My Conclusion.....
OK,
First, thanks to all for the input. Hearing from this community regarding this particular gun was really important. Funny thing is, I can see the point of view from every perspective presented here.
I agree, this gun was made to shoot. BUT, owing to the fact that it's a valuable firearm, shooting it will perhaps impart some risk to that value (and I must admit, the extractor issue bothers me).
Why bother collecting the gun if you can't shoot it? Well, I can see that point too. But then again I wouldn't take any of my antique swords out and cut with them (of course the dynamics are different, but the principal is the same).
Swapping out some parts in order to reduce the risk does indeed seem like a good approach. But since it does not eliminate ALL the risk the cost and effort just does not seem to justify itself (IMHO).
Owning a second *shooter* is the most comfortable option (though not on my wallet!). Problem with that is I live in NJ and pistol permits are a pain in the @ss. Certainly not impossible mind you (I've had dozens issued to me), just a real ordeal.
So at the end of the day I simply have to decide what's more important in my own mind. Being a part-time conservator, I feel the future preservation of this piece far outweighs my here-and-now *need* to shoot it ("shoot it" consensus of the learned and esteemed forum members notwithstanding). I guess I'll eventually jump through the small, fiery hoops the State has set up (without touching the sides) for a pistol permit, buckle down and obtain a shooter Luger (an Artillery Model, preferably).
Again, thanks for all the input. Much appreciated ~
Mark
|