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

[Puretexan]

Maybe you could link yours to metal fatigue, or could have been a poorly built part.
A lot of the time things just break. It happens with such regularity here we invented a bumper sticker ,saying it happens.

Chickenthief,
I bought a Ruger Redhawk 44 magnum. I trotted to the range with a box of 44 special wadcutters. I loaded 6 rounds aimed and pulled the trigger. It blew the barrel off. All the people on the firing line ran. They came back eventually and accused me of reloading C-4 in the pistol. Sent it back to Ruger and they said the stainless
fractured on some of them when they tightened the barrel. So don't be so quick to name call someones problem.

[DonVoigt]

Originally Posted by sheepherder

The Parabellum pistol was designed to use the 7.65 Parabellum cartridge, itself a shortened 7.63 Borchardt cartridge. It was not designed for the 9mm Parabellum cartridge. Criticizing the 9mm version as being a weak design is unfair; it was robust enough for the 7.65.

And the "Luger" was not an original design. The Borchardt was certainly not perfect but it it combined a number of unique features. Integrating the features that Georg Luger thought relevant into a small lightweight handgun using the 7.65 cartridge was a major undertaking; adapting it to the 9mm pretty much used up any factor of safety [for materials].

Citing book sources for conclusions would take months worth of research, not just in Luger books but in strength of materials books, metallurgy, machine design, etc.

It's a design that was pushed to its limits. 'Nuff said.

Nope, not enough said.
I asked for information/facts- not opinion.

I don't agree at all with your opinion that the 9mm used up all the safety margin in a luger- but then what is or was the "safety margin"?

PS- as loaded back in the day, and in many loading comparisons today, the 7,65 parabellum generates more muzzle energy than the 9mm. Check the specs.

kurusu-
Thanks for the pictures, I'm with the Texan on that failure, probably a flaw in the metal from the beginning.
The pictures do help show how the striker retainer engages - like a "cut a way" picture.

[Dwight Gruber]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

Nope, not enough said.
I asked for information/facts- not opinion.

Thank you, Don.

--Dwight

[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.

[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!

[4 Scale]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

Some parts need to be hard, others, ductile or malleable...

With respect the article's comments on hardness apply only to the frame. Absent compelling data to the contrary, hardness in such a part would seem a desirable property. Of course harness alone is not the sole criteria, nor did I say it was. I look at it as, the data suggest the steel spec changed and when competent mfgrs. change specs, they do it to improve either cost or performance. As my references don't mention any P 08 cost declines due to changes in the steel spec., I estimate it is performance ('better'). YMMV.

In your last post, I find your opinions interesting, well said and I share many of them. But I thought the rules were 'facts only'.It is an interesting thread, thanks for starting. I find my views as to Parabellum design and materials are continually evolving and I will check back to see if there is new info.

[DonVoigt]

Originally Posted by 4 Scale

With respect the article's comments on hardness apply only to the frame. Absent compelling data to the contrary, hardness in such a part would seem a desirable property. Of course harness alone is not the sole criteria, nor did I say it was. I look at it as, the data suggest the steel spec changed and when competent mfgrs. change specs, they do it to improve either cost or performance. As my references don't mention any P 08 cost declines due to changes in the steel spec., I estimate it is performance ('better'). YMMV.

In your last post, I find your opinions interesting, well said and I share many of them. But I thought the rules were 'facts only'.It is an interesting thread, thanks for starting. I find my views as to Parabellum design and materials are continually evolving and I will check back to see if there is new info.

4scale,
Well, I guess when you start a thread, the OP can get off topic or into "opinion".

I really only meant to comment or "opine" on the fact that harder is not necessarily better- but as you point out- it is not that simple- point well made.
I would not assume though, that a specification change is for a performance improvement- my experience(opinion) in industry is that it is more or at least "just" as likely to be a cost reduction effort.

Luger metallurgy is an interesting, important, and complicated subject - and should be the topic of another thread; also with facts and not assumptions. Perhaps someone with mechanical engineering or metallurgical credentials would like to research and start such a thread.

I think responding to the summary pages of Stevenson's "negative opinion" is ok ; if he were around I'd sure challenge many of his facts as only opinion.

In whole the articles on the history of Mauser 1960-1970s production are very interesting and full of facts. Anyone interested in the post war Mausers should read it for sure- and probably should own the book " The Parabellum is back".

Some day I'll pick up a copy, but my collecting interest ends in about 1942- with exception for the EG and Vopo lugers; so I have not felt the need for the post war book.