"s" word

[Rick W.]

i

[Dok]

being proud to call my self a shooter, I would gladly own an "s" Luger, and shoot the hell out it!!! For probably the same reason I drive a Mitsubishi, but lust after a Jaguar. And nobody questions my decision on buying an "inferior" car.


Dok ">

[Rick K]

Hey Dok, I drive a Mitsubishi too! It's a white Eclipse. When I first got it, I seriously thought about having orange meatballs painted on the doors! And, I also lust after Jags, Porsches, and Alfa Romeos! We have a lot in common! I would also love to have a stainless steel Luger and I would indeed, shoot the Hell out of it too!

[Frank]

I don't have an "s" Luger either. Does that make me a bad person?

[Rick K]

Of course not!

[Big Norm]

I am bothered a little by this. In my discussion of the stainless steel lugers I used 'ss' to signify stainless steel. That was my only intent. It never crossed my mind that someone would take it to mean something vulger. If anybody thought that I ment something else I am sorry.


Big Norm

[Dok]

that depends on if you have a Jaguar!!!

[Hugh]

But I did have a Jag XKE and a MGA, and a Austin Healy 3000 many, many years ago BWC (before wife & children). I also pack a STAINLESS STEEL 32 Seecamp and sometimes a STAINLESS STEEL Colt Pony 380 and sometimes a STAINLESS STEEL Walther PPK and I have no regrets about it and no apoligies to make for it! So there!

[Mark M.]

Gruss Gott,Rick W.!

I find many of your observations regarding the way the "s"-word is responded to on this forum to be most

accurate. Unfortunately!!

However,I must also state for the record,that I'm in a position to say

that I do own 5(FIVE) of these pistols

produced under various names,(z.B.

"Mitchell Arms","Stoeger" and "Aimco".)

I therefore think I've earned the dubious "right" to speak to the issue.

Although I find some of the discussion to be,shall we say,pompous,

I do have to concede that some points made are valid.I find some of Hr. Spuhr's comments to be a tad bit abrasive at times,he does nontheless

make some good points.With regard to the "Mitchell Arms" pistols,they do

have a fairly major problem with the

strength of material (ss) as opposed to the power of the 9mm cartridge.One of the first questions I posted was "Why

do I get these indentations in the

frame where the toggle strikes it in

recoil?"I got many good responses and

possible explainations for this problem.I believe the main reason to be,as Hr. Spuhr and others have told

me, "inferior materials used".Having

said that,I also have to admit that I

bought two "Mitchell" pistols,some three years apart,but both made in 1993.They both exibit the same problem.

My 3rd example is a "Stoeger Navy".

It also shows some sign of this same

weakness in material - although to a lesser degree.

My 4th & 5th ss pistols are the new

AIMCO model.It's a heavier frame with

with a couple of other modifications

such as a bulkier extractor and a

groove for the safety lever.Otherwise

it appears to be the same.These pistols

shoot very well and are quite accurate

by my standards,which are not up to

match grade,by any means.

Why do I bother to write this?Maybe

because Patrick was so gracious as to

tell me that the one I had custom made

to honor my late wife was truly "one of

a kind".He also stated that this was the first Parabellum which he thought

came even "close" to being worthy of

any relation to the "LUGER TRADITION!"

I know this was Looooong!,but I had

to put in my .000000001 worth.

BTW Rick, they do what I need them to do as well.They allow me to shoot without feeling guilty about destroying

a piece of history in the process!

Thank you for your patience.


Tschuss! Mark M.

[Mark M.]

Gruss Gott,Rick W.!

I find many of your observations regarding the way the "s"-word is responded to on this forum to be most

accurate. Unfortunately!!

However,I must also state for the record,that I'm in a position to say

that I do own 5(FIVE) of these pistols

produced under various names,(z.B.

"Mitchell Arms","Stoeger" and "Aimco".)

I therefore think I've earned the dubious "right" to speak to the issue.

Although I find some of the discussion to be,shall we say,pompous,

I do have to concede that some points made are valid.I find some of Hr. Spuhr's comments to be a tad bit abrasive at times,he does nontheless

make some good points.With regard to the "Mitchell Arms" pistols,they do

have a fairly major problem with the

strength of material (ss) as opposed to the power of the 9mm cartridge.One of the first questions I posted was "Why

do I get these indentations in the

frame where the toggle strikes it in

recoil?"I got many good responses and

possible explainations for this problem.I believe the main reason to be,as Hr. Spuhr and others have told

me, "inferior materials used".Having

said that,I also have to admit that I

bought two "Mitchell" pistols,some three years apart,but both made in 1993.They both exibit the same problem.

My 3rd example is a "Stoeger Navy".

It also shows some sign of this same

weakness in material - although to a lesser degree.

My 4th & 5th ss pistols are the new

AIMCO model.It's a heavier frame with

with a couple of other modifications

such as a bulkier extractor and a

groove for the safety lever.Otherwise

it appears to be the same.These pistols

shoot very well and are quite accurate

by my standards,which are not up to

match grade,by any means.

Why do I bother to write this?Maybe

because Patrick was so gracious as to

tell me that the one I had custom made

to honor my late wife was truly "one of

a kind".He also stated that this was the first Parabellum which he thought

came even "close" to being worthy of

any relation to the "LUGER TRADITION!"

I know this was Looooong!,but I had

to put in my .000000001 worth.

BTW Rick, they do what I need them to do as well.They allow me to shoot without feeling guilty about destroying

a piece of history in the process!

Thank you for your patience.


Tschuss! Mark M.

[Dok]

[Mark M.]

Sorry folks! I don't know how that happened!(EOM) Mark M.