My "new" Luger 08 from 1940

Logger08 · 01-22-2018, 04:19 PM

Hello,

Thanks a lot for your feedback concerning the 08.

I still struggle to understand about the ammo, I have to admit.
I know the 08 was originally specified for 124gr with 327 m/s.
But what is the reason not to use 140gr or more, if the load is reduced to have less energy than the original spec?
The depicted S&B has a v0 of 305 m/s and an energy E0 of 419J.
This is below the energy given for a 124gr with 327 m/s (spec value I found).
I am aware of the problem with the newer powder burning quicker than the one used 100years ago.
As I cannot influence the type of gunpowder in factory-ammo I would normally go for the ammo with the least energy I can find, but this would be against your recommendation.
And as I know you are the experts, I will follow your advice, but I would like to understand the reason for your advice.

Best regards,
Martin

01-22-2018, 04:19 PM	#9
Logger08 User Join Date: Dec 2017 Posts: 24 Thanks: 4 Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts	Hello, Thanks a lot for your feedback concerning the 08. I still struggle to understand about the ammo, I have to admit. I know the 08 was originally specified for 124gr with 327 m/s. But what is the reason not to use 140gr or more, if the load is reduced to have less energy than the original spec? The depicted S&B has a v0 of 305 m/s and an energy E0 of 419J. This is below the energy given for a 124gr with 327 m/s (spec value I found). I am aware of the problem with the newer powder burning quicker than the one used 100years ago. As I cannot influence the type of gunpowder in factory-ammo I would normally go for the ammo with the least energy I can find, but this would be against your recommendation. And as I know you are the experts, I will follow your advice, but I would like to understand the reason for your advice. Best regards, Martin