawk 44 magnum. I trotted to the range with a box of 44 special wadcutters. I loaded 6 rounds aimed and pulled the trigger. It blew the barrel off. All the people on the firing line ran. They came back eventually and accused me of reloading C-4 in the pistol. Sent it back to Ruger and they said the stainless
fractured on some of them when they tightened the barrel. So don't be so quick to name call someones problem.

When Webley revolvers was imported into the US in the 60's no ammo was avaliable so the cylinders got shaved and 45 ACP in moonclips was the ticket.
What noone thought of is that standard 45 ACP pressures are higher than .455 proof pressures.
Many a webley has been turned into paperweights on that account but most survived which is a testament to the inherent strength of the design.

Nope, not enough said.:evilgrin:
I asked for information/facts- not opinion.

I don't agree at all with your opinion that the 9mm used up all the safety margin in a luger- but then what is or was the "safety margin"?:confused:

PS- as loaded back in the day, and in many loading comparisons today, the 7,65 parabellum generates more muzzle energy than the 9mm. Check the specs.

kurusu-
Thanks for the pictures, I'm with the Texan on that failure, probably a flaw in the metal from the beginning.
The pictures do help show how the striker retainer engages - like a "cut a way" picture.

:cheers:

True,
but totally irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

Food for thought on the Luger limits
 

2 rounds with 75% more pressure to get proofed.

Edit. Side note: The BYF 41 mishap was 9 years ago. Won a few Nationals and Regionals, both on the Service Pistol matches and the Pistol Sport 9mm matches, with that same pistol since then.

Thank you, Don.

--Dwight

Post #8 in this thread includes hardness tests of various Parabellums. While the author cautions that the sample size was small, the data tends to support the oft-read assertion that steels used in Parabellum manufacturer got better (harder) over time.

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...irst-Stock-Lug!

Broken part survey in the FAQ is interesting although not definitive.

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...-the-Luger-FAQ

This article strikes me as informed opinion, and is critical of the pistol. http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-c...unFacts%29.pdf

I have wondered the same as the OP, and like the OP prefer actual data. Here in Colorado we have world class experts in metallurgy at the Co. School of Mines; this thread reminds me that some day I'd like to take a few Luger components out there and see if they would test and comment re: metal quality and suggestions for preservation.

I did find some notes on Mauser doing an endurance test with an early Mauser Parabellum. They fired 3000 rounds in succession, using multiple magazines. The pistol was cooled intermittantly in a bucket of water :)

The gun was ok. Only malfunctions were holdopen fails on empty mags. They did manage to break the bottoms of most magazines. Also the width of the mags changed by .3 mm on average.