Borchardt-Luger Controversy

Jerry Harris · 08-19-2002, 11:24 PM

Kyrie,

Thanks for your most courteous reply. Many's the time when I, too, have been grateful for a correction.

Unspellable,

I concur that firing pin control is the strongest reason for the ear's existence. What it accomplishes overall is to enhance safety by positively blocking the pin from contacting the primer at ALL times EXCEPT when the breech is within about 0.050 inch of full closure. Johnny Peppers pointed out that keeping the pin retracted also assists reliable cartridge feeding.

In his E-book on Luger mechanics (I finally got it although there's no version for Macs), Henrotin brings up a very interesting additional function for the ear. He claims that the head of the striker spring guide acts as a shock absorber by contacting the back of the frame and helping to stop the rearward breechblock travel. So the compression of the spring by the ear makes the "absorber" stiffer! Sounds reasonable, but my measurements say the spring force only increases from about 4.5 lbs to 7 lbs via the compression, and the available snubbing stroke can't be more than about 0.07 inch. I have to wonder how effective a snubber it really is.

Doubs,

When I first pondered the ear, thoughts very similar to yours crossed my mind. It is true that the effort expended by the ear in compressing the striker spring will later, as Unspellable implied, feed back as a small additional breech-closing force. But it's so wimpy (won't even overcome friction) that we probably shouldn't count it as an engineering reason for adding the feature.

08-19-2002, 11:24 PM	#29
Jerry Harris User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Central Ohio Posts: 64 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Kyrie, Thanks for your most courteous reply. Many's the time when I, too, have been grateful for a correction. Unspellable, I concur that firing pin control is the strongest reason for the ear's existence. What it accomplishes overall is to enhance safety by positively blocking the pin from contacting the primer at ALL times EXCEPT when the breech is within about 0.050 inch of full closure. Johnny Peppers pointed out that keeping the pin retracted also assists reliable cartridge feeding. In his E-book on Luger mechanics (I finally got it although there's no version for Macs), Henrotin brings up a very interesting additional function for the ear. He claims that the head of the striker spring guide acts as a shock absorber by contacting the back of the frame and helping to stop the rearward breechblock travel. So the compression of the spring by the ear makes the "absorber" stiffer! Sounds reasonable, but my measurements say the spring force only increases from about 4.5 lbs to 7 lbs via the compression, and the available snubbing stroke can't be more than about 0.07 inch. I have to wonder how effective a snubber it really is. Doubs, When I first pondered the ear, thoughts very similar to yours crossed my mind. It is true that the effort expended by the ear in compressing the striker spring will later, as Unspellable implied, feed back as a small additional breech-closing force. But it's so wimpy (won't even overcome friction) that we probably shouldn't count it as an engineering reason for adding the feature.