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

[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.