[wterrell]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"> I know of no evidence of such extensive shoulder filing on the Luger, or of the different barrel lengths that would result. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">
There is absolutely no need for filing the shoulder of the barrel or receiver to have the front sight obround line up.

This is accomplished using the characteristics of the lathe upon which the barrel was threaded and the mill upon which the receiver was threaded. The obround is used as a dog to time the barrel in the chuck jaws and the half-nut is engaged into the very same notch each time a pass is made while machining the thread. The position of the start thread is timed exactly each time a barrel is machined. There is absolutely no variation! Old manual machinery work on this principle. The very same principles of half-nut and locating of receiver applies to the old manual mills in threading the receiver.

The most important feature of both items (barrel & receiver) is the positional clocking of the start thread of both items. They can be adjusted minutely! And the barrel will align with the obround in the correct position EVERY time, without fail.

You have failed to mention that with the method that you champion, the start of the threads must be clocked also. Or all will fail! and torque will be different on each pistol produced.

And if the threads are clocked there is no need for a line to which to draw. You cannot torque a barrel to the receiver with the accuracy displayed by the early Luger commercial pistols.

I would enjoy seeing perfect alignments of 'draw' lines on the Springfields as is seen on the Luger commercials.