[Ron Wood]

Bishop 333,

I have been following this thread with much interest, but have not had time to add my thoughts. You have a very neat Luger that I admire with mixed emotions. It is a fine example of the gunsmithâ??s art and must be a real treat to shoot. The downside is that someone chose to modify a very early 1900 that still employed the Type I thumb safety. In original, unmodified condition it would be a collectorâ??s treasure.

The guys have done a good job in voicing their opinions and identifying the sight. I agree with Dwight that the â??toggle slapâ? on the rear of the frame is considerably harsher than normally encountered, and the helper spring has probably prolonged the life of your gun significantly. Without the spring, it probably would have experienced â??spontaneous disassemblyâ? at some point. Take the suggestion for reduced loads to heart.

For the record, the very first 9mm Parabellum, the 1902 â??Fat Barrelâ? Luger, still retained the leaf spring, albeit â??tunedâ? for the more substantial recoil. The addition of the helper spring in your Luger is an attempt to tune the 7.65mm spring for the heftier load.

Further modification to incorporate a coil mainspring will undoubtedly preserve what life is left in the toggle train of your Luger. This is not a simple change however, since it involves adding a web to the grip frame to accommodate the coil spring, spring guide and bell crank. It is a feasible undertaking, since this is precisely the modification performed on a few 1900 Dutch Luger prototypes, either by or for the Dutch, to meet their specifications for reliability.

Thank you for sharing the photos of your special Luger. It is a very enjoyable presentation.

(Venerable! Thank you Dwight, you are too kind.)