Long and Short Frame ?

Jayhawk21 · 09-01-2006, 11:01 PM

1900 Lugers where long frame/receiver. The 1902 was a short frame/receiver. 1906s can have long frame/receiver and short frame/receiver. Was there any rime or reason to this? Why did they develope 2 different types? Does not seem that any machining was cut out. Only saving seems to be in a little steel. Thanks for your help.

Edward Tinker · 09-02-2006, 09:37 AM

I doon't think this will answer your questions, but might be interesting to you;

http://forum.lugerforum.com/showthre...threadid=14311

Jayhawk21 · 09-02-2006, 05:34 PM

Thanks Edward it is a great help to the beginner trying to understand the differences. I am still interested in the why of these changes. It would seem that the later frames have more milling steps, so cost doesn't seem to be the answer. They all look good to me so looks don't seem to be the answer either.

drbuster · 09-02-2006, 09:16 PM

I am no expert when it comes to gun smithing, but as I hear Mike Krause tell it to me, the short frame was easier to thread in the barrel and have it line up properly with the correct configuration. With the long frame, more laborious steps were required. It apparently had nothing to do with the change of shape of the shell casing from 7.65 to 9mm. It also had nothing to do with making the pistol lighter. There had to be a practical reason for this as the long frame never returned (except for certain contract pieces) after 1914.

Lugerdoc · 09-07-2006, 10:27 AM

Since most all long frame/receiver lugers were in 7.65mm and all 9mms, from the very start in 1902, were short receiver, I would bet that the length of the cartridge case was the initial determining factor. TH

drbuster · 09-07-2006, 10:35 AM

Tom, I thought, like you, that the cartridge case size was the determining factor, but Mike Krause emphatically says "no"! It was for the reasons stated above.

John Sabato · 09-07-2006, 10:43 AM

Gentlemen... correct me if I am wrong (it happens frequently according to my wife) but aren't their early Navy long frame variants in 9MM?

drbuster · 09-07-2006, 07:23 PM

John...YES!

Pete Ebbink · 09-29-2006, 03:33 PM

Reminder : Since Ron Wood's original and informative posting is getting more than 1.5 years old, it's photos may disappear from the posting...as typically happens with photos in old threads.

If Members have not done so already, you might want to cut & paste the discussion and its photos into MS Word, etc...and save to your hard disk for future use. I have it saved as a pdf-file as well...

Ron Wood · 09-29-2006, 04:38 PM

I have been told by a reliable source that the frame tutorial will appear in Jan Still's new book.

Mike B · 09-29-2006, 11:35 PM

first half, they played they tjeu lmpw wjat tjeu aere dpom that

John Sabato · 09-30-2006, 08:25 AM

Does that reliable source have the initials JCS?

(...not me of course, since my initials are JMS...)

blayne · 09-30-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike B
first half, they played they tjeu lmpw wjat tjeu aere dpom that

Mike, did you have a stroke, too much to drink or you were typing without looking? I have to watch my fingers to type

09-01-2006, 11:01 PM	#1
Jayhawk21 User Join Date: May 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 25 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Long and Short Frame ? 1900 Lugers where long frame/receiver. The 1902 was a short frame/receiver. 1906s can have long frame/receiver and short frame/receiver. Was there any rime or reason to this? Why did they develope 2 different types? Does not seem that any machining was cut out. Only saving seems to be in a little steel. Thanks for your help.

09-02-2006, 09:37 AM	#2
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,932 Thanks: 2,032 Thanked 4,528 Times in 2,091 Posts	I doon't think this will answer your questions, but might be interesting to you; http://forum.lugerforum.com/showthre...threadid=14311 __________________ 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

09-02-2006, 05:34 PM	#3
Jayhawk21 User Join Date: May 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 25 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Thanks Thanks Edward it is a great help to the beginner trying to understand the differences. I am still interested in the why of these changes. It would seem that the later frames have more milling steps, so cost doesn't seem to be the answer. They all look good to me so looks don't seem to be the answer either.

09-07-2006, 10:27 AM	#5
Lugerdoc Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: POB 398 St.Charles,MO. 63302 Posts: 5,089 Thanks: 6 Thanked 736 Times in 483 Posts	Since most all long frame/receiver lugers were in 7.65mm and all 9mms, from the very start in 1902, were short receiver, I would bet that the length of the cartridge case was the initial determining factor. TH __________________ Tom Heller POB 398 ST.Charles, MO. 63302 Tel 636-447-3006 lugerdoc@charter.net

09-07-2006, 10:43 AM	#7
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,154 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,306 Times in 1,097 Posts	Gentlemen... correct me if I am wrong (it happens frequently according to my wife) but aren't their early Navy long frame variants in 9MM? __________________ regards, -John S "...We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created EQUAL *and are endowed by their Creator* with certain UNALIENABLE* rights, and among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness..."*

09-02-2006, 09:16 PM	#4
drbuster User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Mateo, California Posts: 1,432 Thanks: 2 Thanked 71 Times in 56 Posts	I am no expert when it comes to gun smithing, but as I hear Mike Krause tell it to me, the short frame was easier to thread in the barrel and have it line up properly with the correct configuration. With the long frame, more laborious steps were required. It apparently had nothing to do with the change of shape of the shell casing from 7.65 to 9mm. It also had nothing to do with making the pistol lighter. There had to be a practical reason for this as the long frame never returned (except for certain contract pieces) after 1914.

09-07-2006, 10:35 AM	#6
drbuster User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Mateo, California Posts: 1,432 Thanks: 2 Thanked 71 Times in 56 Posts	Tom, I thought, like you, that the cartridge case size was the determining factor, but Mike Krause emphatically says "no"! It was for the reasons stated above.

09-07-2006, 07:23 PM	#8
drbuster User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Mateo, California Posts: 1,432 Thanks: 2 Thanked 71 Times in 56 Posts	John...YES!

09-29-2006, 03:33 PM	#9
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Reminder : Since Ron Wood's original and informative posting is getting more than 1.5 years old, it's photos may disappear from the posting...as typically happens with photos in old threads. If Members have not done so already, you might want to cut & paste the discussion and its photos into MS Word, etc...and save to your hard disk for future use. I have it saved as a pdf-file as well...

09-29-2006, 04:38 PM	#10
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 7,022 Thanks: 1,090 Thanked 5,177 Times in 1,702 Posts	I have been told by a reliable source that the frame tutorial will appear in Jan Still's new book. __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

09-29-2006, 11:35 PM	#11
Mike B Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: South Louisiana Posts: 979 Thanks: 1 Thanked 271 Times in 99 Posts	first half, they played they tjeu lmpw wjat tjeu aere dpom that

09-30-2006, 08:25 AM	#12
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,154 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,306 Times in 1,097 Posts	Does that reliable source have the initials JCS? (...not me of course, since my initials are JMS...) __________________ regards, -John S "...We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created EQUAL *and are endowed by their Creator* with certain UNALIENABLE* rights, and among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness..."*