[ithacaartist]

I've owned two stainless Lugers. I just passed one which was branded "OFM" on to another collector. I've never had a Mitchell or Stoeger branded one in hand, but it's pretty obvious from the pics that one can find here and there that the finishing is better on them. It seems to me that the surfaces that are flat don't display the waviness from over-buffing that they are generally known for. Mine overall had tolerances that you could swing a cat through, but I can't say if the Mitchell or Stoeger examples are any better. The gun I sold seemed to shoot OK once the bent ejector was replaced with an original from Lugerdoc. It arrived with four numbered stainless mags, so the owner previous to me likely used it in some sort of competition shooting.

These guns were produced in the earlier part of the wave that brought us stainless guns from other makers as well. Conjecture has it that metallurgy for the application of stainless steel to firearms was still being dialed in at the time. Early ones show displaced metal from use--spalling and galling of the toggle ramps where they're hammered by contact with the toggle knobs during use. Apparently, use of a more appropriate lube for stainless helps with galling. My toggle ramps were spalled, so filing off the material that had been pounded over the edges into the inside of the action was an easy fix. It did not reappear, but neither did I put a lot of rounds through it after. This sort of supports the notion of competition use...

The one I still have was doctored to have scalloped toggle knobs and Cerakoted black over the stainless steel. It's an Aimco-branded commemorative called the 1900/2000, in .30 Luger, 4 3/4" pencil barrel, notched front sight, grip safety, etc. (but no toggle lock) I fired it enough to establish that it'll shoot OK and now reserve it for inspiring ooh's and aah's when showing my collection. It's purdy, all right, but its fit and finish are still an embarrassment when compared to an original.