Receiver rail guide.

Norme · 02-27-2011, 09:59 AM

Hi Rich, There is no difference in the over all length of a Mauser frame (120mm) with or without the "hump". The hump is not formed by adding additional material to the back of the frame, but by removing metal from the lower half of the back of the frame. Imperial era frames were 1mm shorter, and they had the axle pin jamming issue. Regards, Norm.

sheepherder · 02-27-2011, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norme

Hi Rich, There is no difference in the over all length of a Mauser frame (120mm) with or without the "hump". The hump is not formed by adding additional material to the back of the frame, but by removing metal from the lower half of the back of the frame. Imperial era frames were 1mm shorter, and they had the axle pin jamming issue. Regards, Norm.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Norme! From what I had read, I had gotten the impression the Mauser Hump was added sometime in the 40's...

sheepherder · 02-27-2011, 10:15 AM

Just for giggles, I mic'ed my three grip frame 'abutment' widths, at the point of most wear...

S/42 = .255"
6782 = .250"
86434 = .253"

Interestingly, the 86434 shows no imprint of breech block or toggle 'lip' marks (it's a commercial 7.65 cal)...and the 9mm S/42 (pic somewhere above) with the sharpest breech block impression measures the greatest width...

I can't find a dimension on the blueprint, so I don't know if these are just tolerance variations or 'hammering' changes...

Norme · 02-27-2011, 10:34 AM

Hi Rich, I believe the axle pin jamming problem only became an issue post WW1, when hot 9mm ammo, intended for SMG's, was used in Lugers. This was corrected by extending the rear of the frame 1mm, on all Mauser and Krieghoff produced Lugers. I have no idea whether Simsons were also lengthened. What do you say, Ed? Regards, Norm.

02-27-2011, 10:15 AM	#3
sheepherder Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: ...on the 'ol Erie Canal... Posts: 8,208 Thanks: 1,425 Thanked 4,474 Times in 2,343 Posts	Just for giggles, I mic'ed my three grip frame 'abutment' widths, at the point of most wear... S/42 = .255" 6782 = .250" 86434 = .253" Interestingly, the 86434 shows no imprint of breech block or toggle 'lip' marks (it's a commercial 7.65 cal)...and the 9mm S/42 (pic somewhere above) with the sharpest breech block impression measures the greatest width... I can't find a dimension on the blueprint, so I don't know if these are just tolerance variations or 'hammering' changes... __________________ I like my coffee the way I like my women... ...Cold and bitter...

02-27-2011, 09:59 AM	#1
Norme Always A Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,417 Thanks: 226 Thanked 2,607 Times in 933 Posts	Hi Rich, There is no difference in the over all length of a Mauser frame (120mm) with or without the "hump". The hump is not formed by adding additional material to the back of the frame, but by removing metal from the lower half of the back of the frame. Imperial era frames were 1mm shorter, and they had the axle pin jamming issue. Regards, Norm.

02-27-2011, 10:34 AM	#4
Norme Always A Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,417 Thanks: 226 Thanked 2,607 Times in 933 Posts	Hi Rich, I believe the axle pin jamming problem only became an issue post WW1, when hot 9mm ammo, intended for SMG's, was used in Lugers. This was corrected by extending the rear of the frame 1mm, on all Mauser and Krieghoff produced Lugers. I have no idea whether Simsons were also lengthened. What do you say, Ed? Regards, Norm.