LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Sieger · 08-04-2003, 04:15 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rick W.:
Hello Unspellable,

My surmising above was just a guess after looking at a later stainless magazine versus a vintage blue magazine. The vintage magazine looks more complex in the body sides whereas the stainless appears almost seamless. I would have thought that the tooling/effort would have been more costly on the more complex looking magazine.

As I recall a vintage magazine will insert into a stainless Luger, lockup, and function the holdopen. I cannot say if this configuration will function normally with live ammo or not, but one would have high hopes; I have always had plenty of spare stainless magazines of the later style. If the vintage magazine does function with live ammo, then looks like that would be an advantage; .....not much into politics.

Regards,

Rick W.<hr /></blockquote>Hi Rick:

Thanks for your comments!!

My question was a technical one. Wilson in his fine book on Luger Shooting tells us that the inside length of the magazine is critically important to assure proper feeding, as this was matched to the original cartridge length of 1.175 (this is because of the angle at which the cartridges ride up the walls of the magazine).

My question was rather they had taken the standard length of the newer 9MM ammo into consideration: 1.169 newer vs 1.175 older.

Somewhere, I also remember reading that Stoeger reduced the magazine by one cartridge: 7 rounds vs the original 8.

Oh well, Stoeger may not even know what was done and why.

Bob

08-04-2003, 04:15 AM	#4
Sieger User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 1,579 Thanks: 2,154 Thanked 402 Times in 251 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Rick W.: <strong>Hello Unspellable, My surmising above was just a guess after looking at a later stainless magazine versus a vintage blue magazine. The vintage magazine looks more complex in the body sides whereas the stainless appears almost seamless. I would have thought that the tooling/effort would have been more costly on the more complex looking magazine. As I recall a vintage magazine will insert into a stainless Luger, lockup, and function the holdopen. I cannot say if this configuration will function normally with live ammo or not, but one would have high hopes; I have always had plenty of spare stainless magazines of the later style. If the vintage magazine does function with live ammo, then looks like that would be an advantage; .....not much into politics. Regards, Rick W.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Hi Rick: Thanks for your comments!! My question was a technical one. Wilson in his fine book on Luger Shooting tells us that the inside length of the magazine is critically important to assure proper feeding, as this was matched to the original cartridge length of 1.175 (this is because of the angle at which the cartridges ride up the walls of the magazine). My question was rather they had taken the standard length of the newer 9MM ammo into consideration: 1.169 newer vs 1.175 older. Somewhere, I also remember reading that Stoeger reduced the magazine by one cartridge: 7 rounds vs the original 8. Oh well, Stoeger may not even know what was done and why. Bob