LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post - Borchardt-Luger Controversy

Jerry Harris · 07-31-2002, 12:36 AM

Kyrie,
This reminds me of one of those chess matches where the master strolls around making sequential moves in several simultaneous games. In my game, you wrote

"The key to Luger function is raising the toggle train pivot above the centerline of the toggle train. If you will look at both the Borchardt and the Parabellum I think you will find they both work on this same principle, and George Luger made no fundamental changes here."

I have looked at both many times, and am (and was) well aware that they each employ the depressed-center toggle lock, as did Maxim in the "Devil's Paintbrush" that inspired Borchardt.

Now, if you will look again at a cross-section of the Borchardt (for example in John Walter's "Luger Story," 2001 edition,p.28) it will be evident that the toggle-operating lever, roller and curved cam occupy a major portion of the rearward-bulging spring housing which Luger was striving to eliminate. So I think it is fair and reasonable to say that his idea for completely eliminating these parts and using the existing frame ramps to trip the toggle was a nontrivial, in fact vital, step in transforming the capable Borchardt into the inspired Parabellum, the timeless design that has attracted more than 400 appreciative members to this forum.

From what we might call the Physics teacher's point of view, it is true that the Parabellum differs only trivially from the Borchardt, and the Borchardt differs only trivially from the Maxim machine gun (after all, a toggle is a toggle). But from the firearms engineering point of view, Luger did a superb job of turning a promising curiosity into a commercial and artistic masterpiece. So I must join Doubs in respectfully disagreeing with you on what design issues were truly significant.

I also join the other members in thanking you for a wonderful historical post and stimulating follow-up comments.

07-31-2002, 12:36 AM	#18
Jerry Harris User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Central Ohio Posts: 64 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Kyrie, This reminds me of one of those chess matches where the master strolls around making sequential moves in several simultaneous games. In my game, you wrote "The key to Luger function is raising the toggle train pivot above the centerline of the toggle train. If you will look at both the Borchardt and the Parabellum I think you will find they both work on this same principle, and George Luger made no fundamental changes here." I have looked at both many times, and am (and was) well aware that they each employ the depressed-center toggle lock, as did Maxim in the "Devil's Paintbrush" that inspired Borchardt. Now, if you will look again at a cross-section of the Borchardt (for example in John Walter's "Luger Story," 2001 edition,p.28) it will be evident that the toggle-operating lever, roller and curved cam occupy a major portion of the rearward-bulging spring housing which Luger was striving to eliminate. So I think it is fair and reasonable to say that his idea for completely eliminating these parts and using the existing frame ramps to trip the toggle was a nontrivial, in fact vital, step in transforming the capable Borchardt into the inspired Parabellum, the timeless design that has attracted more than 400 appreciative members to this forum. From what we might call the Physics teacher's point of view, it is true that the Parabellum differs only trivially from the Borchardt, and the Borchardt differs only trivially from the Maxim machine gun (after all, a toggle is a toggle). But from the firearms engineering point of view, Luger did a superb job of turning a promising curiosity into a commercial and artistic masterpiece. So I must join Doubs in respectfully disagreeing with you on what design issues were truly significant. I also join the other members in thanking you for a wonderful historical post and stimulating follow-up comments.