Stainless Steel Stoeger Magazines - Page 2

Sieger · 08-09-2003, 07:20 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Steve Richards:
I am sitting here with two magazines. One is an aluminum bottom vintage that I think is E German. It has S/N 1561 and a 2 on the bottom and 2/1001 on the side. The inside front to back at the top is 1.064". My new stainless is 1.065". The vintage is .505 wide on the outside and 0.595 over the follower button. The stainless is 0.473 and 0.560 respectively. But the big difference in the new model is that it is wide all over while the vintage is 0.438 away from the rib. The top of the catch opening is 1.095 from the top on the vintage and 1.041 on the stainless. So there are some differences other than just looking different.<hr /></blockquote>Dear Steve:

If those are good tight measurements, you have just answered my question. It looks like Aimco just reproduced the interior length of the original magazine without taking the shorter, newer, standard length cartridge into consideration. In essence, they have just reproduced the step feed problem of the shorter, newer, standard length ammo. This would be so easy for them to fix.

Bob

Sieger · 08-11-2003, 12:31 AM

Hi All:

I just had a chance to see a photo of the frame of a new Aimco Luger (Post Stoeger) posted on this site.

The magazine cut-out looks much wider than that of an original Luger. I quess they either want the 9mm cartridges to move around sideways or are planning to make a .40 S&W next year!

I'd like to talk to these folks and find out just what it is they are trying to do here. The original magazine was narrow for a good reason.

Bob

unspellable · 08-11-2003, 08:26 AM

MItchell had a single 10 mm engineering model made up. They had no plans to market it. They did have plans to market a 40 S&W. About this time Mitchell dropped out of the picture and Stoeger took over the distributership. Never found out why. But this might have something to do with the magazine change. Possibly even a dual caliber?

I have a dual caliber Ruger P89 for 7.65 mm and ( mm Parabellum. I obtained an upper for 40 S&W. The early Ruger magazines were identical for all three calibers. After the Clinton magazine ban the 40 S&W magazine had wider lips so it would not hold the 9 0r 7.65 mm stuff, as it would have had room for more than 10.

Will the Stoeger magazine hold a 40 S&W? I'll try it tonight.

Sieger · 08-11-2003, 07:57 PM

Dear Unspellable:

Wow! Now that would be interesting, a Luger in .40 S&W, probably even more interesting (and cheaper to engineer and produce) than one in .45.

Gee, I wonder why they didn't market this pistol?

Anyway, I don't think that the step-feed system would lend itself well to multiple casing type interchanges, though simmilar casing changes, like 7.65mm to 9mm, would be a snap.

Thanks!

Bob

unspellable · 08-12-2003, 08:16 AM

I think the 40 S&W chambering did not come to fruition because it was at about this time that Mitchell left the picture and Stoeger took over. Any body know why the switch happened?

Sieger · 08-12-2003, 12:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by unspellable:
I think the 40 S&W chambering did not come to fruition because it was at about this time that Mitchell left the picture and Stoeger took over. Any body know why the switch happened?<hr /></blockquote>Dear Unspellable:

Did the .40 S&W fit in the Luger mag?

Bob

unspellable · 08-12-2003, 12:42 PM

The idea of the magazine change being related to the possible production of a 40 S&W chambering only recently occurred to me. When I get home I'll try putting a 40 S&W cartrdidge in one.

It's too bad the 40 S&W didn't happen. I'd really go for one in 357 SIG.

As an aside, the 40 S&W will not work in my Ruger P89 when it has a 7.65 mm barrel on it. One of those embaressing oopsies in life.

Sieger · 08-12-2003, 03:09 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by unspellable:


As an aside, the 40 S&W will not work in my Ruger P89 when it has a 7.65 mm barrel on it. One of those embaressing oopsies in life.<hr /></blockquote>Dear Unspellable:

Yes, I had the same problem trying just as hard as I could to get a 9mm to chamber in a 7.65mm barrel. Ha!

Bob

08-09-2003, 07:20 AM	#21
Sieger User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 1,575 Thanks: 2,124 Thanked 400 Times in 249 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Steve Richards: <strong>I am sitting here with two magazines. One is an aluminum bottom vintage that I think is E German. It has S/N 1561 and a 2 on the bottom and 2/1001 on the side. The inside front to back at the top is 1.064". My new stainless is 1.065". The vintage is .505 wide on the outside and 0.595 over the follower button. The stainless is 0.473 and 0.560 respectively. But the big difference in the new model is that it is wide all over while the vintage is 0.438 away from the rib. The top of the catch opening is 1.095 from the top on the vintage and 1.041 on the stainless. So there are some differences other than just looking different.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Dear Steve: If those are good tight measurements, you have just answered my question. It looks like Aimco just reproduced the interior length of the original magazine without taking the shorter, newer, standard length cartridge into consideration. In essence, they have just reproduced the step feed problem of the shorter, newer, standard length ammo. This would be so easy for them to fix. Bob

08-12-2003, 12:20 PM	#26
Sieger User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 1,575 Thanks: 2,124 Thanked 400 Times in 249 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by unspellable: <strong>I think the 40 S&W chambering did not come to fruition because it was at about this time that Mitchell left the picture and Stoeger took over. Any body know why the switch happened?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Dear Unspellable: Did the .40 S&W fit in the Luger mag? Bob

08-12-2003, 03:09 PM	#28
Sieger User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 1,575 Thanks: 2,124 Thanked 400 Times in 249 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by unspellable: <strong> As an aside, the 40 S&W will not work in my Ruger P89 when it has a 7.65 mm barrel on it. One of those embaressing oopsies in life.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Dear Unspellable: Yes, I had the same problem trying just as hard as I could to get a 9mm to chamber in a 7.65mm barrel. Ha! Bob

08-11-2003, 12:31 AM	#22
Sieger User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 1,575 Thanks: 2,124 Thanked 400 Times in 249 Posts	Hi All: I just had a chance to see a photo of the frame of a new Aimco Luger (Post Stoeger) posted on this site. The magazine cut-out looks much wider than that of an original Luger. I quess they either want the 9mm cartridges to move around sideways or are planning to make a .40 S&W next year! I'd like to talk to these folks and find out just what it is they are trying to do here. The original magazine was narrow for a good reason. Bob

08-11-2003, 08:26 AM	#23
unspellable User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Iowa Posts: 767 Thanks: 0 Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts	MItchell had a single 10 mm engineering model made up. They had no plans to market it. They did have plans to market a 40 S&W. About this time Mitchell dropped out of the picture and Stoeger took over the distributership. Never found out why. But this might have something to do with the magazine change. Possibly even a dual caliber? I have a dual caliber Ruger P89 for 7.65 mm and ( mm Parabellum. I obtained an upper for 40 S&W. The early Ruger magazines were identical for all three calibers. After the Clinton magazine ban the 40 S&W magazine had wider lips so it would not hold the 9 0r 7.65 mm stuff, as it would have had room for more than 10. Will the Stoeger magazine hold a 40 S&W? I'll try it tonight.

08-11-2003, 07:57 PM	#24
Sieger User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 1,575 Thanks: 2,124 Thanked 400 Times in 249 Posts	Dear Unspellable: Wow! Now that would be interesting, a Luger in .40 S&W, probably even more interesting (and cheaper to engineer and produce) than one in .45. Gee, I wonder why they didn't market this pistol? Anyway, I don't think that the step-feed system would lend itself well to multiple casing type interchanges, though simmilar casing changes, like 7.65mm to 9mm, would be a snap. Thanks! Bob

08-12-2003, 08:16 AM	#25
unspellable User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Iowa Posts: 767 Thanks: 0 Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts	I think the 40 S&W chambering did not come to fruition because it was at about this time that Mitchell left the picture and Stoeger took over. Any body know why the switch happened?

08-12-2003, 12:42 PM	#27
unspellable User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Iowa Posts: 767 Thanks: 0 Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts	The idea of the magazine change being related to the possible production of a 40 S&W chambering only recently occurred to me. When I get home I'll try putting a 40 S&W cartrdidge in one. It's too bad the 40 S&W didn't happen. I'd really go for one in 357 SIG. As an aside, the 40 S&W will not work in my Ruger P89 when it has a 7.65 mm barrel on it. One of those embaressing oopsies in life.