Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepherder
The Parabellum pistol was designed to use the 7.65 Parabellum cartridge, itself a shortened 7.63 Borchardt cartridge. It was not designed for the 9mm Parabellum cartridge. Criticizing the 9mm version as being a weak design is unfair; it was robust enough for the 7.65.
And the "Luger" was not an original design. The Borchardt was certainly not perfect but it it combined a number of unique features. Integrating the features that Georg Luger thought relevant into a small lightweight handgun using the 7.65 cartridge was a major undertaking; adapting it to the 9mm pretty much used up any factor of safety [for materials].
Citing book sources for conclusions would take months worth of research, not just in Luger books but in strength of materials books, metallurgy, machine design, etc.
It's a design that was pushed to its limits. 'Nuff said.  |
Nope, not enough said.
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"?
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.
