Why Not The .30 Muaser?

Tobruk42 · 01-15-2007, 07:16 PM

Was there some reason why Lugers were never chambered for the .30 Mauser? I've always wondered about it because it is a great performer and it was the common chambering for the broomhandle so certainly supplied during WWI. If the design will handle the .45 ACP, why not the .30 Muaser? Just curious if it was ever considered.

Edward Tinker · 01-15-2007, 07:22 PM

apples and oranges... DWM made the 7.65mm and Mauser made the 7.63mm, seperate companies and all that... Plus the 45 ACP example was an "enlarged" version never made except for hand made versions.

Ed

Tobruk42 · 01-15-2007, 07:34 PM

Could business/legal issues have played a part in it? Or were they free to chamber their product in anything they cared to? It just seems nuts to pass on the .30 Mauser especially in favor of the .30 Luger. I know the Mauser is pretty hot but the Luger design seems a lot more robust than the C96 Broomhandle so it's hard to imagine wear or stress being a show stopper.

Ron Smith · 01-15-2007, 07:41 PM

The Luger action is not strong enough or long enough to use the .30 Mauser cartrige. If the action was long enough, it would beat the Luger to death in short order.

Conny · 01-15-2007, 07:52 PM

I have heard something about the .30 Mauser being banned in the Verseille Treaty? The muzzle velocity and energy are high for a small pistol bullet.

Dwight Gruber · 01-15-2007, 08:59 PM

DWM was very familiar with the 7.63 Mauser (7.62x25) cartridge, as this was the cartridge designed for the C-93 Borchardt. The prototype C-96 Mauser was designed to fire the Borchardt round (Ezell, p.388), and Mauser was licensed to use the cartridge. The Ludwig Loewe company, the producers of the Borchardt, held the controlling portion of Mauser stock, and their representitive on the Mauser board of directors voted in favor of C-96 production. It seems fairly obvious that they recognized the profit potential of the Mauser using their ammunition.

I have read that this decision angered Hugo Borchardt, becaise this meant that the company which was producing his gun was also supporting his competition--this may have been a factor in Borchardt's refusal to be involved in the C-93's evolution.

Georg Luger designed a shorter 7.65mm cartridge (7.65x22) because the 7.62x25 was too long for the new pistol grip as he visualized it.

I have not heard that the IMKK banned the 7.63 Mauser cartridge. To the contrary, the C-96 remained in commercial production unti 1939.

--Dwight

Tobruk42 · 01-15-2007, 09:11 PM

Excellent information! Certainly appreciate hearing about it.

unspellable · 01-16-2007, 11:07 AM

The longer Borchardt/Mauser cartrdige was shortened to the 7.65 mm Parabellum in order to fit the in the grip magazine. The recoil spring is also located inside the grip on the Luger so space is at a premium.

As for the longer cartrdige being too powerful, yes and no. The Luger and the 7.65 mm Parabellum were designed together and so well matched. But there is nothing inherently weak in the Luger design per se, so it could be beefed up to handle the longer cartridge.

The weak point in the Luger design is not pressure, but impulse. If you send the upper back too fast you risk beating the toggles off. The Luger carbine with its much longer and heavier barrel and additional recoil spring in the fore arm used the pistol proof load as its standard load.

Ron Smith · 01-16-2007, 12:27 PM

"If you send the upper back too fast you risk beating the toggles off."

Exactly my point...

lugerholsterrepair · 01-16-2007, 02:43 PM

The first time I ever shot a CZ 52 in .30 Mauser I was astounded at the muzzle blast. This is one powerfull cartridge! I have stayed away ever since. Good points brought up! Thanks, Jerry Burney

01-15-2007, 07:16 PM	#1
Tobruk42 User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 25 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Why Not The .30 Muaser? Was there some reason why Lugers were never chambered for the .30 Mauser? I've always wondered about it because it is a great performer and it was the common chambering for the broomhandle so certainly supplied during WWI. If the design will handle the .45 ACP, why not the .30 Muaser? Just curious if it was ever considered.

01-15-2007, 07:22 PM	#2
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,966 Thanks: 2,066 Thanked 4,595 Times in 2,116 Posts	apples and oranges... DWM made the 7.65mm and Mauser made the 7.63mm, seperate companies and all that... Plus the 45 ACP example was an "enlarged" version never made except for hand made versions. Ed __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV

01-15-2007, 07:41 PM	#4
Ron Smith User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Orygun Posts: 4,243 Thanks: 118 Thanked 245 Times in 150 Posts	The Luger action is not strong enough or long enough to use the .30 Mauser cartrige. If the action was long enough, it would beat the Luger to death in short order. __________________ I Still Need DWM side plate #49... if anyone runs across a nice one. What ~Rudyard Kipling~ said...

01-15-2007, 07:52 PM	#5
Conny User Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Culpeper, Va. Posts: 279 Thanks: 0 Thanked 26 Times in 13 Posts	I have heard something about the .30 Mauser being banned in the Verseille Treaty? The muzzle velocity and energy are high for a small pistol bullet. __________________ Rangers Lead the Way, Duane Leiker

01-16-2007, 12:27 PM	#9
Ron Smith User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Orygun Posts: 4,243 Thanks: 118 Thanked 245 Times in 150 Posts	"If you send the upper back too fast you risk beating the toggles off." Exactly my point... __________________ I Still Need DWM side plate #49... if anyone runs across a nice one. What ~Rudyard Kipling~ said...

01-15-2007, 07:34 PM	#3
Tobruk42 User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 25 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Could business/legal issues have played a part in it? Or were they free to chamber their product in anything they cared to? It just seems nuts to pass on the .30 Mauser especially in favor of the .30 Luger. I know the Mauser is pretty hot but the Luger design seems a lot more robust than the C96 Broomhandle so it's hard to imagine wear or stress being a show stopper.

01-15-2007, 08:59 PM	#6
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,908 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,330 Times in 435 Posts	DWM was very familiar with the 7.63 Mauser (7.62x25) cartridge, as this was the cartridge designed for the C-93 Borchardt. The prototype C-96 Mauser was designed to fire the Borchardt round (Ezell, p.388), and Mauser was licensed to use the cartridge. The Ludwig Loewe company, the producers of the Borchardt, held the controlling portion of Mauser stock, and their representitive on the Mauser board of directors voted in favor of C-96 production. It seems fairly obvious that they recognized the profit potential of the Mauser using their ammunition. I have read that this decision angered Hugo Borchardt, becaise this meant that the company which was producing his gun was also supporting his competition--this may have been a factor in Borchardt's refusal to be involved in the C-93's evolution. Georg Luger designed a shorter 7.65mm cartridge (7.65x22) because the 7.62x25 was too long for the new pistol grip as he visualized it. I have not heard that the IMKK banned the 7.63 Mauser cartridge. To the contrary, the C-96 remained in commercial production unti 1939. --Dwight

01-15-2007, 09:11 PM	#7
Tobruk42 User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 25 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Excellent information! Certainly appreciate hearing about it.

01-16-2007, 11:07 AM	#8
unspellable User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Iowa Posts: 768 Thanks: 0 Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts	The longer Borchardt/Mauser cartrdige was shortened to the 7.65 mm Parabellum in order to fit the in the grip magazine. The recoil spring is also located inside the grip on the Luger so space is at a premium. As for the longer cartrdige being too powerful, yes and no. The Luger and the 7.65 mm Parabellum were designed together and so well matched. But there is nothing inherently weak in the Luger design per se, so it could be beefed up to handle the longer cartridge. The weak point in the Luger design is not pressure, but impulse. If you send the upper back too fast you risk beating the toggles off. The Luger carbine with its much longer and heavier barrel and additional recoil spring in the fore arm used the pistol proof load as its standard load.

01-16-2007, 02:43 PM	#10
lugerholsterrepair Moderator Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Arizona/Colorado Posts: 7,775 Thanks: 4,995 Thanked 3,133 Times in 1,439 Posts	The first time I ever shot a CZ 52 in .30 Mauser I was astounded at the muzzle blast. This is one powerfull cartridge! I have stayed away ever since. Good points brought up! Thanks, Jerry Burney __________________ Jerry Burney 11491 S. Guadalupe Drive Yuma AZ 85367-6182 lugerholsterrepair@earthlink.net 928 342-7583 (CO & AZ) Year Round 719 207-3331 (cell) "For those who Fight For It, Life has a flavor the protected will never know."