!!! LUGER on TV today !!!

[conehammer]

I don't want to risk going too far off topic but I'll respond just this once.

So, you mean it's harder, because the parts are smaller? But the statement "nothing saved" is still legitimate in that case, although it's a under statement.

====

[Edit] The article did mention "many parts were rejected, scraped and remade because their aspect, dimentions and/or tolerance were not perfect". Making a single gun amplified this problem. I would think that's the core difficulty, not the size (1/2, 2/5 of a Navy model is small but not tiny).

Or, I missed something?

I am not a tool and die class of machinist but even a production run of one is going to require a number of fixtures and jigs, not to mention test pieces, trials, etc. I just didn't see how the statement " nothing saved" fit a discussion on such a subject.

If I made a model, 1:10 of course in my case, that's what I do; of a Jeep and made a number of wasted parts that didn't work out would you still say " nothing saved" ?

Perhaps you were just being funny and I missed it?

Perhaps I should have rephrased my question:

Nothing saved with respect to? making a full sized Luger?

I'm sure the fellow had the skill and resources to make a full size example.

The statement containing "nothing saved" would be be non sequitur with respect to the topic. How does the possibility
of saving anything enter into the decision to make a miniature?

If that was true we'd fight all our wars in 1:10 scale, think of the materials we'd save!

Anyway that's all

Jerry