Why did Mauser in the 70's

glock30 · 05-19-2012, 05:52 PM

decide that the first Mauser Parabellums they were going to make would be modeled after the 06/29?? Being that really in the States, what was a war collectable were P-08's, why did they do that? ALso A question in a question, SO the first runs were 6 inch only in .30 and 4 in 9mm as in the adverstisement?

Vlim · 05-19-2012, 06:02 PM

Well, that is a long story, but basically they blundered. By the time that Mauser became aware of the mistake, the production of the first batch of parts was already underway and it was too late to change anything for the initial Interarms contract. Another problem with the 06/29 design was that the Swiss had altered the opening curve, tuned it to their own .30 luger round and standard barrel length. The result was a series of functioning problems with different calibers and barrel lenghts. This meant that Mauser initially stuck to the 2 variations that worked while they were busy solving the issues.

Mauser initially thought that using the Swiss version as a guideline would save development costs. In certain ways it did, but the result was not wat the customer (Interarms) expected.

They did succeed in producing a relatively cost-effective pistol, and would have gotten away with it, if the 1973 oil crisis had not interfered as well. Under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Rolf Gminder, who joined the company in 1969, just too late to have any major influence on the initial designs, many improvements were made and the company eventually managed to break-even, even make a small profit, on the whole adventure.

Interesting side note: DWM's successor, IWK, was also involved in the production of the pistol. They produced the toggle parts, including the breech block. That gives the pistol an interesting heritage, it bears the signatures of 3 of the original Parabellum manufacturers: Waffenfabrik Bern, DWM and Mauser. Also, it was not a mere reproduction, but rather a next evolutionary step in Parabellum development. Sadly, the last step. Mauser did introduce production features that none of the original manufacturers ever accomplished in the old days. Small parts were made to such tolerances that exchangeability was finally achieved, expensive machining of certain parts was dumped and castings were introduced in non-stress areas. The toggle pin was enlarged, superfluous features were deleted and after an initial hickup they even fixed the shifting of the side plates.

All in all, it was a continuation, not a reproduction.

glock30 · 05-19-2012, 06:28 PM

The breechblock pin and rear front toggle link pins cannot be made to come out, correct?

Vlim · 05-19-2012, 06:35 PM

Not without an appropriate amount of violence (or tact), no. There is no real need to separate them anyway.

Michael Zeleny · 05-19-2012, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlim

Also, it was not a mere reproduction, but rather a next evolutionary step in Parabellum development.

Gerben, would you please explain its technical improvements over the W+F 06/29 design?

glock30 · 05-19-2012, 06:46 PM

I was just reading a old tread of yours on another site, that they had a lot of problems with the .30 and barrel lengths/frame ears, moving something back 2mm's this was worked out by 2098 right??? I did actually shoot that gun once in 1988, one full magazine and it worked like a dream.

Vlim · 05-19-2012, 06:50 PM

Michael:

-Creating a uniform frame curve that works with all barrel lengths and both 9mm and .30 luger.
-Introducing castings as cost-effective alternative for previously milled/machined small parts.
-Allowing interchangeability of parts beyond a level accomplished by earlier manufacturers.
(the only 2 parts that needed to be 'mated' were the receiver and the rear toggle part).

Michael Zeleny · 05-19-2012, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlim

-Creating a uniform frame curve that works with all barrel lengths and both 9mm and .30 luger.

Didn't DWM do that in 1902?

Quote:

-Introducing castings as cost-effective alternative for previously milled/machined small parts.

All praise Bill Ruger.

Quote:

-Allowing interchangeability of parts beyond a level accomplished by earlier manufacturers.

According to Randall Gibson, that was done by Krieghoff.

Quote:

(the only 2 parts that needed to be 'mated' were the receiver and the rear toggle part).

I think W+F took box stock fit as far as it can go without degrading accuracy and/or reliability. Are there any test data showing quantifiable performance improvements realized in the construction of the Mauser Parabellum?

alvin · 05-19-2012, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlim

they even fixed the shifting of the side plates.

Could you explain this problem on old Luger?

Michael Zeleny · 05-20-2012, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alvin

Could you explain this problem on old Luger?

I never saw an original shifting side plate on a pre-WWII Luger by any German or Swiss manufacturer. I saw a few on postwar Mauser Parabellums.

05-19-2012, 05:52 PM	#1
glock30 User Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Obama LAND Posts: 206 Thanks: 18 Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts	Why did Mauser in the 70's decide that the first Mauser Parabellums they were going to make would be modeled after the 06/29?? Being that really in the States, what was a war collectable were P-08's, why did they do that? ALso A question in a question, SO the first runs were 6 inch only in .30 and 4 in 9mm as in the adverstisement? Attached Thumbnails

05-19-2012, 06:02 PM	#2
Vlim Moderator Lifetime LugerForum Patron Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 5,053 Thanks: 1,036 Thanked 3,988 Times in 1,205 Posts	Well, that is a long story, but basically they blundered. By the time that Mauser became aware of the mistake, the production of the first batch of parts was already underway and it was too late to change anything for the initial Interarms contract. Another problem with the 06/29 design was that the Swiss had altered the opening curve, tuned it to their own .30 luger round and standard barrel length. The result was a series of functioning problems with different calibers and barrel lenghts. This meant that Mauser initially stuck to the 2 variations that worked while they were busy solving the issues. Mauser initially thought that using the Swiss version as a guideline would save development costs. In certain ways it did, but the result was not wat the customer (Interarms) expected. They did succeed in producing a relatively cost-effective pistol, and would have gotten away with it, if the 1973 oil crisis had not interfered as well. Under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Rolf Gminder, who joined the company in 1969, just too late to have any major influence on the initial designs, many improvements were made and the company eventually managed to break-even, even make a small profit, on the whole adventure. Interesting side note: DWM's successor, IWK, was also involved in the production of the pistol. They produced the toggle parts, including the breech block. That gives the pistol an interesting heritage, it bears the signatures of 3 of the original Parabellum manufacturers: Waffenfabrik Bern, DWM and Mauser. Also, it was not a mere reproduction, but rather a next evolutionary step in Parabellum development. Sadly, the last step. Mauser did introduce production features that none of the original manufacturers ever accomplished in the old days. Small parts were made to such tolerances that exchangeability was finally achieved, expensive machining of certain parts was dumped and castings were introduced in non-stress areas. The toggle pin was enlarged, superfluous features were deleted and after an initial hickup they even fixed the shifting of the side plates. All in all, it was a continuation, not a reproduction.

05-19-2012, 06:28 PM	#3
glock30 User Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Obama LAND Posts: 206 Thanks: 18 Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts	The breechblock pin and rear front toggle link pins cannot be made to come out, correct?

05-19-2012, 06:35 PM	#4
Vlim Moderator Lifetime LugerForum Patron Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 5,053 Thanks: 1,036 Thanked 3,988 Times in 1,205 Posts	Not without an appropriate amount of violence (or tact), no. There is no real need to separate them anyway.

05-19-2012, 06:46 PM	#6
glock30 User Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Obama LAND Posts: 206 Thanks: 18 Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts	I was just reading a old tread of yours on another site, that they had a lot of problems with the .30 and barrel lengths/frame ears, moving something back 2mm's this was worked out by 2098 right??? I did actually shoot that gun once in 1988, one full magazine and it worked like a dream.

05-19-2012, 06:50 PM	#7
Vlim Moderator Lifetime LugerForum Patron Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 5,053 Thanks: 1,036 Thanked 3,988 Times in 1,205 Posts	Michael: -Creating a uniform frame curve that works with all barrel lengths and both 9mm and .30 luger. -Introducing castings as cost-effective alternative for previously milled/machined small parts. -Allowing interchangeability of parts beyond a level accomplished by earlier manufacturers. (the only 2 parts that needed to be 'mated' were the receiver and the rear toggle part).