Was the P.08 overbuilt???

Dwight Gruber · 10-26-2003, 02:14 PM

One might wonder as well why the barrel and receiver were not manufactured as one piece. This had already been demonstrated as practicable in the much more complex (from a machining standpoint) Mauser C-96. Also, to GT's point, the Broomhandle chamber area apppears to be vey "light".

A trip through the historical literature (Ian Hogg's "German Pistols and Revolvers 1871-1945" and Edward Ezell's "Handguns of the World") draws forth some interesting observations.

In the earliest varieties of developing auto-loading pistols (generally pre-1910), it appears that the predominant method for barrels permanently attached to a fame or barrel extension (receiver) was to screw them in.

Solid-frame revolvers generally use screw-in barrels, and it could be fairly surmised that early auto-loader designs were based on that example. Hugo Borchardt, through his experience at Winchester during their abortive revolver design exploration, would have been exposed to this method of manufacture. By the time of Borchardt's 1893 patent the gun which was to become the Luger pistol was fully committed to the screw-in barrel.

Browning's dropping-barrel link system was patented by 1897, but even his 1900 FN design screwed the barrel into the frame.

I want to say that inserting a barrel in the receiver and pinning it in place might not be sufficiently reliable over time, that maintaining tolerances might be inadequate or they might loosen in use, that materials available at that time might not be up to the task. The design and construction of the rest of the Luger certainly make that thought ridiculous.

And "pinning" certainly doesn't need to mean a brute-force driven fixture. The 9mm Dreyse comes to mind as I type this, whose barrel is connected to the frame by an axle-pin.

For whatever reason (cultural psychology is interesting but ultimately fruitless in determining motivation) the Germans were apparently not interested in making fundmental changes in Luger construction methods, thus the advent of the P-38.

--Dwight

10-26-2003, 02:14 PM	#5
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,908 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,330 Times in 435 Posts	One might wonder as well why the barrel and receiver were not manufactured as one piece. This had already been demonstrated as practicable in the much more complex (from a machining standpoint) Mauser C-96. Also, to GT's point, the Broomhandle chamber area apppears to be vey "light". A trip through the historical literature (Ian Hogg's "German Pistols and Revolvers 1871-1945" and Edward Ezell's "Handguns of the World") draws forth some interesting observations. In the earliest varieties of developing auto-loading pistols (generally pre-1910), it appears that the predominant method for barrels permanently attached to a fame or barrel extension (receiver) was to screw them in. Solid-frame revolvers generally use screw-in barrels, and it could be fairly surmised that early auto-loader designs were based on that example. Hugo Borchardt, through his experience at Winchester during their abortive revolver design exploration, would have been exposed to this method of manufacture. By the time of Borchardt's 1893 patent the gun which was to become the Luger pistol was fully committed to the screw-in barrel. Browning's dropping-barrel link system was patented by 1897, but even his 1900 FN design screwed the barrel into the frame. I want to say that inserting a barrel in the receiver and pinning it in place might not be sufficiently reliable over time, that maintaining tolerances might be inadequate or they might loosen in use, that materials available at that time might not be up to the task. The design and construction of the rest of the Luger certainly make that thought ridiculous. And "pinning" certainly doesn't need to mean a brute-force driven fixture. The 9mm Dreyse comes to mind as I type this, whose barrel is connected to the frame by an axle-pin. For whatever reason (cultural psychology is interesting but ultimately fruitless in determining motivation) the Germans were apparently not interested in making fundmental changes in Luger construction methods, thus the advent of the P-38. --Dwight