Food for thought: is the luger really a "weak" design?

[DonVoigt]

Originally Posted by 4 Scale

Post #8 in this thread includes hardness tests of various Parabellums. While the author cautions that the sample size was small, the data tends to support the oft-read assertion that steels used in Parabellum manufacturer got better (harder) over time.

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...irst-Stock-Lug!

Broken part survey in the FAQ is interesting although not definitive.

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...-the-Luger-FAQ

This article strikes me as informed opinion, and is critical of the pistol. http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-c...unFacts%29.pdf

I have wondered the same as the OP, and like the OP prefer actual data. Here in Colorado we have world class experts in metallurgy at the Co. School of Mines; this thread reminds me that some day I'd like to take a few Luger components out there and see if they would test and comment re: metal quality and suggestions for preservation.

Thanks for your info and references.

To your first comment, "harder" does not mean "better or improved"; only harder. Harder Could show less wear, but at an increase in brittleness .

The real key to the metal used and its forging and/ or heat treatment is its suitability for its intended use.

Some parts need to be hard, others, ductile or malleable; so a change in hardness viewed alone is not very meaningful.

As to the Stevenson article, while it does contain much real data and facts, the total and only negative conclusions in the last part are only one man's opinion, and obviously one who had his mind made up. For each negative point he makes, an alternate positive can be written. His most telling "opinion" is that the luger is an "ill balanced" pistol- perhaps in his hand, but not in mine nor anyone I know who has held one!