S/42 luger family heirloom

[mrerick]

In support of Don's point above, consider the American selection of the M1911 and M1911a1 pistols during the American selection trials for a semi-automatic handgun.

Much of the expense of the Luger is involved in requirements for high precision manufacture and a fair amount of hand fitting. Without the precision, they were not reliable.

The Americans found the much less stringent Browning design to be more "suitable for use" by American forces.

Initially the cost of manufacture was one consideration. Later, the looser fitting requirements proved to be an advantage both for interchangeability and resistance to jamming due to dirt.

The accuracy of a M1911 with loose manufacturing specifications and better interchangeability of parts was less than that of most hand fitted Lugers of that era. In combat, it didn't matter. The M1911 was suitable and effective.

Later generations have made remarkably high precision M1911a1 pistols that capture and exceed target accuracy. They are precision manufactured and hand fit and also cost more.

- - - - -

But back to the original question about Luger quality. This is what I base my opinion on:

The wartime Lugers (M1900 DWM, Erfurt, Simson, Mauser and through the Krieghoff pistols in 1945) are all of very high quality. Both commercial and military contract pistols prove this point.

Yet there is a difference. For example, the number of parts and pistols completed by Erfurt manufacturing and subsequently returned for rework by the "Revisions Committee" (as evidenced by the RC mark) was higher than at DWM. This leaves the impression that there was either less attention to quality during manufacture at Erfurt, or a more obsessive inspection process.

When the Swiss redesigned the Luger, one objective was to reduce manufacturing cost. Simplification of design doesn't have anything to do with reducing quality - in fact, I believe it allowed the Swiss to focus more on the quality of manufacture.

If you examine the manufacturing markings inside M1929 Swiss Lugers, you will see that SIG actually manufactured the parts that Bern assembled into Lugers.

The Swiss are a nation of target shooters, and their military firearms (including the K31, Sig P210 and Swiss Bern Lugers) reflect that obsession.

I have the impression that the Germans were obsessed with quality, and the Swiss thought that wasn't good enough.

Of course, I wasn't there looking over August Weiss' shoulder at Mauser or involved in any way with Luger manufacture. Opinions I have on this are based on examining the guns I own and get to handle as well as the documents available in archives.

In Sturgess' book on pages 554 and 555, he discusses the steel alloys used in Luger manufacture by the Swiss, and the level of their advanced metallurgy. While high carbon steel was used in much of the Swiss Luger, several components were made from more advanced steel alloyed with Chrome, Nickle-Chrome, Chrome-Vanadium, Molybdenum and Tungsten. Anecdotally, we know that the fully hardened Swiss steel components wore out hardened carbon-steel inspection dies more rapidly (Sturgess P461).

We also know that when the Swiss Bern arsenal took over production of their Lugers from DWM in 1918-1919, one of the first things that they worked on (based upon their service experience with DWM M1900 and M1906 Lugers) was the metallurgy. See Sturgess P810. This is when they began introducing stronger alloy steels into Luger manufacture. This was to improve longevity in service and reliability - and that directly contributes to suitability for the Swiss.

Finally, starting on Sturgess P1055 you will see the steady improvement in steel specifications for components used in German Lugers. This is only natural as the science of alloying steel progressed in the period from 1899 through 1945. Here is detail from Sturgess on the Luger Receiver:

- - - - - - - -

1.2 Receiver

DWM Luger 1899 Atlas steel, lightly case-hardened. (EN: Atlas steel was the product of John Brown’s Atlas Steel Works in Sheffield, England, one of the first users of the Bessemer process of steel making – DWM’s preference for imported steel is curious since the German crucible steels of Krupp and Bismarckhutte were specified for Gew. 98 rifles at this time, but Sheffield crucible steels had the highest reputation in this era.)

DWM 1904 Atlas steel, lightly case-hardened.

I.K.B. 1913 Mild steel, case-hardened and browned.

Mauser 1934 Steel 25.61, carbon content 0.25 – 0.30 %. Case-harden in Durferrit (trade name for a commercial case-hardening salt bath) for 8 minutes at 740 - 750°, quench in oil, anneal in oil.

Mauser 1942 Steel 25.61, carbon content 0.25 – 0.30 %. Case-harden in Durferrit-C3 bath at 780 - 800°, quench in oil, anneal in oil bath for 30 minutes at 150°.

- - - - -

The alloy selected and hardening process changes were directly related to improving the Luger's longevity in service.

We know that one of the principal reasons Aimco made post war Lugers fail is the softness of the Stainless steel alloy that they chose.

[DonVoigt]

First point-
"Finally, starting on Sturgess P1055 you will see the steady improvement in steel specifications for components used in German Lugers. This is only natural as the science of alloying steel progressed in the period from 1899 through 1945. Here is detail from Sturgess on the Luger Receiver: "

This sounds impressive, but "improvement" only relates to changes in the way the specifications were written, IMO.
We have no idea if the 1942 steel of Mauser was actually different from the "Atlas steel" specified by DWM.

The specific times and temperatures spent to case harden in Durferitt by Mauser may or may not have resulted in different surface hardness than the "lightly casehardened Atlas" steel or the "case hardened"mild steel of 1913.

Any implication of "better" without knowing the composition of the steels mentioned is pure speculation.

Mauser may have heat treated their steel more uniformly in a Durfurrit bath- given the small change noted in time and temperature- from the '34 to '42 specs.- resulting in less batch to batch variation.

Second point:
"The alloy selected and hardening process changes were directly related to improving the Luger's longevity in service. "

I'm not sure how we "know" longevity is the reason.
There is a large body of empirical evidence(lugers that we all collect and own) that indicate, at least to me, that lugers did not wear out- with pre-WWI lugers still being in service post WWII.

It is much more likely any changes to steel had to do with availability of material, cost, and ease of processing.

Third-
Aimco- I have no idea why they fail, I have heard it was due to "galling" of the stainless steel parts rubbing against each other - maybe they were soft. The few I have seen just were not put together well enough to function reliably; they would not fire enough rounds to show up soft steel.

JMHO. Again.