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!

[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.

[kurusu]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

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.

Well the cost effective solution for the P08 was called P38.
And believe me. It is a weaker design than the P08 just like it's Italian counterpart, the Beretta 92.