repro holsters ???

Do you fellows have a source for reproduction holsters ? I'm considering I.M.A. (International Military Antiques) as they offer repro holsters with dates from 1914-1918 or 1934-1944 and, in the case of the latter, even waffenampts are reproduced. Has anyone purchased a holster from I.M.A. ? Is there a source anyone prefers more ?

[Luke]

Just bought the IMA artillery rig: black holster with all accessories including wooden stock.


The holster appears to be of good quality, and I am quite satisfied with it.


The metal attaching iron on the stock, however, is not a high quality item and required fairly serious modification (file and sandpaper) to fit it to the stock lug of my Luger.

[lugerholsterrepair]

Luke, This does not surprise me. Have you ever fit your pistol to an original stock to see if that fit was any better? You may wonder why almost every luger had a stock lug when there were no stocks used on short barreled pistols. The answer is , the machining process for the frame required a place to hold onto and position the piece. Thus you find the stock lug was the handy place to accomplish this. Most stock lugs are poorly formed for the stock attaching iron as they were not intended to be used for that purpose. Jerry Burney

Jerry:


Sorry, that sounds like a "Luger myth" to me. They made a bunch of Lugers without the stock lug up until late 1913. If "the machining process for the frame required a place to hold onto and position the piece," how did they manage to make all those Lugers without stock lugs? Since they started adding the stock lugs to all Lugers after the LP08 was accepted and just before LP08 production was begun, it seems much more likely to me that the stock lug was put on all Lugers so that an LP08 could be made on any frame. Also, so that any Luger out in the field could use a stock if it was required.

I have heard that stock iron was hand fitted to stock lugs on individual pistols. That was supposedly the reason why stocks were numbered to the pistols and why some original stocks did not fit some pistols well. Doing what testing I can with limited resources I have found:


My Spanish-made Sarco repro stock fits well (and very precisely) on:


My 1914 Erfurt LP08

My 1940 42 Mauser P08

My Swedish Lahti P40


The stock fits equally well and equally tightly on all three pistols.

For the benefit of the BATF, that was only a "simulated" installation of the LP08 stock on the P08 and P40 pistols.

[Marvin]

gewehr guy,


I have seen some of the I.M.A. repro holsters and for the price, I think they are a good deal. If you want a better quality repro, at about twice the price, the CMR International has some that are absolutly stunning in quality. The CMR holsters are what I would think the originals looked like when they were made new!


I do have one I.M.A. holster for the Radom pistol and I was pleased with the price and quality. I looked at the Sportsmans Guide catalog and they have them for $39.95 which I think is the price from I.M.A., so I would go for the I.M.A.


Marvin

[Luke]

Can someone please tell me if the Locking Lever on the original Artillery Stocks was blued or strawed?

Thanks, Luke.

[lugerholsterrepair]

Bill, I know once you are familiar with all the facts you will change your mind about the employment of stock lugs. Randall Gibson on page 28-29 of his excellent book The Krieghoff Parabellum explains in detail how the Luger pistol frame was held for machining purposes. To answer your question of how were frames held that had no stock lug, there was a hole and slot arrangement at the rear of the grip strap. This is not present on pistols with a stock lug. This can be observed by taking off the grip panels. Mr. Gibson goes on and says neither the stock lug nor the slot and hole arrangement are found on 1910-1913 pistols and these must have used a magazine type stand to hold the weapon in the jig. It is obvious to even a casual observer that after WW1 almost no stocks were issued and the use of a stock on a 4 inch pistol would be of neglidgeable value. Why not remove the stock lug altogether since it took valuble machining time? It's use as a holder for machining the frame became more valuble than it's use as a stock attachment. Jerry Burney

Jerry, we are talking about two different things and we are both factually correct. In speaking of the original REASON for adding stock lugs to ALL Lugers I said "Since they started adding the stock lugs to all Lugers after the LP08 was accepted and just before LP08 production was begun, it seems much more likely to me that the stock lug was put on all Lugers so that an LP08 could be made on any frame. Also, so that any Luger out in the field could use a stock if it was required."


In speaking about USE of the stock lug AFTER it was added to all frames you said "The machining process for the frame required a place to hold onto and position the piece. Thus you find the stock lug was the handy place to accomplish this.


Both statements are correct. The "myth" is that the original REASON for adding the stock lug to all frames was because of the need for a way to hold the frame.

Folks;

Here I go sticking my neck out again.

I have long experience in Machining Technology as:

Machinest Tool Maker, Die Maker, Product Designer, Engineer,

and Supervisor In the worlds largest Research Machine Shop at "NASA Langley Research Center". ( 36 Years )

And I feel that gives me a good basis for this opinion.

Due to the very thin and weak nature of the material at the position of the Shoulder stock lug, it lays to reason that the lug could serve no useful purpose as a supporting device for machining purposes, and further for the same reasons it would have no useful application as a locating fixture for Quality Control Inspection purposes.

Experience tells me that if the frame is held firmly by the lug that one could easily deflect the forward end of the frame by as much as .015" or 1/64" as you may.

And this by simply applying the necessary force with only one finger.

Using the weakest portion of the frame as a solid base for all precision machining operations gives rise to the ability of the designer,(GL), to think clearly, I think NOT!

I rather think that The expensive process of producing hot piercing and Forging dies and as many before have said the ability to use any frame with a stock is the most probable reason for applying the lug to all frames.

This would require only a single forging design for all frames.

IMO,

ViggoG

[Johnny Peppers]

We must remember that the Lugers were made in a machine shop powered by line shafts. This was before the days of CNC machining where the piece to be machined is automatically positioned for the next operation. The stock lug made the ideal attachment to pre-position the frame for the next machining operation. The frame was positioned by the stock lug and then final adjustments and clamping were made prior to the machining operation. Only two German military Lugers were ever issued with the shoulder stock, and then in limited quantities. The Luger was phased out due to the complex machining required to produce them, and replaced by the P38 which was much more simple to machine. Why would the stock lug be retained for a stock that had not been produced in over twenty years, and when produced never intended for the 4" pistol. The theory that the lug was used to position the frame for machining makes much more sense than retaining it for a non-existant shoulder stock.

[Ron Wood]

This is a really neat thread and points are well taken on both sides. Keep it friendly and we will all benefit from the exchange!

[lugerholsterrepair]

Viggo, I agree with you up to a point. Is it possible that the machinists used a rest on the flexible end of the frame to stop the movement of the frame? Using the stock lug for positioning but then having another point to stabalize during the machining process. I am not trained in the art of machining metal but some possibility like this immediately comes to mind if what you say is true about the movement being so great. Jerry Burney

[Thor]

Boy, would I like to go back in time and observe how these great guns were built. I have pondered this many times. ~Thor~

[G.T.]

I have to agree with viggo on this one! I do not believe they used the lug for either frame location on a fixture, or as a machine fixture support....the reason for this is simple, it took to much time! Any fixture used to hold the frame would have blocks or pins that indexed on the same side(s) or surface(s) every time, in all machine operations!!....You simply place and clamp, no muss no fuss! They would never use the lug, as difficulty in attaching, and variance in the lug machining would make it a problem solvers nightmare to use effectivly....nope, they clamped it and cut it! till...later....G.T. P.S. I could see potential for it to be utilized for some small finishing hand operations!!!

[Lonnie Zimmerman]

They put it there because they are so MUCH fun to shoot with a shoulder stock!!


Lonnie

[Hugh]

Maybe the lug was retained after stocks were no longer used because the machinery was set up that way and it would have taken a major overhaul of the machining operations to eliminate the lug; so it was easier to just keep on machining it on there. My 2 pfg worth!

â??CROW BREAST ON PUMPERNICKLEâ?�

It Certainly Makes

â??One Damn Tough Sandwichâ?�

My apologies to all that may have been mislead at my misdirection

The stock lug HAD a use in machining. Not as the primary holding and locating device but as an auxiliary device to steady the free standing handle portion of the frame. This would allow a variety of machining operations while damping the vibrations of the machining process thereby allowing smoother finishes and greater accuracy.

The machining operations would be to first machine the various slide cuts and pockets of the upper, or slide portion, of the frame.

Then the frame would be inverted and mounted on a fixture that used the slides to locate and lock the frame in position. Mounted thus with the handle protruding upward, and supported by a fixture arm that attached the stock lug to a solid column to the rear of the mounted frame. This would dampen and allow free access and to all portions of the frame excluding the small portion occupied by the lug and fixture arm. It is easy to visualize by standing a Luger on its rear and front sights, That at least 95% of all remaining machining on the frame could be accomplished from this single fixture.

It seems probable that this may have reduced the setup time for these machining operations by 50 to 70%, â??No Small Applesâ?�


Johnny,

I think that you misunderstand the problems of Machine Design and Production. There really was little change in basic production methods. As newer and tougher metals became available, Newer and higher speed tooling was introduced to fill the gaps and the basic methods of setup and machining remained essentially the same but at higher speeds. The problems of positioning and holding the parts for cutting operations have not changed to this day and NC Machining has only allowed the rapid changing of tools, and removed from the operator the responsibility of setting each cut and making many changes in setup. Now the addition of Multiple Axis Machining allows properly designed parts to be machined with automatic changes in setup for the part, tool changing and setting each cutting operation, Thereby Increasing Productivity.

I too am an old timer, â??77 Years Youngâ?�, and for eight or more years I worked with line shaft machinery Both in my primary and side jobs. Yes, I too had to work two jobs to feed my family during my early years. This was good experience, so I am not unfamiliar with the machining processes that were in common use when the Lugers which are most prized as Shooters were produced, 1930 to 1946.

I began study of the machine shop in the fall of 1940 in High School Manual Arts class, in preparation for graduation and work in industry. Where I became familiar with a variety of old line shaft machinery With the advent of Dec 07,1941, I quit school and began work in what would become a variety of machine shops, both within and outside part time jobs until retirement in Dec 1977.

Every shop that I worked in had some Line Shaft Equipment until about 1970 when the last line shaft tool grinders were phased out

Now, There are few of us â??Old Flat Beltersâ?� remaining to reflect on the â??Old Daysâ?�.

Since the stock lug was first available on the 1900 Luger Carbine, With 175 mm and 300 mm Barrel lengths as Sporting Guns,

Why was it not needed or apparently used for â??fixturingâ?� on the large production orders Of both Military and Other Sporting Weapons such as 1900 AE and the 1906 AE and the P-08 Lugers, until I913. (Which are included in the majority of all Lugers produced during that period). Most of which had no stock lug.

If it provided such a good attachment fixture, why was it not used for this purpose on all the Lugers produced until the 1913 German Army Artillery Model?

My instinct as a Product Engineer, tells me that the production of a large military order for 1913 generated the need for new Hot Forging and Piercing Dies. The Wartime Economy dictated the Manufacturing of a single Forging approach for all Lugers, and then would then replace all worn Dies as needed. , And it seems possible that at this time someone realized that this lug could be used to advantage as a production and machining aid.

After the war was over and Lugers were again placed into production, post war reconstruction demanded the use of existing dies and equipment to rebuild a broken economy.

Remember there was no Marshall plan in those days, They made do with what they had, and under severe restrictions. All of which helped set the foundation for WW-II in the minds of a bitter defeated people who were governed by a foreign decreed â??German Republicâ?� which was not necessarily of their choosing.

I hope that this enlightens enough to justify the long treatise.

Viggo G