1902 Carbine

[Heinz]

Alvin, you over simplified your equations. Initially the bolt and the Barrel/reciever are locked together, and recoil at the same velocity. The equation gets complicated when the toggle knobs hit the kickup on the frame, but the higher kinetic energy of the longer barrel assembly will be forcing the toggle block open, NOT just the weight of the toggle itself. What you need to focus on is the velocity term, which you dropped out. The difference between a carbine barrel recoil and a standard barrel recoil, if there is any, is in the possibly slower recoil of the the loger heavier barrel assembly. The effect of the weight on lower acceleration of the recoiling mass against the effect of the longer barrel on increasing the bullet velocity.

[alvin]

Heinz --

Sorry, with all my respect, I have to argue a little bit on this one. The complexity of action can transfer energy from one part to another, but it does not change the initial energy allocation, and it does not create any energy. When the toggle knob hits the ears of the frame, some energy allocated to the bolt assembly was actually dissipated in the collision. That does not increase "e", the energy allocated to the bolt assembly before the collision happens.

[Navy]

All,

Based on the way this thread is leading, I am inclined to agree with my friend Albert. It doesn't seem possible, due mostly to physics, that a carbine could have been originally manufactured in 9MM for a very simple reason: it would not function reliably.

A much more reasonable explanation seems to be that some enterprising souls decided to create some 9MM carbines, mark them with very well executed approximations of the right proofs, and then peddle them to well heeled but not so well informed customers. The simple fact that the 9MM Parabellum cartridge lacks the kinetic energy to reliably cycle a carbine action-coupled with the fact that neither the 9MM +P nor the 9MM Mauser Export round was available contemporary to these guns -seem to lead one to an inevitable conclusion: it ain't real. Has anyone some experience in shooting a carbine in 9MM?

I would be *very* interested in how many stoppages or failures to feed occurred in a string of 50-100 rounds. I suspect any results would bolster Albert's and now my view.

When I first started with Lugers in 1962, my mentor, the late Bob Young, told me, "Kid, any Luger that requires an alabi or explanation probably ain't right; don't buy the story; buy the gun. It is right or it ain't.".

These 9MM carbines require too many alabis, ergo, I think that sage advice is applicable here.

Tom A

[G.T.]

Hello to all! As I have never even touched a nice Luger carbine, I probably have the smallest dog in this fight... but, I have conversed on this subject as some length with Mr. John V. Martz who has a lot of practical experience on this subject... I know that his earliest carbine efforts were dead ringers for the original 1902 type carbines. This included the assist spring in the forearm, and similar mass in the barrel / receiver ass'y. and they (Johns)were made in 9mm, and I believe .30 cal as well, old and new style toggle ass'y's... they functioned great! I also am aware that in latter examples, he deleted the assist spring in the forearm and they still functioned great... I do not know what he used as a main spring though, as he has converted many of the flat spring frames over to coil.... Gott'a shoot'em to know'em! Give John a call and get his take on it... Best to all, til....lat'r.....GT

[alvin]

Although Tom made a conclusion, I'd like to ask one more question. Hopefully, it's a sensible one: When did 7,65m/m +P ammo appear?

[Imperial Arms]

If I remember correctly, President Ted Roosevelt was given a (Tangent Sight) Luger Carbine shortly after the period of the US Test Trails. He started to experience some problems with the carbine after he finished the 50-100 471A cartridges that were originally delivered with his carbine. He also complained about the point of impact and was making arrangements to deliver the carbine to an arsenal for some adjustments. There was some communication between his office and H. Tauscher sometime in 1902-03 requesting for additional ammunition, so this event likely proves that 471A ammunition was produced in 1902.

With the added mass of the barrel and the accelerator in the forearm, both features having a draw on energy, I would assume that DWM would have provided a 9 mm +P cartridge for a ' 9 mm carbine' without making a sacrifice on the diameter of the barrel. They would have probably made the barrel slightly thicker for a 9 mm cartridge, but this is not the case. If DWM would have made a carbine in caliber 9 mm, I would assume that they would have not allowed the margin of tolerance to decrease. Do not forget what happened with the M1907 .45 Luger when DWM made a complaint because they were dissatisfied with the .45 ammunition provided by the Rock Island arsenal. Power of a cartridge was a very sensitive issue with Luger pistols and carbines, and I would not take for granted that a 9 mm cartridge would have properly done the job with an adequate margin of tolerance.

DWM could have used the 9 mm Mauser Export (9 x 25) cartridge in a 9 mm Luger Carbine which would have done the right job, but I guess that both competitors wanted to keep their high-power cartridges for use in their own firearms. The 9 mm Mauser Export cartridge was introduced into the market around 1902-03.

I strongly agree with Tom that any Luger that requires an alibi is very questionable and it is best to avoid it.

Albert

[alvin]

Originally posted by Imperial Arms With the added mass of the barrel and the accelerator in the forearm,

The accelerator surprises me a little bit. If it's a "bolt accelerator" (as in Lahti L-35), then it transfers some of recoil energy allocated to barrel (by weight) to the bolt to help the bolt gaining enough energy to operate reliably. Why an accelerator was put into the design could be interesting. There could be two possibilties (1) even +P by itself could not operate the gun so an accelerator was needed; or (2) it could be inserted into the design to accommodate regular ammo.

As a new collector, it's not easy for me to post question marks in this session, and I bypass guns with big question mark, let alone an expansive one. Just try to look at it from academic angle. Please pardon me.

[Ron Wood]

The accelerator was added not to aid the function of the bolt, but assist in returning the heavy barrel/receiver/forearm to its forward position. The mainspring was sufficient to return the bolt to battery.

To get back to the former discussion: Everyone has gotten so hung up on the â??needâ?� for +P ammo to make a 9mm carbine work they have missed an opportunity to have another â??blinding flash of the bleedin' obviousâ?�. Do let us talk about the â??physicsâ?� involved.
(I need to interject a note here: I found my copy of the 1904 DWM munitions catalog. Both the 471A and 480D cartridges are listed for the carbine, both are indicated to have a blackened case, and there is no mention of the 480D not being offered for sale.) The 471A cartridge was developed for the carbine to make it function properly. The projectile for the regular 471 7.65mm cartridge was exactly the same one used in the 471A. So given that the energy imparted to recoil and operating the action is directly proportional to the mass and velocity, since the masses are equal the energy was upped by increasing the velocity, i.e. the 471A was loaded hotter (but this we already knew).

Now, just for the sake of discussion, let us assume that the velocity of the 7.65mm and 9mm cartridges are the same (in modern loads they are fairly close 1200 ft/sec vs. 1150 ft/sec respectively). According to the 1904 catalog, the weight of a 9mm projectile was 8 grams and the 7.65mm was 6 grams. The 9mm is 33% heavier than the 7.65mm! Since energy is the direct product of mass and velocity, for the same velocity the 9mm also has 33% more energy. It has much more â??uumphâ?�, i.e. it is inherently a hotter round.

How much hotter? Consider the mechanical difference between a 1900 7.65mm Luger and a 1902 9mm Luger. Basically they are the same. Sure the â??02 is a larger caliber and has a fatter barrel, but there is one more profound difference. To accommodate the hotter 9mm round, the mainspring was beefed up. The flat mainspring consists of two laminations. For the 7.65mm both laminations are the same thickness (this also applies to the carbine). But on the 9mm, the forward lamination is roughly 50% thicker than the rear lamination to absorb the extra energy of the 9mm. See the following illustration:



So, the extra energy of the 9mm is already the equivalent of a +P 7.65mm round. I havenâ??t been able to find the performance figures for the 471A cartridge (the +P for the 7.65mm if you will) but I would be very surprised if the muzzle energy of the 471A isnâ??t real close to the 9mm standard round.

â??The simple fact that the 9MM Parabellum cartridge lacks the kinetic energy to reliably cycle a carbine actionâ?�â?¦sez who! With the same mainspring in the carbine as the 7.65mm version (i.e. not beefed up), the 9mm would have the necessary increased â??uumphâ?� to cycle the carbine action. This probably became apparent early on which might account for the 480D cartridge being dropped from the market between 1904 and 1913â?¦it wasnâ??t needed!

[Heinz]

Ron, I think your argument is persuasive as to 9mm function.

I think your opinion based on personal evaluation is point that cannot be dismissed, I would not doubt your educated opinion. Although I would also side with Albert and Tom as to the likelihood of an original 9mm carbine turning up on todays market. (But I bet the next one shows up claiming to be the one you saw back then)

Alvin, take one of your Lugers apart and contemplate the rear axel pin. When you figure out how that allows the linnear momentum of the toggle and the barrel-reciever to seperate, let me know :-) The momentum of the barrel and reciever are the force that operates the toggle. The spring link in the toggle provides the connection to the recoil spring that bleed off the momentum of the barrel-reciever and toggle assembly to prevent the action from beating itself apart.

[alvin]

I put my white gloves on, took the only Parabellum out from the gun safe, moved the toggle and measured the position.....and thought about it.

I have to say "CLASSIC IS CLASSIC".

Heinz -- You're absolutely right. Things became complex when the toggle knob touches the frame ears. When the receiver moves back around 0.22", toggle knob reaches the frame ears, and at this moment, the receiver has *not* run out of its rail yet (the receiver could move back around 0.38" before it runs out of rail). Receiver and barrel's kinetic energy transfers to the toggle link when the knob impacts with the frame. The implication -- Every Parabellum pistol has a "built-in" accelerator which transfers barrel/receiver recoil energy to the toggle/breech block. Unlike other pistols, the energy transfer and bolt acceleration is by default without adding extra parts. Most recoil energy (fixed value given a type of ammo) is transferred to the toggle at the moment of impact regardless of initial energy allocation by weight before the toggle hits the frame ears.

Historically, there may or may not have pre-war 9m/m Carbine, arm researchers and advanced collectors could continue working on that. Based on above analysis, I assume regular 9m/m could operate a Carbine without problem because of the "default bolt acceleration".

[Heinz]

Nice analysis Alvin. Just remember that recoil spring is down there as an energy storage device to fuel the complicated return to battery of the action and you have a good grasp of how the whole shebang dances together. Give's one a great appreciation of Messers Maxim, Borchardt, and Luger.

[SteveM]

I had the opportunity to buy Carbine number 50044 about 18 years ago. We had a new baby and a new house at the time and could not come up with the 3500 required for the purchase. The carbine was missing the stock, but it was still a good deal in my view. Condition was about 95% and it did not appear to have been shot very much. It was in 9mm. Sure wish that I had been able to come up with the money but that's the way it goes sometimes.

This Carbine had shown up in a local gunstore that has since gone out of business. Someone else got it later on and it was later stolen at a gun show. I never did hear if it was recovered or not. I believe it was listed in the Automag as stolen. Someone that has these issues from that time frame may be able to get a little more info about the piece.

SteveM

[Imperial Arms]

We may never find the truth whether or not the DWM factory made Luger Carbines in caliber 9 mm because everyone may have a different opinion about this topic. Of course, it is always exciting to see a Luger carbine in caliber 9 mm because it is different, but if it could have generated the same demand on the market as a carbine in caliber 7,65 mm, why didn't the DWM factory offer it in two calibers in the European and American markets? Retailers such as A&F and SD&G could have easily added one line in their catalogs announcing the availability the Luger carbine in the worldwide popular 9 mm cartridge. My explanation is that the Luger carbine was a small-bore sporting carbine (not for military use) and the preferred cartridge (in Europe) for hunting was the 7,65 mm cartridge which performed better than the 9 mm in distance for small game animals.

In today's collector's society where we apply different reasons and factors to make buying decisions, I suppose that the 'barometer' which determines a collector's choice is whether he wants to invest thousands of dollars in such a carbine which has very limited material to back it up. If somebody gave me $15k-$20k to invest in either a Luger Carbine in 9 mm or 7,65 mm, I would take the latter without hesitation even if the former could be considered 'rarer'. Until I encounter additional Luger carbines in caliber 9 mm which can pass as factory original, I shall continue to have doubts about carbines being manufactured in caliber 9 mm.

Albert

[Ron Wood]

I got a little too involved in this thread and my comments were starting to take on a tone that is not my usual nature. I have deleted some of them. I apologize to Albert and the rest of you. I'll try to not let it happen again.

[wlyon]

Ron
I didn't see any thing you need to apologize for. Nothing wrong with a discussion among a couple experts. I personally enjoyed it and hopefully learned something. Discussions, even mildly heated, is what makes this forum special. I and I'm sure many more respect and enjoy your vast knowledge. Bill

[laoshi75]

Ron,

I fully agree with Bill, of course.

christian

[StarOfTheWest]

Ron, you have nothing to apologize for at all.
Nor Albert.

You and Albert simply disagreed.
I think disagreement is acceptable, and should be expected when so many experts are gathered on one board.
But there was no name calling, hair pulling, or rolling about in the mud... seemed a gentlemanly exchange to me.

This continues to be the most polite gun board I have ever seen on the Net.

[alvin]

I am new in the gun field. The disadvantage ... obviously, I don't know much. The advantage is that I don't have any burden. So, I could post many stupid things and asks lots of questions. Please pardon me.

[Navy]

"No name calling, hair pulling, or rolling about in the mud"

Shucks, that takes 95% of the fun out of it.

Tom A

[Imperial Arms]

I have no hard feelings, and these disagreements and the exchange of information and opinions stimulates the quest for knowledge (and Lugers) as long as everything is conducted in a polite and gentlemen manner.

Everything is cool - all apologizes given and accepted.

Enjoy,
Albert