LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

ithacaartist · 02-26-2012, 09:02 PM

Doug,
I sort of agree. (This is basically what I suggested back at the bottom of the first page in this thread!)

Initially, I was trying to see if the tip of the holdopen could be made to rise to effective height to catch the breech block securely each time, by whatever means--different mags, a finger from below, etc. However, the photos of the Mitchell next to the 1936 original Luger definitely show a difference between the tips of the two respective holdopens, with what does look like wear on the SS one. Add Jim's comment that the Mitchell's rides 2 mm lower compared to the '36... For this, there is one more thing to check, and that's how high the tip will ride in these mag comparisons. Multiple mags should give one set of measurements, and holding it up manually, pushed up to its limit in travel by a finger or tool would give a dimension for the max possible height. This may confirm whether or not it is even able to rise to a mechanically dependable height. If its height is marginal, when pressed manually to its limit, then one could add as much temporary meat to a follower button as possible--after which adding any more dimension would have the sole effect of not allowing the mag body to click into the mag catch/release button--and still have no effect because the holdopen, already at its limit of travel, cannot rise further. If this is the case, then it may be bent (SS alloy used not as hard as the original steel, therefore could bend), or simply require the extra material welded on to put the tip up where it should be.

The wear of the holdopen's tip indicates that the breech block has been scrubbing on it at the point of operation at which it encounters the breech block which is trying to return to battery. A sharp edge or point influences the binary(one or the other, period) situation necessary for the mechanical connection (holding the action open), or lack of mechanical connection (not holding the action open).

Just the same as the corner on the lug of the firing pin and the corner of the catch on the sear. The corners are stoned just enough to remove any burr or roughness in order that the release be smooth, but still should be quite sharp, so that there is no middle ground--the catches are either caught or not. Rounded corners will make engagement/release somewhat unpredictable because the slight radius will provide middle ground and allow less than positive (binary) behavior of the parts related. Perhaps the trigger pull experts will agree that the greater the radius on these former sharp corners, the wackier the pull and release will feel, up until the point, potentially, of full auto.

I'm curious as to whether this issue would become worse over time. I'm thinking it would.

02-26-2012, 09:02 PM	#24
ithacaartist Twice a Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Atop the highest hill in Schuyler County NY Posts: 3,285 Thanks: 7,021 Thanked 2,479 Times in 1,321 Posts	Doug, I sort of agree. (This is basically what I suggested back at the bottom of the first page in this thread!) Initially, I was trying to see if the tip of the holdopen could be made to rise to effective height to catch the breech block securely each time, by whatever means--different mags, a finger from below, etc. However, the photos of the Mitchell next to the 1936 original Luger definitely show a difference between the tips of the two respective holdopens, with what does look like wear on the SS one. Add Jim's comment that the Mitchell's rides 2 mm lower compared to the '36... For this, there is one more thing to check, and that's how high the tip will ride in these mag comparisons. Multiple mags should give one set of measurements, and holding it up manually, pushed up to its limit in travel by a finger or tool would give a dimension for the max possible height. This may confirm whether or not it is even able to rise to a mechanically dependable height. If its height is marginal, when pressed manually to its limit, then one could add as much temporary meat to a follower button as possible--after which adding any more dimension would have the sole effect of not allowing the mag body to click into the mag catch/release button--and still have no effect because the holdopen, already at its limit of travel, cannot rise further. If this is the case, then it may be bent (SS alloy used not as hard as the original steel, therefore could bend), or simply require the extra material welded on to put the tip up where it should be. The wear of the holdopen's tip indicates that the breech block has been scrubbing on it at the point of operation at which it encounters the breech block which is trying to return to battery. A sharp edge or point influences the binary(one or the other, period) situation necessary for the mechanical connection (holding the action open), or lack of mechanical connection (not holding the action open). Just the same as the corner on the lug of the firing pin and the corner of the catch on the sear. The corners are stoned just enough to remove any burr or roughness in order that the release be smooth, but still should be quite sharp, so that there is no middle ground--the catches are either caught or not. Rounded corners will make engagement/release somewhat unpredictable because the slight radius will provide middle ground and allow less than positive (binary) behavior of the parts related. Perhaps the trigger pull experts will agree that the greater the radius on these former sharp corners, the wackier the pull and release will feel, up until the point, potentially, of full auto. I'm curious as to whether this issue would become worse over time. I'm thinking it would.