1911 versus P08 Luger - some questions - your thoughts?

[stinkeypete]

If you shoot at an indoor range, hot brass flies straight up and hits the ceiling and ricochets straight down and hits your head.

Sometimes the brass ricochets down and gets inside you shirt... hot hot hot!

Once a case got inside the top of my shooting glasses and burned my cheek.

Wear a wide brimmed hat at the indoor range.
Don’t use lane 3 as the brass hits the light over the top of that lane. By luck, the lightbulb was not hit or glass would have rained down and the boys will never let you forget it.

With some practice and experimentation, angle the gun clockwise enough to ricochet the brass over the divider to hit your buddy in the next lane.

My dad passed two old beaters off to me saying “these are kind of interesting for a day or two... you take ‘em.” They were interesting for a couple of days then I sold them without ever a shread of regret.

If you can rent or borrow one for 50 rounds, it’s interesting.

 

[Jim Watson]

I remember when a quantity of S&W Light Rifles turned up on the collector's market.
They got a C&R status and exemption from the SBR regulations. A local S&W expert got one each Mk I and Mk II. They were in pristine condition, apparently unfired and unworn. He sat on them until the value climbed and used the profit to finance more of the large frame top-breaks he was really interested in.

Of course the British accepted revolvers in lieu of PCCs and stamped out cheap STENs as wartime expedient infantry weapons. I once read that early days, the STENs got loaded with captured Italian 9mm ammo until British, Canadian, and US suppliers got going.
I do know that Canadian 9mm was of good quality. I bought all the "9MM 43" I could afford and my Luger never missed a beat.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I once read that early days, the STENs got loaded with captured Italian 9mm ammo until British, Canadian, and US suppliers got going."

I've heard that story before.

It's cute, but it's also mostly wrong.

Britain began developing submachine guns in earnest after the start of the War. Prior to that they had been purchasing limited numbers of Thompsons from America, but the supply wasn't great enough, especially after the Dunkirk evacuation in June 1940.

Britain began manufacturing 9mm ammunition to support domestic development of submachine guns (the Lanchester and the Sten) and also the expected Light Rifle from America, early on through contracts let through commercial companies such as Kynoch.

But, to bridge the gap until British factories could produce in quantity, the British relied on American and Canadian ammo and also purchased 30 million rounds of 9mm from Bolivia.

One story I've heard is that after adoption of the Lanchester and the Sten the British shipped all that 9mm ammo from North Africa to Britain and that's what fed Stens and Lanchesters.

Bogus.

What 9mm ammo -- Italian and German -- that was captured in North Africa ended up being used in North Africa. British troops were especially fond of the Italian Beretta Modello 38 submachine gun, and were very happy to use the German MP 38 and MP 40, as well.

Stens didn't really start showing up in the Desert War in any quantity until it was largely over. By far the most used British submachine gun in the Desert War was the American Thompson.

It's silly to think that the British would have shipped that Italian and German 9mm ammo back to Britain when troops were finding a use for it in the Desert, and also when shipping resources were at such an incredible premium at the time.


Here's a pretty good page on British small arms ammunition in general, with this specifically being about 9mm: https://sites.google.com/site/britmilammo/9mm-parabellum/9mm-parabellum-ball

 

[Jim Watson]

Well darn, another legend debunked.

Roy Dunlap said in 'Ordnance Went Up Front' that everybody on both sides liked the Beretta SMGs. He had some funny ideas about the power of Italian 9mm, though.

Phil Sharpe said, pre WWII, the "working pressure" of 9mm P was about 30000 psi (crusher, of course.) His top jacketed bullet load was actually slightly lower velocity than the original ammo tested here in 1903. Maybe American companies didn't want anything to challenge the .38 Auto/Super.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"He had some funny ideas about the power of Italian 9mm, though."

Remember that the Italians were using TWO 9mm cartridges at the time -- the 9mm Glisenti and the 9mm Luger.

The Glisenti was dimensionally identical to the 9mm Luger but was significantly less powerful.

The Beretta M1918 in 9mm Gliesenti did see some service in the Western Desert, as did Glisenti handguns, so it's very likely that stocks of 9mm Glisenti ammo were captured along with 9mm Luger.

Likely the British, and later Americans, didn't realize the difference between the rounds and assumed that the Glisenti ammo was simply poorly quality controlled 9mm Luger ammo .

 

[RickB]

Another possible explanation for Luger unreliability is/was the lack of proper action springs.
I've seen a reprint of a manual showing (IIRC) six different Luger action springs and their proper application.
Until a few years ago, Wolff made only one Luger spring, now they make two, but if you have a Navy, or Artillery, or a .30 rather than 9mm, you may not be able to get the exact spring appropriate to your gun.

I load 85gr bullets for my .30, and as long as velocity exceeds 1100fps, the gun runs very well (obviously, the gun does not need "hot" ammo to function).

 

[44 AMP]

stock GI 1911s are only marginally reliable with hardball ammo,

This has not been my experience. Quite the opposite. I have found GI spec 1911/A1 guns to be VERY reliable with hardball ammo. The 1911's reputation for reliability didn't come out of thin air, it came from combat service. Yes, of course its overblown, the 1911 was NOT 110% always works no matter what reliable the way the legend suggests, but they were MORE reliable in combat conditions than the pistols of our enemies (or our allies), and that's where the reputation got started.

I think the other problem with the Luger being a long-term success was the toggle mechanism being a dead end.

In a pistol, it turned into a dead end, but the toggle system works well, it was the heart of the Maxim machine gun, and is used in the Belgian MAG 58 machinegun, which is our M240 today.

Another nail in the coffin is that Lugers were never designed to use todays 9mm ammo. What was available when Lugers were originally made would be considered hotter by todays standards.

How do you define "hot"?? I'm not going to get into pressure numbers, the differences between old and new system of measurement make direct comparisons difficult.

Original 9mm Luger ammo was a 124gr "truncated cone" FMJ at 1050fps from the 4" Luger barrel. Take a look at that number, ONE THOUSAND AND FIFTY FEET PER SECOND. Shortly before WW I, the load was changed to a 115gr FMJ at 1150fps from the 4" Luger barrel. ELEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY fps.

This is what the Luger was made for, and what it was used with. Not hot by today's standards.

That matches a time-honored, and very weird, US tradition of downloading European military ammunition significantly.

Post WW I, when there were a significant number of both 7mm and 8mm Mauser-chambered rifles available, American companies loaded rounds than robbed anywhere from 15 to 25 percent of the round's potential.

It's as if American companies didn't think anyone in Europe could build a safe gun...

It is interesting that all US ammo makers did "underload" European cartridges. Officially it was concern for older, weaker guns, but personally, I think it was done to make American cartridges (and their guns) more attractive to American buyers.

The P38 was a more modern double-action design. They were produced at the same time for a while. The problem with the Luger was that it took more time and careful machining to produce. As the war went on, Germany couldn't afford that luxury.

The P.38 was adopted in 1938, and produced from then on. The Luger was adopted by the German Army in 1908 (the Navy adopted it in 1906), and production ended in 1942. And yes, the reason was cost, not just $ cost of each unit, but the cost in time, of skilled workmen and machines that could be making more important and useful things.

Remember that the Italians were using TWO 9mm cartridges at the time -- the 9mm Glisenti and the 9mm Luger.

The Glisenti was dimensionally identical to the 9mm Luger but was significantly less powerful.

And, soldiers are seldom noted for recognizing fine technical distinctions in captured items written in foreign languages.

With a few minor exceptions, the only things that went back to England from North African were convalescing wounded, troops being reassigned/refitted, and small amounts of captured enemy equipment sent for detailed technical evaluation. Shipping useful quantities of captured 9mm ammo back to England for future use simply would not have happened while there was active combat in the theater.

ok, back to the Luger, One of the reasons you don't see reproduction Lugers, is that anyone wanting to make one, also has to make the tooling. Mauser, when they did their run in the 70s, made the Swiss pattern Luger (one of the lesser desirable variants, which further limited its market appeal) because the only tooling still existing was in Switzerland.

Lugers point very well for a lot of people. Numerous famous gun writers from the pre WWII era on have said so.

The Luger safety is in an awkward place, for those who follow American ideas. European gun designers had different ideas. There are a lot of European gun designs (rifle and pistol) where the safety is awkward or even impossible to operate with the shooting hand, in the firing grip. This is intentional! The designers intended the safety to be operated with the "off" (non firing) hand. Like wise many European service pistol holsters are "luggage cases" with straps and buckles. It was a different school of thought than what was popular in America.


The Luger is iconic, a piece of history. Even if it could be made economically competitive with other designs, it is ergonomically inferior to more modern pistols. It does point beautifully for me, and I find the toggle actually easier than SOME slides, but again, that's just me.

Its not that they can't make Lugers today, tis that they can't make them and sell them for enough money to make it profitable.

 

[Jim Watson]

Mauser, when they STARTED their run in the 70s, made the Swiss pattern Luger (one of the lesser desirable variants, which further limited its market appeal) because the only tooling still existing was in Switzerland.

Fixed that.
The first Mauser Parabellums of the 1970s were Swiss pattern with the straight frontstrap; but they eventually set up to make the lobed German pattern frame. Before they were done, they had recreated many common and uncommon variants, and also made up some new ones.

I looked hard at a heavy barrel adjustable sight Parabellum Sport in the 1980s, but passed.

I also looked much more recently at what mimicked a 1906 Commercial, 6" barrel, German grip frame, grip safety. I passed on it because it took a gorilla grip to depress the grip safety, completely foreign to my 1911 trained hand. If it had cost less, I would have looked into deleting the grip safety and installing unslotted grips.

 

[T. O'Heir]

"..."not invented here"..." Yep. That's an old old quirk of American political decisions. Same thing happened when the M-14 was selected over the FAL.
However, the Luger was a 19th Century design. A first generation semi-auto pistol. The issue with it in the 1907 trails was ammo related. The .45 ACP being still in development at the time. Georg Luger loaded his own ammo and it worked just fine. The U.S. Army then said they didn't want it because they couldn't get the powder he used. NIH at its finest.

 

[44 AMP]

For military weapons, not invented/not made here makes more than a degree of sense. Especially in the past. Besides the potential disruption a war can cause in supplies (and if you go to war with the country making your weapons, its going to be ..difficult, at best..) there is (especially today) the dollars spent going to foreign workers, or American ones.

Note that while he have adopted foreign designs one requirement was that they had to be "made" (or at least assembled) in the US. And, that's something fairly recent, historically speaking.

 

[briandg]

Its not that they can't make Lugers today, tis that they can't make them and sell them for enough money to make it profitable.

I have to disagree. If they can move enough of them, it could be done. Looking at uberti, kimber, etc, winchester, even, you will see nostalgia and quality both allow people to drop well over a grand on a single pistol or rifle. If the parts could be manufactured with low tolerances, no manual fitting, the luger itself may not cost more than some of the other high cost steel guns.

To me, the question would be, are there enough people out there who would buy one at a pretty high price?

The answer comes to mind quite readily. If people were willing to pay over a grand for a pistol that would be essentially an oddball collectible safe queen, the luger would already be in production.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

This has not been my experience. Quite the opposite. I have found GI spec 1911/A1 guns to be VERY reliable with hardball ammo.

You're talking modern "GI Spec" 1911s, not original military weapons. Ask some old-time armorers.

It is interesting that all US ammo makers did "underload" European cartridges. Officially it was concern for older, weaker guns, but personally, I think it was done to make American cartridges (and their guns) more attractive to American buyers.

Interesting observation. The US Manufacturers downloaded 9mm Parabellum cartridges so as to not catastrophically disassemble the few old Glisenti Model 1910s that found their way back with returning WWII GIs. The Glisenti cartridge was dimensionally identical to the Luger cartridge, but the pistol's lock-up action was significantly weaker. For similar reasons, the commercial .45-70 was loaded down for years so that loads that would be fine in a Winchester 1886 wouldn't kill some idiot that fired them in an old Trapdoor Springfield.

 

[mete]

with the long magazine to chamber distance the 124 weight may function better . The pistol requires good machining and good materials , hard to sell that in war.
BTW for those wanting a gun that reliably works study hard the details of the wonderful HK P7 !!

 

[Mike Irwin]

"You're talking modern "GI Spec" 1911s, not original military weapons. Ask some old-time armorers."

I suspect that those armorers were working on guns post WW II.

It wasn't that the 1911s were unreliable with ball ammunition from the get go, it was that they were unreliable with ball ammunition because they were, in many cases, WELL past their service life and were being kept running with bailing wire and binder twine.

In many cases it wasn't unusual for a 1911 to have gone through 2 world wars, a police action, banana wars, and innumerable training cycles by the time they hit Vietnam or post Vietnam.

Post WW II a survey of military hardware found the state of the 1911s then in service to be generally poor and beyond their useful service life.

 

[Mike Irwin]

" The US Manufacturers downloaded 9mm Parabellum cartridges so as to not catastrophically disassemble the few old Glisenti Model 1910s that found their way back with returning WWII GIs."

Except, as I note above, American manufacturers started downloading 9mm ammunition pretty much from day of introduction, which for Western, Remington, and Peters was in the early 1920s, or well BEFORE any Glisentis made it to American shores.

Also as I noted above, underloaded American commercial ammunition was largely responsible for the Light Rifle disaster, which happened in 1940, also well before Glisentis hit the American post-WW II surplus market.



" For similar reasons, the commercial .45-70 was loaded down for years so that loads that would be fine in a Winchester 1886 wouldn't kill some idiot that fired them in an old Trapdoor Springfield."

Except, at the same time 1886s and Trapdoors were on the market, virtually all US manufacturers were producing High Velocity, High Speed, Express (etc., trademarks) ammunition and selling it on the open market with little regard to some dumbass buying a box meant for the 1886 and stuffing it in a Trapdoor. Caveat Emptor.

At the same time manufacturers were producing the same kind of ammunition in .32-20, .44-40, .38-40 and .25-20, all intended for use in the 1892 Winchester.

Those rounds would also chamber, and would tend to disassemble, early Colt Peacemakers and Winchester 1873s.

The only warnings were markings on the box to not use the ammo in the older guns.

So, I don't really buy all the "it was an abundance of caution on the part of US manufacturers" explanation for the downloading of foreign military cartridges between the World Wars and after.

That's like them putting out an ad saying "We're concerned about your well being using metric ammunition in foreign guns, and protect you by loading it soft so you don't hurt yourself, but you're on your own firing out whether you've got the right ammunition for your cowboy gun. And if you choose wrong, you're a dumbass!"

 

[Jim Watson]

The US Manufacturers downloaded 9mm Parabellum cartridges so as to not catastrophically disassemble the few old Glisenti Model 1910s that found their way back with returning WWII GIs. The Glisenti cartridge was dimensionally identical to the Luger cartridge, but the pistol's lock-up action was significantly weaker.

People keep SAYING the 1910 Glisenti is a weak action for a light load. Yet most sources cite it as a 123 gr bullet at either 1000 or 1050 fps. Fresh Fiocchi is advertised as a 124 at 1070 fps.
That is practically THE SAME as the original 1903 9mm Luger load.
I have seen two contradictory listings. Ed Ezell rated it at 935 fps and one www site says something in the 850 fps range (I cannot now relocate the site.)

Unfortunately I do not have any US ammo data between 1939 and 1960.
In 1939 the usual load was a 124 at 1110 fps, a bit hotter than early DWM.
In 1960 the usual load was a 124 at 1120 fps, no real difference from 21 years earlier.
If American companies loaded 9mm more lightly for fear of beating up WWII Glisentis, they got over it pretty soon. (What WWII Glisentis? It was a pre WWI pistol, largely supplanted by the 1934 Beretta .380.)
I would not consider putting even a 1050 fps load in a Glisenti unless the zombies were very bad at the time.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Based on my research, it seems that most sources on 9mm Glisenti ammo over state its power by quite a bit, and all of it seems to come from Frank Barnes.

I believe Ed Ezell's estimates of 900 to 950 fps as the standard for the cartridge are far more correct than not.

My best guess for that is that the Italian's loaded two 9mm Glisenti rounds. That is known for certain: the standard pistol round and also a more powerful round to be used In early Italian sub machine guns. I suspect that the ballistics most people show for the round are based on the more powerful rounds for submachine guns.

 

[44 AMP]

I have to disagree. If they can move enough of them, it could be done. Looking at uberti, kimber, etc, winchester, even, you will see nostalgia and quality both allow people to drop well over a grand on a single pistol or rifle. If the parts could be manufactured with low tolerances, no manual fitting, the luger itself may not cost more than some of the other high cost steel guns.

The problem is "if they can move enough of them", and to date, no one who has tried has been successful. There's always an interest in the initial run, but after that, novelty wears off and sales slump. Not saying it can't be different, but so far, it hasn't been.

About a decade ago, I got a (new in the box, but apparently out of production) Stoeger Luger. 9mm Luger. Stainless steel, made in Texas!!! it is absolutely a P.08 pattern gun (though very slightly dimensionally different enough that original p.08 magazines do not work). Beautifully made, finely fitted, excellently checkered wood grips that seem to lock into your hand. Gun was $1000 then. No idea if you can get one now, what it would cost, but a 6" Navy version (which I am kicking myself for not buying still today) was $1500 then, and I saw it at a show a few years later they were asking $2000 for it.

I haven't seen or heard of any others like them in years. Seems about everybody who tries to make a "modern" Luger sells a few, then goes belly up.

Might be because, unlike the popularity of old west style guns, Lugers, while desirable, just aren't in the same class.

The guy who "always wanted a Luger" and never got one, isn't interested in spending $1000+. The serious collector wants specific historical Lugers.

Like you mentioned, they are safe queens, and few people are willing to spend the money. That may change a bit as time passes and even "shooter" grade Lugers get into the expensive category.

"You're talking modern "GI Spec" 1911s, not original military weapons. Ask some old-time armorers."

I don't know if I qualify as an "old-time armorer", I was Direct Support/General Support Small Arms Repairman in the mid 70s.

I suspect that those armorers were working on guns post WW II.

It wasn't that the 1911s were unreliable with ball ammunition from the get go, it was that they were unreliable with ball ammunition because they were, in many cases, WELL past their service life and were being kept running with bailing wire and binder twine.

In many cases it wasn't unusual for a 1911 to have gone through 2 world wars, a police action, banana wars, and innumerable training cycles by the time they hit Vietnam or post Vietnam.

I was definitely one of the guys working on those guns in the 70s. Doing inspections and level 3 and 4 maintenance on those old guns (the newest .45s in the inventory were bought in 1945).

I saw guns ranging from virtually pristine 1911s to combat weary 1911A1s. NONE of them EVER came into my shop because of functioning issues. Not one, ever. Did have a grand total of 3 come to the shop, all for the same issue, rear sight replacement because the gun had been dropped landing on the sight, bashing it. and one other with a loose front sight. If significant numbers had function issues, I never heard about it.

Accuracy, on the other hand, was a different matter, and not a matter we gave ANY concern to. Some of those old worn out guns made minute of man at 25 meters an iffy thing. But we didn't care one bit about accuracy, as long as the gun functioned, it was serviceable. I supported two different brigades and some independent units in Europe and never saw any "original GI spec" .45s that weren't functional. (and with ball ammo)

Now, the whole "swish it around in the mud and it still works" is crap, an embellishment of the actual truth, which is "it will probably work". Nothing is 100%, never was. But is was substantially better (overall) than other pistols of the era, and so the legend began, and as J.R.R said, "the tale grew in the telling".

 

[Maynard Shooter]

I'm no expert but do have my preference. I ride a motor cycle with buck horn handle bars because of the angle and ease of riding. I prefer a Luger for the same idea ease of shooting. Got my first Luger (9mm) in 1999 for $250 it is a shooter. Bought my second Luger in 2015 numbers matching 1906 American Eagle (7.65 Luger) for $2000. I liked shooting this so much that I converted my first Luger to shoot 7.65 Luger and have been enjoying a shooter that's easy to reload for and fits my shooting. (I do own a 1911 in 38 Super)

 

[4V50 Gary]

While it is prettier and more ergonomic,

1908 is more susceptible to dirt than the 1911. 1908 is also more expensive to make and requires more handfitting than the 1911.