Some Comments & Questions on Ammo

max2cam · 08-31-2002, 11:54 AM

I donÃ¢??t know what octane fuel a Rolls Royce requires -- regular or premium -- but I do know something about engines. If you put higher octane gas into an engine that doesnÃ¢??t need it you are wasting your money as there is no benefit.

Nor do I have any experience with Rolls Royce autos, but I do have experience with English sports cars and esp. English motorcycles back in the 1960s and 1970s. You could put the worldÃ¢??s highest octane gas in them and they would still break down, leak, and the electrics would die. Surely weÃ¢??ve all heard the phrase: Ã¢??Lucas, Prince of Darkness.Ã¢?Â

Being an English automobile, I imagine the Rolls Royce is just as troublesome. Comparing the Luger to an English car is no compliment in my opinion, but actually a slur. If you want to talk about a great vehicle, that would be my BMW motorcycle: wonderful engineering, top-quality manufacturing, and 100% reliability on regular gas.

As for modern 9mm ammo not always being ideal for the Luger, who would deny that? But if there is ONE absolute correct and reliable loading for the Luger, I have yet to hear of it or find it. Rather, I hear about lots of testing with each Luger seeming to have a mind of its own as to what brand or loading of ammo each individual gun will function reliably on.

I then read in an old Guns & Ammo magazine an article by a Luger expert that I'm supposed to cut off some of my recoil spring to make my Luger function properly. On the other hand, I'm told if I use too hot 9mm, I'll wreck my gun that way too.

As to Luger mags all being 55-75 years old, that is not true for mine. I have a nice DDR mag and a new repro mag. PMP ammo works very well with the DDR mag, but not in the new repro mag. Russian ammo works very well in the new repro mag, but not in the DDR mag. Winchester (the great favorite of many) doesnÃ¢??t work well in either mag. Maybe mine is the only one, but itÃ¢??s a finicky eater. My WWII issue .45 is not.

If the Luger had been the best pistol available at the time, the U.S. military would surely have adopted it. That is proven by the fact they adopted (stole) the M93-M98 Mauser designs to make the M1903 Springfield -- although in many ways they botched the job.

As to the Luger being as reliable as the .45 Govt. Model, hereÃ¢??s what John Walter says in The Luger Story, p. 60: Ã¢??Colt-Brownings were usually less accurate than the Lugers, but were more reliable and undoubtedly stronger. One gun fired 6000 rounds without misfires or parts breakages, a performance no Luger would ever match.Ã¢?Â

We can presume that when these early military tests were made, the Lugers had the RIGHT ammo, NEW magazines, and perfectly functioning guns. What was true then is true now: the Luger is a nice-looking, excellent handling, fun shooter. But perhaps it is a bit over-engineered and reliability suffers to some degree as a result when compared to the .45 Govt. Model (and to BMW motorcycles).

08-31-2002, 11:54 AM	#29
max2cam User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: USA Posts: 97 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I donÃ¢??t know what octane fuel a Rolls Royce requires -- regular or premium -- but I do know something about engines. If you put higher octane gas into an engine that doesnÃ¢??t need it you are wasting your money as there is no benefit. Nor do I have any experience with Rolls Royce autos, but I do have experience with English sports cars and esp. English motorcycles back in the 1960s and 1970s. You could put the worldÃ¢??s highest octane gas in them and they would still break down, leak, and the electrics would die. Surely weÃ¢??ve all heard the phrase: Ã¢??Lucas, Prince of Darkness.Ã¢?Â Being an English automobile, I imagine the Rolls Royce is just as troublesome. Comparing the Luger to an English car is no compliment in my opinion, but actually a slur. If you want to talk about a great vehicle, that would be my BMW motorcycle: wonderful engineering, top-quality manufacturing, and 100% reliability on regular gas. As for modern 9mm ammo not always being ideal for the Luger, who would deny that? But if there is ONE absolute correct and reliable loading for the Luger, I have yet to hear of it or find it. Rather, I hear about lots of testing with each Luger seeming to have a mind of its own as to what brand or loading of ammo each individual gun will function reliably on. I then read in an old Guns & Ammo magazine an article by a Luger expert that I'm supposed to cut off some of my recoil spring to make my Luger function properly. On the other hand, I'm told if I use too hot 9mm, I'll wreck my gun that way too. As to Luger mags all being 55-75 years old, that is not true for mine. I have a nice DDR mag and a new repro mag. PMP ammo works very well with the DDR mag, but not in the new repro mag. Russian ammo works very well in the new repro mag, but not in the DDR mag. Winchester (the great favorite of many) doesnÃ¢??t work well in either mag. Maybe mine is the only one, but itÃ¢??s a finicky eater. My WWII issue .45 is not. If the Luger had been the best pistol available at the time, the U.S. military would surely have adopted it. That is proven by the fact they adopted (stole) the M93-M98 Mauser designs to make the M1903 Springfield -- although in many ways they botched the job. As to the Luger being as reliable as the .45 Govt. Model, hereÃ¢??s what John Walter says in The Luger Story, p. 60: Ã¢??Colt-Brownings were usually less accurate than the Lugers, but were more reliable and undoubtedly stronger. One gun fired 6000 rounds without misfires or parts breakages, a performance no Luger would ever match.Ã¢?Â We can presume that when these early military tests were made, the Lugers had the RIGHT ammo, NEW magazines, and perfectly functioning guns. What was true then is true now: the Luger is a nice-looking, excellent handling, fun shooter. But perhaps it is a bit over-engineered and reliability suffers to some degree as a result when compared to the .45 Govt. Model (and to BMW motorcycles).