1911 versus P08 Luger - some questions - your thoughts?

[blchandl2]

Many good points made already. I have 2 P08's, one my dad brought back from WWII (all matching #s, and documents) and a 'shooter' (import marks, refinished). I could field strip the P08 at age 6, I don't think they are very difficult.

The machining involved was one of the biggest knocks against the P08. I also agree with the NIH/Nazi aspect as I still get off-handed comments at the range when I am shooting mine.

To me there is a 'cool' factor to the P08 due to the unique mechanism. I appreciate firearms as machines and their mechanics.

I have a few 1911's. I appreciate them for different reasons. One being my dad carried one during WWII.

If a P08 is on your list to own, many fine 'shooter grade' examples can be found. It does not take much to make a P08 'shooter grade' because collectors are so finicky about originality. There are many different variations of the P08 that can change the value dramatically. Much knowledge is available on the Luger Forum, and I purchased my 'shooter' from a forum member there.

 

[JeffK]

Lugers can be finicky. I shoot my '37 a few times a year and enjoy it - I like the feel and balance, and, well, it's just a cool historical piece. A while back it started sticking, I'd pull the trigger and nothing would happen, and I'd pull it again and it would fire. Or not, but maybe the next time after that it would fire. With some education from folks here, I figured out what was going on, a small internal piece was a hair too thin. The fix was a tiny square of painter's tape, placed in exactly the right spot, and it's been fine ever since. Stories like that seem pretty common, the tolerances on the internal workings are pretty tight and it's not hard to exceed them from wear, dirt, or ill-advised modifications.

Oh, and I should point out: I keep several handguns loaded in my house, but the Luger isn't one of them, that resides in a display case along with some antique cameras and old coins. It's a really neat gun and fun to shoot, but I would not trust it for personal protection. I run film through my antique cameras now and then, too.

 

[dahermit]

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

Not to forget the super-powerful 9MM Corto.

 

[briandg]

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.

This is the problem, you are truly right there, It takes an old guy like me who would buy one. Drive it out to the range once in a while, shoot it, then put it away. Younger guys will look at it in the case and say 'what a weird thing'. Could someone put out a run of 5,000 or so and at least make a small profit? We do that over and over with other things, but as you say, that's not quite the same as creating a run of break tops for cowboys.

I think that a small maker such as kimber could put together a plan, and produce them. They would have to create a few different versions, shouldn't be too hard to change barrels and sights for some. I'm not expecting it to happen, or as we agree, it would have worked already.

now, what about the broomhandle mauser that was the basis for the starwars blaster? could we interest a bunch of young guys in having their own blaster? I've seen light sabers priced in the range of $200 and up. The doofuses out there may be interested in tossing money at a genuine, honest to god blaster. maybe even some of us old guys would want one. Still, as we both agree, if it was a practical thing, it probably would have been done. we are still looking at a cost equal or higher than a higher end 1911.

 

[ttarp]

I think $1,000 is a fair/good/ideal price for a new manufactured Luger, but it wouldn't sell well because of several of the reasons stated above, collectors would only buy them in anticipation of the company going under and thus becoming somewhat collectable, but most are interested in pistols with war history. The fellow looking for a "shooter" Luger can readily get them for $700 to $900, and have a "real" Luger for cheaper. The only chance a new Luger would have is if it was heavily marketed as a target pistol, maybe for bullseye matches perhaps. They really are neat pistols, but people want plain looking plastic pistols that cram as many rounds into what's often a mediocre grip as possible, because anything else just "isn't" practical. The same reason why pleasant shooting medium sized .32ACP pistols are also shunned these days.

 

[PushPuller]

My dad had one that was absolutely mint! He got it for a little over $1000 and despite not wanting it he couldn't pass up the value on it and it was suspected to be unfired. looking back now I would have swore that it had a longer than standard barrel. But as a 13 year old WW2 buff I can remember wanting to shoot that thing so bad, holding and looking at it just wasn't enough. Unfortunately years later he sold and I have yet to see one in person since let alone handle one.


Needless to say, if somebody started reproducing them and they were turning out reliable and less than $1000 I would buy one in a heartbeat. Id also buy a new version of the Walther P38 too!

 

[jmstr]

I can't contribute much regarding Lugers, but I did want to point out that Germany approved the replacement of the Luger handgun when they contracted to purchase what we know as the Walther P38 Pistol [named for year of approval- 1938].

Yes, Mauser was making Lugers until about 1942, as the owner of the plant was dragging his heals on making the switch, but by late 1942 the Mauser plant was making P38 pistols [I have a Mauser-made P38, from early 1943].

Anything with the tighter tolerances of the Luger required more care for reliability.

Furthermore, my recollection was that the Germans wanted a 'safer' pistol.

The P08 had:

• DA/SA trigger, to avoid accidents on first shot.
• Easily verified Loaded Chamber Indicator [by touch- at night even it is easy].
• Firing Pin Safety Block- that only allows firing pin to move forward as trigger is pulled.
• Decocker/Safety, that prevented the firing pin from moving forward when actuated, so that the hammer could rest on it and the firing pin was doubly blocked.

And, of course- it was cheaper to manufacture than the P08.

And, the 1911 had more safeties built in than the P08 Luger [thumb AND grip safety- vs thumb safety on Luger]. Neither had firing pin block/drop safety.



As to why we see the 1911- that has a LOT to do with our nations' belief in the superiority of a bigger hole in the enemy- starting at least from the Philippine War, when we went from .38 to .45 due to these concerns.

We looked upon the 9mm round as less than ideal at that time.

It could be argued that 9mm was equally fatal [lack of penicillin or other antibiotics], but the thought was that the .45 was more immobilizing.

The Europeans continued to prefer .32 and .380acp [7.65 and 9mmKurtz] for police use until sometime after WWII. Here, our police's most common sidearm was the .38special- so we can't sneer too much at the projectile size- but power? Come on!

The European model of 9mm became a standard, and then an international standard.

We stuck to the .45acp until the 1980s, and the cult of the 1911 has remained in effect ever since.

Prior to 1980, there were precious few 9mm options made here: S&W 39 and 59 was about it. We imported BHPs in 9mm, and then there were the Walther P38/P1 pistols imported in larger numbers in the 1960s, or the Luger bring backs.

Yet, the 1911 was probably the most popular/common semi-auto centerfire defensive/military handgun- as it was the US Army's handgun.

Many came back from their military service with experience with the 1911- and the assumption that 9mm was inferior.

I think it was more about caliber attitudes than platforms.

I have no Lugers, and would only get one if it was a great shooter that was under $800.

Otherwise, I am fine with my 1911s, my Walther [mauser] P38, my Star Model B [9x19mm but looks/feels like 1911], or my other handguns.

I am more likely to get a CZ24 in .380 than a Luger, as the CZ24 is pretty neat, and costs under $500.

Anyway- enjoy reading and learning. Have a good time and keep the powder dry!

 

[rock185]

Thoughts: I've owned two Lugers and a bunch of 1911 types. Neither of my Lugers, a 1918 DWM and 1938 Mauser, were reliable with any ammo I tried. The Lugers are certainly charismatic guns, but my examples were not reliable. I have to wonder, if an outfit like Mauser couldn't make new production Lugers long term profitable, who would be in a better position to do so? Would CNC machining and MIM internals allow commercial Luger success?
FWIW, The one 1911A1 I owned, and others I was issued, never malfunctioned with ball ammo. Perhaps the Luger demands more precision in manufacture, and success of the 1911 types is due to the fact that they are both simpler to manufacture, and are an inherently more reliable design?

 

[44 AMP]

The P08 had:
DA/SA trigger, to avoid accidents on first shot.
Easily verified Loaded Chamber Indicator [by touch- at night even it is easy].
Firing Pin Safety Block- that only allows firing pin to move forward as trigger is pulled.
Decocker/Safety, that prevented the firing pin from moving forward when actuated, so that the hammer could rest on it and the firing pin was doubly blocked.

I will assume you meant P.38, not P.08.


I had to look for a bit, but I did finally find the loaded chamber indicator on the P.38. It's not where I expected to find it.

The DA trigger feature was, at the time, considered more of a "second strike" capability than anything else. 1930s ammo wasn't quite as reliable as ammo is (and we expect it to be) today. While the DA did allow a rapid first shot from hammer down & safety OFF, it wasn't something emphasized back then, like it is today. Being able to second strike a primer that didn't fire the first time was a bigger concern at that time (judging from period literature).

The Walther hammer drop on the mechanically locked firing pin works, but isn't the safest system possible. While rare, it can break, and if it does, the gun will fire when the safety is put ON!! (I've seen it happen).

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Yes, Mauser was making Lugers until about 1942, as the owner of the plant was dragging his heals on making the switch"

No, not really.

The original German rearmament plans called for production to be phased out at Mauser AFTER the P38 was up and running at Walther as part of a very orderly process.

More importantly, German rearmament plans called for production for an anticipated war in the middle to late 1940s, NOT 1939.

Once Hitler took the nation to war in 1939, keeping what you had in production was more important than switching to the new gun and interrupting the supply, so the original armament plans calling for Luger production to end in 1942 were kept.



"The Europeans continued to prefer .32 and .380acp [7.65 and 9mmKurtz] for police use until sometime after WWII. Here, our police's most common sidearm was the .38special- so we can't sneer too much at the projectile size- but power? Come on!"

Not Kurtz. Kurz.

Many French police were still armed with MAB Model D .32s when I was there in the 1980s, even with the terrorism issues they were having at the time.

Of course, even even beat and traffic cops had a MAS 36 rifle or MAT 49 or GEVARM D4 submachine gun slung over their backs.

Part of the reason why European police stayed with the smaller calibers longer is the simple fact that Europe didn't see the kind of crime or violence levels that the US did, and often the handgun was seen more as a symbol of authority than an actual tool, which was very different from the US experience.

 

[HisSoldier]

but I suspect that with the new technology of machining and sintering steel parts, manufacture of the things would become practical.

As far as CNC machining, it is exactly the same end output as that done using manual machines, but much better. CNC's approach perfection much faster than the 65 year old tool and die maker can, there is no downside to using them.

But why would anyone want sintered parts in a gun imitating a great pistol from long ago? To me that's almost sacrilegious, but I make thousands of parts a year out of steel barstock (Not "Billet" as some folks say, most shops use zero billets), and don't want any huge corner cutting if I'm paying for a heritage weapon. BTW, I have two P08's built by Mauser in the 70's, and someone suggested they used MIM small parts, but my examination of their parts show no evidence of MIM.

There are several guns that some people find beautiful, by which I mean they have fine lines as an artist would say it. The P08 is one that I see as beautiful. The Swiss straight fore strap one's not so much for me, that little bulge at the bottom makes the P08.
But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, maybe someone else thinks a Lorcin is beautiful.

 

[RickB]

MIM's first use in major gun components was the Bren Ten, early '80s.
D&D licensed the "mold forge" process from Millett Sights.

 

[StukaJU87]

Most reliability issues for Lugers can be traced back to either bad ammo or bad magazines.

From the book Military Small Arms of the 20th Century: "[The toggle lock mechanism] works well for higher-pressure cartridges, but cartridges loaded to a lower pressure can cause the pistol to malfunction because they do not generate enough recoil to work the action fully. This results in either the breech block not clearing the top cartridge of the magazine, or becoming jammed open on the cartridge's base."

Lugers also require stronger magazine springs because they have to push eight rounds up a rather steep angle. Weakened or short springs can cause rounds to load too slowly, causing the action to jam. So just like with modern pistols, one should first try different magazines, if possible, and/or try different ammo, i.e. higher pressure ammo.

A lot of stories of Lugers being unreliable are modern stories, post WWII, and here's why. Real Lugers, not modern reproductions, are between 76-110 years old. People want to keep them original and replacement parts are getting harder to find. Therefore, no one wants to risk destroying their historical piece of history by using the required high pressure ammo, so they use weaker ammo thinking it will avoid damage. They are also probably using the magazine(s) that came with the pistol, again probably 76-110 years old. These magazines will most likely have weakened springs or might be one of the unfortunate ones that had their springs shortened so they would be easier to load. Either way, Lugers were designed to work within certain tolerances and using ammo and/or magazines that are outside those tolerances will obviously not have the desired outcome.

 

[44 AMP]

Is there a difference (a significant difference) between MIM (Molded in Metal?) and "sintered" parts??

Are they the same thing? close? if not the same, how do they differ?? Don't both use powdered metal, a mold and heat to product the final part??

I was told (by someone in the Army) in the mid 70s that the M-16(A1) used sintered metal for the hammer and trigger, and that was why doing a trigger job on the GI parts was a waste, as if you broke through the (very) thin hardened surface of the contact points, very soft metal was exposed and the whole thing turned to crap in short order.

I have no idea if it was true or not, only that it was being put out as if it were, at the time.

Agree, the whole point of owning a reproduction of a famous firearm is that it is a reproduction, faithful in all details to the original, both good, and bad.

I'll go with CNC machining, because its still the same machining as done before, just using a computer program to set the cutting machines rather than a human. This does allow for less chance of error, and since machines work tirelessly and without union pay, its cheaper. The down side? assuming the computer will always produce flawless parts. If there is a problem, how many bad parts will be made before it is recognized and fixed?

But sintered or MIM parts were not used on the originals, and so should not be used on faithful reproductions.


Someone out there might (possibly) make a Luger with a polymer frame. If so, bully for them. I won't be buying one.

 

[Fishbed77]

The down side? assuming the computer will always produce flawless parts. If there is a problem, how many bad parts will be made before it is recognized and fixed?

The same issues exist with human machinists when they deviate from a spec.

CNC milling machines aren't magical. They still require quite a lot of human interaction. The importance of good quality control doesn't go away with CNC manufacturing.

 

[RickB]

Is there a difference (a significant difference) between MIM (Molded in Metal?) and "sintered" parts??

Are they the same thing? close? if not the same, how do they differ?? Don't both use powdered metal, a mold and heat to product the final part??

I was told (by someone in the Army) in the mid 70s that the M-16(A1) used sintered metal for the hammer and trigger, and that was why doing a trigger job on the GI parts was a waste, as if you broke through the (very) thin hardened surface of the contact points, very soft metal was exposed and the whole thing turned to crap in short order.

MIM = Metal Injection Molding

The MIM process does include a sintering step, but it's not the same process as the sintered steel parts made prior.

M16 hammers and sears are made via the investment casting process, completely different from any/all sintering processes.

 

[tipoc]

Good discussion.

tipoc