Luger replaced by P38?

[stefanosg]

I am sure this has been discussed before, but over and over I have read that the Luger was replaced by the P38 for reasons of economy and ease of construction. Rather quickly I counted about 41 parts in a Luger to 51 parts in a P38(forgive me if I am off by a few either way). I suppose you could break down the magazines and add a few more, but thats nearly a wash anyway between the two. Having disassembled both I found the P38 to be a wee bit more difficult to reassemble. There just seems to be alot a small "inner" parts to deal with. I don't know anything about the machining of the parts. Is this where the difficulty lay? I also know that the Luger can be finicky when dirty, like say in a battle, and the P38 is not. This for me would be a larger motivator for a changeover. Maybe there was some political pressure or friends in high places that got Walther the contract for the new sidearm, its been know to happen even in this country(ie:Northrop F5 vs GenDyn F16). Anyway, I welcome any thoughts or facts regarding the changeover made by the Germans.

[Pete Ebbink]

I had read somewhere that the Luger had over 1100 machining, polishing, finishing, and assembly steps; so maybe the number of parts did not matter as much as the amount of time and steps required to produce the Luger.

The Swiss with their redesign of the M1929 Swiss Luger improved that, as well.

[Johnny C. Kitchens]

I believe it had to do with production as well. If you look at the number of P-38 produced versus the number of P-08 over a similar number of years and the P-38 were really flying off the assembly line...

[George Anderson]

I believe the issues were reliability, double action, safety and cost.

[Vlim]

Yes,

The P38 was less picky about the ammo and parts could be replaced easier and faster. Since it is now mostly known as a 'Beretta', I guess they were right

[unspellable]

Reliability was not the main issue. Remember this was in the day when Lugers had good magazines, the correct recoil spring, and ammo loaded to the correct OAL. The P38 supposedly would have required fewer machining operations and be lower in cost.

In the actual case, the P38 sold to the government for the same price as the Luger. It did require fewer machining operations and even more importantly, fewer machine tools. So supposedly ease of production and faster production were the driving influences. Since it was easier to make but sold for the same price one suspects that somebody was pocketing a few coins.

[GerColctor]

The Luger had a number of hand machined parts, that is why all of the parts, except for the springs are number to the gun. Some of the Luger parts are not interchangable and would need to be "machined" in order to fit.

The P-38 had quite a few of it's parts stamped, which is a much quicker and simpler process in manufacturing.

I read somewhere [?] that it took 12 hours to complete a Luger, where as the P-38 could be made in about 5 hours. That is why so many of the P-38s could be made in the same time period.

It was a better pistol [double action, not as effected by dirt, etc] and could be made much faster. Very important considerations for a country at war.

I personally love the Luger.

[Roadkill]

Interesting, I went shooting this morning. Took a 1943 BYF P38 and a 1918 Erfurt. 124g fmj, 4.9g reddot. In my definitely limited experience and perspective, comparing the two is like comparing an AR15 and a AK. The fit & finish on even a low end Luger like the Erfurts is very good compared to same on the P38. Thor restored the Erfurt years back. Its in perfect condition but still is finicky about magazines and ammo. The P38, which I also bought from Thor, is in excellent condition. It will handle anything resembling a P38 magazine and feed any ammo close to 9mm regardless of OAL,case sizing, load, ect. Just can't make it jam. Parts are interchangable. Not so with Lugers. I also brought a Yugo Mod 70 folder AK and a Colt Sp2 Government Series AR15. AR shot flawlessly using handload 55g fmj, 26g IMR4895, MOA at 100 yds. Didn't care for TZT Israeli ammo, had problems with a couple of magazines. The AK ate up any brand of cheap Russian as fast as I could feed it . It took Yugo, Chinese, and East German, and Russian magazines, some so loose they rattled. The Mod 70 is a higher end AK variant but still is nowhere near in quality as the AR. But it always fired. Accuracy was not MOA but I never missed the target with either the P38 or AK. Perhaps my point is the best combat gun isn't always the best made and most accurate. But what the hell do I know anyway.

[Brownie]

You guys have all stated valid reasons for the P.38 replacing the P.08. The question is not so much which is the better pistol, but which is the better military pistol. Ironically, the precision fit of the P.08 is what did it in. The P.38 was more crude in that it did not have a tight parts fit. This made it less prone to jamming due to exposure to contaminants such as dirt, etc. The looser fit also made the P.38 more prone to mass production than the finer tolerances of the P.08 which required more fitting and thus more man hours per pistol.

The loose manufacturing tolerances were shown by the rather rough finishes apparent as the war went on and especially in the Spreewerk manufactured P.38s which have slides that look like they were finished out with a rasp.

As earlier mentioned, the DA/SA was another feature of the P.38 which made it advanced for its time.

All in all, both are great pistols which will have their place in history. But I think it boiled down to a decision to go with quantity manufacturing along with some evolutionary features that made the P.38 the choice and not because of any shortcomings of the P.08.

As for me, I'm hooked on both of them!

Later, Brownie