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

Jerry Harris · 07-31-2002, 11:55 PM

Kyrie,
Although I can almost hear the sensible voices telling us to get a life, let's you and I play one more round in our corner of this interesting round-robin chess match. You wrote:

"...I agree that the change from the internal cam method of â??breaking the kneeâ?? of the toggle to the use of the inclined ramps on the frame are different methods. Iâ??m also in agreement that this change was a required one due to a preceding change (specifically the elimination [of the] rear mainspring and its housing). And I agree that the change was vital to getting a pistol that worked. And I quite agree on the attractiveness of the resulting pistol - else Iâ??d not be here :-)OTOH, and the place where I cordially disagree is on whether the change was trivial. Purely IMO, it was a trivial change, and the change itself was necessitated by another change. In essence, it was not a change to improve the Borchardt, but a change required to make theâ??Improved Borchardtâ?? work at all."

Okay - there's a historical visualization disparity between us. Perhaps you imagined Luger ripping off the spring housing, stuffing a spring into the new handle and and exclaiming "Gott in Himmel! Now there is nothing to break the toggle knee. I need a trivial change....Ah! I'll throw away this useless lever and roller and let the knobs hit the frame ramps, or else the gun won't work at all."

I, on the other hand, imagined Luger studying the Borchardt and thinking "I want that back bulge to go away. Let's see, I could take the spring and work it into a modified handle, but that would only remove part of the bulge, because the toggle-actuating lever and roller, and especially the cam, would still stick out to the rear. I must sleep on this." On the way to work next morning, a wheel of Luger's carriage strikes a curb and he is jolted upward. A moment later he exclaims "Gott in Himmel! All I have to do is let the cocking knobs hit those ramps that are sitting there contributing nothing, and I can throw away the lever and roller and cam, and the battle of the bulge is won. That is the breakthrough I needed."

We can't bring Luger back to enlighten us, but I looked through my books and found the next best thing. He can speak to us through a patent, specifically No. 639,414 granted Dec. 19, 1899, covering the 1895/96 Borchardt-Luger transition pistol. Exerpts from it appear on page 45 of the 1990 edition of Kenyon's "Lugers at Random."

The patent shows a pistol that carried the recoil spring in a raked handle. It had a smaller but still very prominent rear bulge because it retained the roller and cam to work the toggle. So Luger did move the spring first as you envisioned, but then designed a functional interim gun. Thus he was not forced to utilize the ramps in order to make the spring-in-handle concept work at all. After some reasonable period of time he came up with the second crucial improvement, which was to let the cocking knobs cam upward against the ramps. He could then empty out the rear bulge and remove it entirely.

To my mind, calling one of those two improvements trivial is like saying the left blade of a pair of scissors is fundamental for cutting, but the right blade is just a minor accessory! [img]smile.gif[/img]

07-31-2002, 11:55 PM	#27
Jerry Harris User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Central Ohio Posts: 64 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Kyrie, Although I can almost hear the sensible voices telling us to get a life, let's you and I play one more round in our corner of this interesting round-robin chess match. You wrote: "...I agree that the change from the internal cam method of â??breaking the kneeâ?? of the toggle to the use of the inclined ramps on the frame are different methods. Iâ??m also in agreement that this change was a required one due to a preceding change (specifically the elimination [of the] rear mainspring and its housing). And I agree that the change was vital to getting a pistol that worked. And I quite agree on the attractiveness of the resulting pistol - else Iâ??d not be here :-)OTOH, and the place where I cordially disagree is on whether the change was trivial. Purely IMO, it was a trivial change, and the change itself was necessitated by another change. In essence, it was not a change to improve the Borchardt, but a change required to make theâ??Improved Borchardtâ?? work at all." Okay - there's a historical visualization disparity between us. Perhaps you imagined Luger ripping off the spring housing, stuffing a spring into the new handle and and exclaiming "Gott in Himmel! Now there is nothing to break the toggle knee. I need a trivial change....Ah! I'll throw away this useless lever and roller and let the knobs hit the frame ramps, or else the gun won't work at all." I, on the other hand, imagined Luger studying the Borchardt and thinking "I want that back bulge to go away. Let's see, I could take the spring and work it into a modified handle, but that would only remove part of the bulge, because the toggle-actuating lever and roller, and especially the cam, would still stick out to the rear. I must sleep on this." On the way to work next morning, a wheel of Luger's carriage strikes a curb and he is jolted upward. A moment later he exclaims "Gott in Himmel! All I have to do is let the cocking knobs hit those ramps that are sitting there contributing nothing, and I can throw away the lever and roller and cam, and the battle of the bulge is won. That is the breakthrough I needed." We can't bring Luger back to enlighten us, but I looked through my books and found the next best thing. He can speak to us through a patent, specifically No. 639,414 granted Dec. 19, 1899, covering the 1895/96 Borchardt-Luger transition pistol. Exerpts from it appear on page 45 of the 1990 edition of Kenyon's "Lugers at Random." The patent shows a pistol that carried the recoil spring in a raked handle. It had a smaller but still very prominent rear bulge because it retained the roller and cam to work the toggle. So Luger did move the spring first as you envisioned, but then designed a functional interim gun. Thus he was not forced to utilize the ramps in order to make the spring-in-handle concept work at all. After some reasonable period of time he came up with the second crucial improvement, which was to let the cocking knobs cam upward against the ramps. He could then empty out the rear bulge and remove it entirely. To my mind, calling one of those two improvements trivial is like saying the left blade of a pair of scissors is fundamental for cutting, but the right blade is just a minor accessory! [img]smile.gif[/img]