Stainless Steel Stoeger Magazines

Sieger · 08-03-2003, 04:00 AM

Hi:

I was wondering if anyone knows just why Stoeger had the magazine redesigned on their version of the Stainless Steel Luger.

Was it to "cure" the feeding and jamming problem? If so, I'm doubtful that it did.

Slightly shortening the inside of the magazine to make it feed ball ammo that is 1.169 inches in length probably would have done it.

Bob

unspellable · 08-03-2003, 04:46 PM

I supsect Stoeger changed the magazine in order to have a captive market. If it were a simple cost cutting measure they would not have modified the frame so as to not accept the stanfard magazine. I'd be pleased if the factory went back to the original magazine.

unspellable · 08-04-2003, 03:00 AM

Rick,

During the Mitchell era I bought several of the magazines as spares for my vintage shooters. They seemed to be about as good as any magazine I could find.

As for the Stoger era magazines, I'll have to drag 'em out and play with them a bit to refresh my memory.

Sieger · 08-04-2003, 03:15 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rick W.:
Hello Unspellable,

My surmising above was just a guess after looking at a later stainless magazine versus a vintage blue magazine. The vintage magazine looks more complex in the body sides whereas the stainless appears almost seamless. I would have thought that the tooling/effort would have been more costly on the more complex looking magazine.

As I recall a vintage magazine will insert into a stainless Luger, lockup, and function the holdopen. I cannot say if this configuration will function normally with live ammo or not, but one would have high hopes; I have always had plenty of spare stainless magazines of the later style. If the vintage magazine does function with live ammo, then looks like that would be an advantage; .....not much into politics.

Regards,

Rick W.<hr /></blockquote>Hi Rick:

Thanks for your comments!!

My question was a technical one. Wilson in his fine book on Luger Shooting tells us that the inside length of the magazine is critically important to assure proper feeding, as this was matched to the original cartridge length of 1.175 (this is because of the angle at which the cartridges ride up the walls of the magazine).

My question was rather they had taken the standard length of the newer 9MM ammo into consideration: 1.169 newer vs 1.175 older.

Somewhere, I also remember reading that Stoeger reduced the magazine by one cartridge: 7 rounds vs the original 8.

Oh well, Stoeger may not even know what was done and why.

Bob

John Sabato · 08-06-2003, 06:27 PM

I would be curious to know just what is different about the latest generation Stainless Steel Lugers that prevents their accepting a vintage Luger magazine? I don't have access to a stainless gun... but if I had to guess, I would think that the new magazines that I have seen were smoothe sided and did not have the rolled sheetmetal joint on each side of the vintage magazines... can anyone confirm this?

Would all that would be necessary to make a current production Stainless Luger accept vintage magazines be a broaching operation on the magazine well to allow the rolled sheetmetal joint to enter the well? Is there enough metal there to support opening the mag well to accept vintage magazines?

Open discussion and submission of photos by owners of both original and stainless guns on this question is highly encouraged by ME.

thanks for listening to this old engineer's wonderings and rambles...

Sieger · 08-07-2003, 01:26 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rick W.:
[QB]Hello Everyone,

"As Bob pointed out overall cartridge length can make a difference in magazine feeding performance."

The Luger magazine design was based on very close tolerances relative to cartridge OAL. This is because of its "step-feeding" design. As you have discovered, cartridges that are too short will not feed properly and jam the pistol. All current factory ammo is loaded too short to properly feed through the Luger magazine. In fact, if your's will feed factory ammo, with 100% efficiency, something is wrong!

The original DWM lengths for cartridges were:

Flat point cone: 29mm (approximately 1.14 inches)

Round nose ball: 29.8mm (approximately. 1.173 inches)

"I tend keep the cartridge length on the longest side myself, kinda let the magazine tell me things about overall length..."

Yes, it's really quite easy. Load up 8 dummy rounds, starting on the long side (in excess of the lengths quoted above).

Load all 8 rounds into the magazine, noting if the top round is parallel to the lips of the magazine, or if it's at an angle. Studying the top round of the 8 is the key, because if the others are too short, the "mistake" in their lengths is cumulative on the top round.

Work the toggle manually. If the top round feeds smoothly, without any unusual effort, you have the right length. If not, slowly and carefully reduce the OALs of all 8 rounds and repeat the process. Remember, the top 8th round is critical, as it "catches" the other 7 round's "mistakes".

After a few trys, this process becomes second nature, and yes, your pistol will feed properly!!!

Now, to develop the proper load.

Bob

Dwight Gruber · 08-07-2003, 02:11 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by John Sabato:
Would all that would be necessary to make a current production Stainless Luger accept vintage magazines be a broaching operation on the magazine well to allow the rolled sheetmetal joint to enter the well? Is there enough metal there to support opening the mag well to accept vintage magazines?<hr /></blockquote>JohnS,

I don't think that is entirely the problem. When I went to the range with Steve Richards upon the receipt of his new stainless, we did a check. Iirc, a steel magazine is too large in overall girth to fit in the magazine well--a visual check revealed that the stainless steel magazines are made of thinner metal, that even though the inside measurements may be the same the outer measurements are not, and the mag well is machined to the tight tolerance of the stainless magazine exterior.

Steve may remind me if my memory is in error...

--Dwight

Johnny C. Kitchens · 08-07-2003, 02:22 AM

Here are the left and right sides of a WWII extruded Haenel magazine, a Swiss magazine, and
a Stainless Steel magazine from the AIMCO...

unspellable · 08-07-2003, 12:55 PM

Some of the points I'm seeing here on cartridge OAL are interesting. Perhaps both the 9 mm and 7.65 mm cartrdiges as commercially loaded in the US have evolved (devolved?) into something other than Parabellum cartridges. It would go a long way towards explaining the Parabellum's poor reputation for reliability as opposed to so many military organizations adopting it when they are not in the habit of adopting things that don't work.

You can't expect any pistol to work with ammo that is not to spec.

Sieger · 08-07-2003, 04:03 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by unspellable:
Some of the points I'm seeing here on cartridge OAL are interesting. Perhaps both the 9 mm and 7.65 mm cartrdiges as commercially loaded in the US have evolved (devolved?) into something other than Parabellum cartridges. It would go a long way towards explaining the Parabellum's poor reputation for reliability as opposed to so many military organizations adopting it when they are not in the habit of adopting things that don't work.

You can't expect any pistol to work with ammo that is not to spec.<hr /></blockquote>Hi Unspellable:

Yes, nothing is currently loaded commercially to the original specs. OAL is a good part of the problem, the other part is the proper load.

For some reason, a lot of folks think that you have to shoot +P+ loads in a Luger to get them to operate. This isn't true.

The original load, the one that the springs were balanced to, was 123 grs. at 1020 low, 1073 high.

When I load ammo to these specs, I get 100% reliability and fantastic accuracy!!

Regarding the fact that so many armies adopted the Luger, no, the German and Swiss Armies are not in the habit of adopting weapons that don't function properly, let alone keeping a falty design for 40 to 50 years.

To me, a Luger is like a Porsche, keep it tuned and you will be very satisfied with its performance!!

Bob

unspellable · 08-07-2003, 06:51 PM

Bob,

The original 9 mm load of 124 gr at about 1050 fps was for the "Old Model" with the flat recoil spring. With the introduction of the new model and the coil spring, DWM started using two different springs in the two calibers and boosted the velocity a bit in the 9 mm. Still not +P+ of course. But some present day commercial stuff isn't all that spiffy.

In the 7.65 mm, no present day commercial load reaches the original velocity in a six inch barrel, let alone the 4.5 or 4.75 inch barrel the original velocity specs were taken with.

I'll have to start paying more attention to OAL in the 7.65 as well.

John Sabato · 08-07-2003, 08:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />JohnS,

--a visual check revealed that the stainless steel magazines are made of thinner metal, that even though the inside measurements may be the same the outer measurements are not, and the mag well is machined to the tight tolerance of the stainless magazine exterior.

--Dwight<hr /></blockquote>So Dwight (& Steve), it seems that you ARE confirming what I proposed... IF the mag well on a stainless Luger were opened up to original specifications, it would appear that it would then fit and function with vintage magazines, but would no longer fit and function with the newer and thinner Stainless mags... Is that what you are saying?

I realize the opening up the mag well would not be an inexpensive operation, but it might be worth it to someone who wants his Stainless Luger to have interchangable parts with vintage Lugers...including the magazines...

Johnny C. Kitchens · 08-08-2003, 03:09 AM

I guess I need to take a picture of the top of the magazines. If you look at the above magazines, take notice of how much shorter the lips or rolled over parts of the magazine are, in the front to back dimension. The openning for the ammo is longer as well...

Sieger · 08-08-2003, 03:44 AM

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

The original 9 mm load of 124 gr at about 1050 fps was for the "Old Model" with the flat recoil spring. With the introduction of the new model and the coil spring, DWM started using two different springs in the two calibers and boosted the velocity a bit in the 9 mm. Still not +P+ of course. But some present day commercial stuff isn't all that spiffy.

In the 7.65 mm, no present day commercial load reaches the original velocity in a six inch barrel, let alone the 4.5 or 4.75 inch barrel the original velocity specs were taken with.

I'll have to start paying more attention to OAL in the 7.65 as well.<hr /></blockquote>Hi Unspellable:

For your 7.65, load to 1.173, and you will have a good day at the range.

I researched the original German language DWM commercial owner's manual, Die Selbstlade-Pistole Parabellum, for the "New Model", as well as, the specifications for the issue WWI ammo from Goetz's book, Die Pistole 08.

DWM says 310m/ps (1020 fps)and the Prussian War Ministry 327m/ps (1076 fps). I know of no faster "issue ammo" for the 4 inch Parabellum until Mauser's update project in the mid 30s. Personally, I feel the "hot ammo thing" has been wispered into reality over the years, and has no real basis in fact.

Also, about ten years ago, I shot some original DWM truncated cone 123 gr and tested it. The average for 7 shots was around 1043.

If there is something else in print regarding the original loadings for these pistols, please let me know where to get a copy.

Bob

Sieger · 08-08-2003, 03:55 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by John Sabato:
[QUOTE][qb]JohnS,

--a visual check revealed that the stainless steel magazines are made of thinner metal, that even though the inside measurements may be the same the outer measurements are not, and the mag well is machined to the tight tolerance of the stainless magazine exterior.<hr /></blockquote>Dear John:

Why don't we approach AIMCO and assist them in designing a magazine that will properly feed ammo loaded to the now standard 1.169 inch length.

That, and a proper recoil spring balance, to "standard" current commercial ammo should cure the "feeding problem" quite nicely!!

How about it?

Bob

Dwight Gruber · 08-08-2003, 08:24 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by John Sabato:
[QUOTE]So Dwight (& Steve), it seems that you ARE confirming what I proposed... IF the mag well on a stainless Luger were opened up to original specifications, it would appear that it would then fit and function with vintage magazines, but would no longer fit and function with the newer and thinner Stainless mags... Is that what you are saying?<hr /></blockquote>Uh...sure...I thought you were just talking about cutting a channel for the rolled--or extruded--rib.

--Dwight

Sieger · 08-08-2003, 08:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rick W.:
Hello Everyone,

After reading some of the information in the posts, including my own, I had some further questions, so this morning I did an experiment.

(1) I made up three 9mm dummy rounds, all with a 115gr Winchester FMJ, overall length of approx 1.120"(yes a bit short).

(2) I made up three 9mm dummy rounds using same bullet with an overall length of approx 1.180". All 6 dummy rounds in (1) and (2) measured with a 6" Mitutoyo dial caliper.

(3) Three magazines at my disposal; one blue vintage, one nickel vintage, and one new stainless flat sided magazine from the Stoeger era.

(4) Two frames, a 1918 blue and a stainless.

Measurements of above magazines:

blue vintage: 1.105" wide by 0.545" deep
nickel vintage: 1.100" wide by 0.550" deep
stainless flat" 1.130" wide by 0.475" deep

Interesting to note that the stainless will not go into the 1918 blue frame, maybe only because of the increased width.

http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/both.jpg
http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/both1.jpg<hr /></blockquote>Dear Rick:

For a full test here, perhaps we should retry the test with 8 rounds, as the the traditional step feed problem usually occurs with the 6th, 7th and 8th round. This is because the AOL problem accelerates as more rounds are placed into the magazine. If you look at a full magazine, in a way, the cartridges even look like the rungs on a latter. These rungs must be evenly spaced for proper function.

It sounds to me like Stoeger went the wrong way with making the magazine wider (from 1.10 old to 1.13 new). For shorter cartridges, the inside of the magazine, at least, should have been shortened (old standard cartridge length 1.173, new standard length 1.169). Yes, in my experience these couple of thousands make a real difference in pistol function.

Bob

Steve Richards · 08-09-2003, 01:01 AM

I finally have time to post a little bit on this topic. I can insert an old style magazine in both of my late model stainless guns that take a flat sided magazine. However, the vintage mags will not lock into place and are very loose. The new magazines will not go into a vintage gun at all.

I too would like to know why the change was made. Maybe if Rick sees Mr. Romo at a show in Texas, he can ask and also extend an invitation to join our happy little forum. I have invited him to join when I have contacted him via e-mail. At one point, he was working with somebody to write a book on his stainless steel adventures but the .45 project has been taking all of his time. A book would be great!

My six inch stainless works perfectly with S&B ammo. I have not measured the OAL of these Vs other brands but have had feeding problems with both Remington and Winchester ammo. Since I can buy S&B quite cheaply at shows, I have just been using it.

For .30 ammo, when I met Dwight, Fiochi would not work and some commercial with a soft round nose did not work either. I have since found a person who loads a round that will work. The box says it is 1300fps and 90gr.

Sieger · 08-09-2003, 02:03 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Steve Richards:


I too would like to know why the change was made. Maybe if Rick sees Mr. Romo at a show in Texas, he can ask and also extend an invitation to join our happy little forum.
<hr /></blockquote>Dear Steve:

It would be great if Mr. Romo would join this forum!!! You would think that he would want as much feedback on his company's products as possible, especially on such things as proper function and consumer expectations. Maybe we could think up something a little more formal to get his attention.

Once you understand a few basic principles, the toggle system isn't all that hard to tune to specific ammunition, but if the ammo isn't properly feeding from the clip, you really don't even have to worry about proper recoil spring balance.

Bob

Steve Richards · 08-09-2003, 06:50 AM

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 differnces other than just looking different.

08-03-2003, 04:00 AM	#1
Sieger User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 1,575 Thanks: 2,124 Thanked 400 Times in 249 Posts	Stainless Steel Stoeger Magazines Hi: I was wondering if anyone knows just why Stoeger had the magazine redesigned on their version of the Stainless Steel Luger. Was it to "cure" the feeding and jamming problem? If so, I'm doubtful that it did. Slightly shortening the inside of the magazine to make it feed ball ammo that is 1.169 inches in length probably would have done it. Bob

08-04-2003, 03:15 AM	#4
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 Rick W.: <strong>Hello Unspellable, My surmising above was just a guess after looking at a later stainless magazine versus a vintage blue magazine. The vintage magazine looks more complex in the body sides whereas the stainless appears almost seamless. I would have thought that the tooling/effort would have been more costly on the more complex looking magazine. As I recall a vintage magazine will insert into a stainless Luger, lockup, and function the holdopen. I cannot say if this configuration will function normally with live ammo or not, but one would have high hopes; I have always had plenty of spare stainless magazines of the later style. If the vintage magazine does function with live ammo, then looks like that would be an advantage; .....not much into politics. Regards, Rick W.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Hi Rick: Thanks for your comments!! My question was a technical one. Wilson in his fine book on Luger Shooting tells us that the inside length of the magazine is critically important to assure proper feeding, as this was matched to the original cartridge length of 1.175 (this is because of the angle at which the cartridges ride up the walls of the magazine). My question was rather they had taken the standard length of the newer 9MM ammo into consideration: 1.169 newer vs 1.175 older. Somewhere, I also remember reading that Stoeger reduced the magazine by one cartridge: 7 rounds vs the original 8. Oh well, Stoeger may not even know what was done and why. Bob

08-06-2003, 06:27 PM	#5
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,150 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,096 Posts	I would be curious to know just what is different about the latest generation Stainless Steel Lugers that prevents their accepting a vintage Luger magazine? I don't have access to a stainless gun... but if I had to guess, I would think that the new magazines that I have seen were smoothe sided and did not have the rolled sheetmetal joint on each side of the vintage magazines... can anyone confirm this? Would all that would be necessary to make a current production Stainless Luger accept vintage magazines be a broaching operation on the magazine well to allow the rolled sheetmetal joint to enter the well? Is there enough metal there to support opening the mag well to accept vintage magazines? Open discussion and submission of photos by owners of both original and stainless guns on this question is highly encouraged by ME. thanks for listening to this old engineer's wonderings and rambles... __________________ regards, -John S "...We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created EQUAL *and are endowed by their Creator* with certain UNALIENABLE* rights, and among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness..."*

08-07-2003, 02:11 AM	#7
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,889 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,281 Times in 423 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 John Sabato: <strong>Would all that would be necessary to make a current production Stainless Luger accept vintage magazines be a broaching operation on the magazine well to allow the rolled sheetmetal joint to enter the well? Is there enough metal there to support opening the mag well to accept vintage magazines?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">JohnS, I don't think that is entirely the problem. When I went to the range with Steve Richards upon the receipt of his new stainless, we did a check. Iirc, a steel magazine is too large in overall girth to fit in the magazine well--a visual check revealed that the stainless steel magazines are made of thinner metal, that even though the inside measurements may be the same the outer measurements are not, and the mag well is machined to the tight tolerance of the stainless magazine exterior. Steve may remind me if my memory is in error... --Dwight

08-07-2003, 02:22 AM	#8
Johnny C. Kitchens User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Arlington, Texas Posts: 518 Thanks: 0 Thanked 20 Times in 8 Posts	Here are the left and right sides of a WWII extruded Haenel magazine, a Swiss magazine, and a Stainless Steel magazine from the AIMCO... __________________ Johnny C. Kitchens

08-03-2003, 04:46 PM	#2
unspellable User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Iowa Posts: 767 Thanks: 0 Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts	I supsect Stoeger changed the magazine in order to have a captive market. If it were a simple cost cutting measure they would not have modified the frame so as to not accept the stanfard magazine. I'd be pleased if the factory went back to the original magazine.

08-04-2003, 03:00 AM	#3
unspellable User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Iowa Posts: 767 Thanks: 0 Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts	Rick, During the Mitchell era I bought several of the magazines as spares for my vintage shooters. They seemed to be about as good as any magazine I could find. As for the Stoger era magazines, I'll have to drag 'em out and play with them a bit to refresh my memory.

08-07-2003, 01:26 AM	#6
Sieger User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 1,575 Thanks: 2,124 Thanked 400 Times in 249 Posts	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rick W.: [QB]Hello Everyone, "As Bob pointed out overall cartridge length can make a difference in magazine feeding performance." The Luger magazine design was based on very close tolerances relative to cartridge OAL. This is because of its "step-feeding" design. As you have discovered, cartridges that are too short will not feed properly and jam the pistol. All current factory ammo is loaded too short to properly feed through the Luger magazine. In fact, if your's will feed factory ammo, with 100% efficiency, something is wrong! The original DWM lengths for cartridges were: Flat point cone: 29mm (approximately 1.14 inches) Round nose ball: 29.8mm (approximately. 1.173 inches) "I tend keep the cartridge length on the longest side myself, kinda let the magazine tell me things about overall length..." Yes, it's really quite easy. Load up 8 dummy rounds, starting on the long side (in excess of the lengths quoted above). Load all 8 rounds into the magazine, noting if the top round is parallel to the lips of the magazine, or if it's at an angle. Studying the top round of the 8 is the key, because if the others are too short, the "mistake" in their lengths is cumulative on the top round. Work the toggle manually. If the top round feeds smoothly, without any unusual effort, you have the right length. If not, slowly and carefully reduce the OALs of all 8 rounds and repeat the process. Remember, the top 8th round is critical, as it "catches" the other 7 round's "mistakes". After a few trys, this process becomes second nature, and yes, your pistol will feed properly!!! Now, to develop the proper load. Bob

08-07-2003, 12:55 PM	#9
unspellable User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Iowa Posts: 767 Thanks: 0 Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts	Some of the points I'm seeing here on cartridge OAL are interesting. Perhaps both the 9 mm and 7.65 mm cartrdiges as commercially loaded in the US have evolved (devolved?) into something other than Parabellum cartridges. It would go a long way towards explaining the Parabellum's poor reputation for reliability as opposed to so many military organizations adopting it when they are not in the habit of adopting things that don't work. You can't expect any pistol to work with ammo that is not to spec.

08-07-2003, 04:03 PM	#10
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>Some of the points I'm seeing here on cartridge OAL are interesting. Perhaps both the 9 mm and 7.65 mm cartrdiges as commercially loaded in the US have evolved (devolved?) into something other than Parabellum cartridges. It would go a long way towards explaining the Parabellum's poor reputation for reliability as opposed to so many military organizations adopting it when they are not in the habit of adopting things that don't work. You can't expect any pistol to work with ammo that is not to spec.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Hi Unspellable: Yes, nothing is currently loaded commercially to the original specs. OAL is a good part of the problem, the other part is the proper load. For some reason, a lot of folks think that you have to shoot +P+ loads in a Luger to get them to operate. This isn't true. The original load, the one that the springs were balanced to, was 123 grs. at 1020 low, 1073 high. When I load ammo to these specs, I get 100% reliability and fantastic accuracy!! Regarding the fact that so many armies adopted the Luger, no, the German and Swiss Armies are not in the habit of adopting weapons that don't function properly, let alone keeping a falty design for 40 to 50 years. To me, a Luger is like a Porsche, keep it tuned and you will be very satisfied with its performance!! Bob

08-07-2003, 06:51 PM	#11
unspellable User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Iowa Posts: 767 Thanks: 0 Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts	Bob, The original 9 mm load of 124 gr at about 1050 fps was for the "Old Model" with the flat recoil spring. With the introduction of the new model and the coil spring, DWM started using two different springs in the two calibers and boosted the velocity a bit in the 9 mm. Still not +P+ of course. But some present day commercial stuff isn't all that spiffy. In the 7.65 mm, no present day commercial load reaches the original velocity in a six inch barrel, let alone the 4.5 or 4.75 inch barrel the original velocity specs were taken with. I'll have to start paying more attention to OAL in the 7.65 as well.

08-07-2003, 08:04 PM	#12
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,150 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,096 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"><strong>JohnS, --a visual check revealed that the stainless steel magazines are made of thinner metal, that even though the inside measurements may be the same the outer measurements are not, and the mag well is machined to the tight tolerance of the stainless magazine exterior. --Dwight</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">So Dwight (& Steve), it seems that you ARE confirming what I proposed... IF the mag well on a stainless Luger were opened up to original specifications, it would appear that it would then fit and function with vintage magazines, but would no longer fit and function with the newer and thinner Stainless mags... Is that what you are saying? I realize the opening up the mag well would not be an inexpensive operation, but it might be worth it to someone who wants his Stainless Luger to have interchangable parts with vintage Lugers...including the magazines... __________________ regards, -John S "...We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created EQUAL *and are endowed by their Creator* with certain UNALIENABLE* rights, and among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness..."*

08-08-2003, 03:09 AM	#13
Johnny C. Kitchens User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Arlington, Texas Posts: 518 Thanks: 0 Thanked 20 Times in 8 Posts	I guess I need to take a picture of the top of the magazines. If you look at the above magazines, take notice of how much shorter the lips or rolled over parts of the magazine are, in the front to back dimension. The openning for the ammo is longer as well... __________________ Johnny C. Kitchens

08-08-2003, 03:44 AM	#14
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>Bob, The original 9 mm load of 124 gr at about 1050 fps was for the "Old Model" with the flat recoil spring. With the introduction of the new model and the coil spring, DWM started using two different springs in the two calibers and boosted the velocity a bit in the 9 mm. Still not +P+ of course. But some present day commercial stuff isn't all that spiffy. In the 7.65 mm, no present day commercial load reaches the original velocity in a six inch barrel, let alone the 4.5 or 4.75 inch barrel the original velocity specs were taken with. I'll have to start paying more attention to OAL in the 7.65 as well.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Hi Unspellable: For your 7.65, load to 1.173, and you will have a good day at the range. I researched the original German language DWM commercial owner's manual, Die Selbstlade-Pistole Parabellum, for the "New Model", as well as, the specifications for the issue WWI ammo from Goetz's book, Die Pistole 08. DWM says 310m/ps (1020 fps)and the Prussian War Ministry 327m/ps (1076 fps). I know of no faster "issue ammo" for the 4 inch Parabellum until Mauser's update project in the mid 30s. Personally, I feel the "hot ammo thing" has been wispered into reality over the years, and has no real basis in fact. Also, about ten years ago, I shot some original DWM truncated cone 123 gr and tested it. The average for 7 shots was around 1043. If there is something else in print regarding the original loadings for these pistols, please let me know where to get a copy. Bob

08-08-2003, 03:55 AM	#15
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 John Sabato: <strong>[QUOTE][qb]JohnS, --a visual check revealed that the stainless steel magazines are made of thinner metal, that even though the inside measurements may be the same the outer measurements are not, and the mag well is machined to the tight tolerance of the stainless magazine exterior.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Dear John: Why don't we approach AIMCO and assist them in designing a magazine that will properly feed ammo loaded to the now standard 1.169 inch length. That, and a proper recoil spring balance, to "standard" current commercial ammo should cure the "feeding problem" quite nicely!! How about it? Bob

08-08-2003, 08:24 AM	#16
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,889 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,281 Times in 423 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 John Sabato: <strong>[QUOTE]So Dwight (& Steve), it seems that you ARE confirming what I proposed... IF the mag well on a stainless Luger were opened up to original specifications, it would appear that it would then fit and function with vintage magazines, but would no longer fit and function with the newer and thinner Stainless mags... Is that what you are saying?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Uh...sure...I thought you were just talking about cutting a channel for the rolled--or extruded--rib. --Dwight

08-08-2003, 08:04 PM	#17
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 Rick W.: <strong>Hello Everyone, After reading some of the information in the posts, including my own, I had some further questions, so this morning I did an experiment. (1) I made up three 9mm dummy rounds, all with a 115gr Winchester FMJ, overall length of approx 1.120"(yes a bit short). (2) I made up three 9mm dummy rounds using same bullet with an overall length of approx 1.180". All 6 dummy rounds in (1) and (2) measured with a 6" Mitutoyo dial caliper. (3) Three magazines at my disposal; one blue vintage, one nickel vintage, and one new stainless flat sided magazine from the Stoeger era. (4) Two frames, a 1918 blue and a stainless. Measurements of above magazines: blue vintage: 1.105" wide by 0.545" deep nickel vintage: 1.100" wide by 0.550" deep stainless flat" 1.130" wide by 0.475" deep Interesting to note that the stainless will not go into the 1918 blue frame, maybe only because of the increased width. http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/both.jpg http://boards.rennlist.com/lfupload/both1.jpg</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Dear Rick: For a full test here, perhaps we should retry the test with 8 rounds, as the the traditional step feed problem usually occurs with the 6th, 7th and 8th round. This is because the AOL problem accelerates as more rounds are placed into the magazine. If you look at a full magazine, in a way, the cartridges even look like the rungs on a latter. These rungs must be evenly spaced for proper function. It sounds to me like Stoeger went the wrong way with making the magazine wider (from 1.10 old to 1.13 new). For shorter cartridges, the inside of the magazine, at least, should have been shortened (old standard cartridge length 1.173, new standard length 1.169). Yes, in my experience these couple of thousands make a real difference in pistol function. Bob

08-09-2003, 01:01 AM	#18
Steve Richards User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Beaverton, Oregon Posts: 487 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I finally have time to post a little bit on this topic. I can insert an old style magazine in both of my late model stainless guns that take a flat sided magazine. However, the vintage mags will not lock into place and are very loose. The new magazines will not go into a vintage gun at all. I too would like to know why the change was made. Maybe if Rick sees Mr. Romo at a show in Texas, he can ask and also extend an invitation to join our happy little forum. I have invited him to join when I have contacted him via e-mail. At one point, he was working with somebody to write a book on his stainless steel adventures but the .45 project has been taking all of his time. A book would be great! My six inch stainless works perfectly with S&B ammo. I have not measured the OAL of these Vs other brands but have had feeding problems with both Remington and Winchester ammo. Since I can buy S&B quite cheaply at shows, I have just been using it. For .30 ammo, when I met Dwight, Fiochi would not work and some commercial with a soft round nose did not work either. I have since found a person who loads a round that will work. The box says it is 1300fps and 90gr.

08-09-2003, 02:03 AM	#19
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 too would like to know why the change was made. Maybe if Rick sees Mr. Romo at a show in Texas, he can ask and also extend an invitation to join our happy little forum. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Dear Steve: It would be great if Mr. Romo would join this forum!!! You would think that he would want as much feedback on his company's products as possible, especially on such things as proper function and consumer expectations. Maybe we could think up something a little more formal to get his attention. Once you understand a few basic principles, the toggle system isn't all that hard to tune to specific ammunition, but if the ammo isn't properly feeding from the clip, you really don't even have to worry about proper recoil spring balance. Bob

08-09-2003, 06:50 AM	#20
Steve Richards User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Beaverton, Oregon Posts: 487 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	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 differnces other than just looking different.