!!! LUGER on TV today !!!

suum cuique · 02-10-2010, 11:12 AM

February 10, 2010 04:00 p.m. EST

"Guns of the world - The Luger"

HISTORY-INTERNATIONAL Channel,

Here on Comcast, it's channel 116, pls.
check your local broadcast provider.

Ice · 02-10-2010, 11:31 AM

It can also be seen on Youtube. Neat segment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfXQRLr-1Cw&NR=1

Charlie

fred p · 02-10-2010, 03:17 PM

great video! wish I could afford one of the 100 but...... I'm happy with the one grand dad brought home.

suum cuique · 02-10-2010, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ice

It can also be seen on Youtube. Neat segment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfXQRLr-1Cw&NR=1

Charlie

I didn't know that. Youtube is a really nice place to spend hours and hours and hours....

alvin · 02-10-2010, 10:02 PM

He used CNC. But "Nothing replaces laborious work".

So, what people said putting a chunk of steel into CNC, then a gun automatically appears on the other end, is not true. At least, there are lots of filing work on video.

Vlim · 02-11-2010, 11:09 AM

Yes,

For example: the postwar Mauser frame still needed about 90 machine steps to take it from a forging to a finished in-the-white steel frame.

alvin · 02-11-2010, 06:00 PM

Vlim -- Could you share us the list of those 90 steps? Curious on what was done. Or a subset, so I could get some idea?

====

BTW, postwar frame was cast, right? Where did forging come from? I am very confused. 90 steps were address to barrel and barrel extension only, correct?

alvin · 02-11-2010, 09:23 PM

Making a Luger from a chunk of steel took him 10-month full time work, using conventional lathe:

http://www.craftsmanshipmuseum.com/M...20bulletin.pdf

Smaller, but nothing really saved here, except a little bit less steel. And he's a very skillful person.

conehammer · 02-12-2010, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Smaller, but nothing really saved here,

?? eh?

...and I always thought the purpose of making a smaller version
of a thing was to, ummm, well let's see.. oh yeah make it smaller!

nothing really saved? what a curious thing to say! As a person who has been known to make a smaller version of some things from time to time myself it's just one of those statements that makes me go hmmmm...

Please don't construe my observation of what you said as a
personal attack, rather I found it extraordinary.

I wish I had that kind of skill. never mind the patience...

Jerry

alvin · 02-12-2010, 04:46 AM

So, you mean it's harder, because the parts are smaller? But the statement "nothing saved" is still legitimate in that case, although it's a under statement.

====

[Edit] The article did mention "many parts were rejected, scraped and remade because their aspect, dimentions and/or tolerance were not perfect". Making a single gun amplified this problem. I would think that's the core difficulty, not the size (1/2, 2/5 of a Navy model is small but not tiny).

Or, I missed something?

conehammer · 02-12-2010, 08:41 PM

I don't want to risk going too far off topic but I'll respond just this once.

Quote:

So, you mean it's harder, because the parts are smaller? But the statement "nothing saved" is still legitimate in that case, although it's a under statement.

====

[Edit] The article did mention "many parts were rejected, scraped and remade because their aspect, dimentions and/or tolerance were not perfect". Making a single gun amplified this problem. I would think that's the core difficulty, not the size (1/2, 2/5 of a Navy model is small but not tiny).

Or, I missed something?

I am not a tool and die class of machinist but even a production run of one is going to require a number of fixtures and jigs, not to mention test pieces, trials, etc. I just didn't see how the statement " nothing saved" fit a discussion on such a subject.

If I made a model, 1:10 of course in my case, that's what I do; of a Jeep and made a number of wasted parts that didn't work out would you still say " nothing saved" ?

Perhaps you were just being funny and I missed it?

Perhaps I should have rephrased my question:

Nothing saved with respect to? making a full sized Luger?

I'm sure the fellow had the skill and resources to make a full size example.

The statement containing "nothing saved" would be be non sequitur with respect to the topic. How does the possibility
of saving anything enter into the decision to make a miniature?

If that was true we'd fight all our wars in 1:10 scale, think of the materials we'd save!

Anyway that's all

Jerry

alvin · 02-12-2010, 08:58 PM

Actually, ML's original statement explained well: "This [raw material] is negligible compared to the enormous number of hours of labor spent at the work-bench".

Obviously, full size gun or small miniature, no labor can be saved, equivalent of those 1180 steps were still needed, even if not exactly followed. "nothing saved" because the cost of raw material is almost nothing comparing with the cost of labor. Raw material in this context -- we are talking about 2 lb steel, not 2 lb gold.

Probably not news. Considering the production volume, fitting must be harder than original German work, there was no pile of parts could be chosen from, everything was single piece, so it's harder. That's not said, but implied in the PDF.

02-10-2010, 11:12 AM	#1
suum cuique User Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: MD / Currently about 9000 klicks east of the Potomac Posts: 497 Thanks: 100 Thanked 47 Times in 35 Posts	!!! LUGER on TV today !!! February 10, 2010 04:00 p.m. EST "Guns of the world - The Luger" HISTORY-INTERNATIONAL Channel, Here on Comcast, it's channel 116, pls. check your local broadcast provider. __________________ Regards, Andy There's No Place Like Home (Wizard Of Oz)

02-10-2010, 03:17 PM	#3
fred p User Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: N.C. usa Posts: 86 Thanks: 10 Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts	great video! wish I could afford one of the 100 but...... I'm happy with the one grand dad brought home. __________________ if it's broke I'll either fix it or I'll fix it so no one else can fix it.

02-11-2010, 06:00 PM	#7
alvin User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: US Posts: 3,843 Thanks: 132 Thanked 729 Times in 438 Posts	Vlim -- Could you share us the list of those 90 steps? Curious on what was done. Or a subset, so I could get some idea? ==== BTW, postwar frame was cast, right? Where did forging come from? I am very confused. 90 steps were address to barrel and barrel extension only, correct? Last edited by alvin; 02-11-2010 at 07:08 PM.

02-10-2010, 11:31 AM	#2
Ice User Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 552 Thanks: 13 Thanked 69 Times in 57 Posts	It can also be seen on Youtube. Neat segment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfXQRLr-1Cw&NR=1 Charlie

02-10-2010, 10:02 PM	#5
alvin User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: US Posts: 3,843 Thanks: 132 Thanked 729 Times in 438 Posts	He used CNC. But "Nothing replaces laborious work". So, what people said putting a chunk of steel into CNC, then a gun automatically appears on the other end, is not true. At least, there are lots of filing work on video.

02-11-2010, 11:09 AM	#6
Vlim Moderator Lifetime LugerForum Patron Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 5,031 Thanks: 1,018 Thanked 3,873 Times in 1,184 Posts	Yes, For example: the postwar Mauser frame still needed about 90 machine steps to take it from a forging to a finished in-the-white steel frame.

02-11-2010, 09:23 PM	#8
alvin User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: US Posts: 3,843 Thanks: 132 Thanked 729 Times in 438 Posts	Making a Luger from a chunk of steel took him 10-month full time work, using conventional lathe: http://www.craftsmanshipmuseum.com/M...20bulletin.pdf Smaller, but nothing really saved here, except a little bit less steel. And he's a very skillful person.

02-12-2010, 04:46 AM	#10
alvin User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: US Posts: 3,843 Thanks: 132 Thanked 729 Times in 438 Posts	So, you mean it's harder, because the parts are smaller? But the statement "nothing saved" is still legitimate in that case, although it's a under statement. ==== [Edit] The article did mention "many parts were rejected, scraped and remade because their aspect, dimentions and/or tolerance were not perfect". Making a single gun amplified this problem. I would think that's the core difficulty, not the size (1/2, 2/5 of a Navy model is small but not tiny). Or, I missed something?

02-12-2010, 08:58 PM	#12
alvin User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: US Posts: 3,843 Thanks: 132 Thanked 729 Times in 438 Posts	Actually, ML's original statement explained well: "This [raw material] is negligible compared to the enormous number of hours of labor spent at the work-bench". Obviously, full size gun or small miniature, no labor can be saved, equivalent of those 1180 steps were still needed, even if not exactly followed. "nothing saved" because the cost of raw material is almost nothing comparing with the cost of labor. Raw material in this context -- we are talking about 2 lb steel, not 2 lb gold. Probably not news. Considering the production volume, fitting must be harder than original German work, there was no pile of parts could be chosen from, everything was single piece, so it's harder. That's not said, but implied in the PDF.