Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards  

Go Back   Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards > General
User Name
Password
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old August 21st, 2005, 08:28 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
And Farsi proof marks? Is there a Baghdad Proof House or something?


They don't speak Farsi in Baghdad.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old August 21st, 2005, 08:57 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,056
Ooops, another bad. You can tell my interest in SIG-Sauers and Farsi isn't up there with my interest in late-WW2 German Death Machines.

I thought it might be interesting to post some pics of the high-tech manufacturing techniques that I like so much. Here's a pic of the G3's receiver production:


I don't know how long it would take to manufacture a G3 receiver, but it's got to very fast. I would think that most of the production time comes in aligning the various pieces and then welding them together. But who knows, perhaps that's done very quickly by machine as well.

Here's a receiver with the two halves welded together and the rear sight base welded on:


After this, the barrel trunion is spot-welded into the front of the receiver and the cocking tube is welded onto the front of the receiver and you're basically done I believe. Talk about efficiency.

The trigger housing starts like this:


and then ends up like this a few stamping and welding processes later:


Here's a pic of the barrel manufacturing usng the hammer forging technique:


Note that the chamber on G3's is also hammer forged.

Those pics are from the HK/Mauser Museum in Oberndorf. This place has lots of minty stuff like this:


The middle weapon is the StG45(M). The StG44 sits above the StG45. Below them both is a CETME. You can tell that the CETME was a combination of the STG45(M) and StG44. The basic exterior layout and controls were taken from the StG44 and the method of operation was taken from the StG45(M).

The StG45(M) was the progenitor to the Cold War Era HK family of weapons that is coming to an end in the near future. I believe the MP5 will be the last HK weapon to use roller-delayed blowback operation. After the MP5 is gone, there will probably be no more. And after the P7 is gone, that will be the end of gas-delayed blowback operation and the Volksturmgewehr's method of operation. Thereafter it will be conventional methods of operation like Browning Short Recoil, gas-operated rotating bolts, etc.

And now with modern CNC machining, machining is much faster and cheaper than it was in the post-Depression era. Combine that with the latest investment casting and polymer molding technology and I think the wide employment of the sophisticated stampings seen on these weapons will also end soon. So I think we are about to see the end of the once-revolutionary late-WW2 manufacturing techniques and weapons design in the coming decade or so.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old August 21st, 2005, 09:07 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
Getting to see the stampings in succession is very cool.
I can appreciate how impressive it is to produce a quality arm through such a process but ultimately I like to handle the carefully finished guns just a little better. To me the number of operations has always been more impressive when it's high rather than low. But to follow that formula for success is easy. To do it the other way around as Germans ultimately chose to do is the challenge.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old August 21st, 2005, 10:00 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
Does anyone know anything about the Bergmann light machine gun employed by the Germans starting in 1916?
I know very little about it but want to know more.
Possibly one of the first true "light" MGs.
Predecessor to the MG13 and later MG34.

Apparently quite a few were in use by the end of the war but I can find very little info.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old August 22nd, 2005, 09:25 AM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,056
I think all of these Ingrid Bergmann weapons were more curiosities and footnotes in small arms development than anything else.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Wehrmacht was using the Ingrid Bergmann MG's, as the Germans faced widespread weapons shortages from the very beginning. These shortages were never resolved. Many people believe that the German wonder weapons like the MG34, MG42, FG42, Stg44, etc. had such a dramatic effect on post-WW2 weapons development because they were hugely successful and widely issued. But they weren't. Most of these weapons were produced in limited numbers only and and they didn't really affect the outcome of the war. Rather, their greatest contributions to small arms development were their speedy methods of manufacture, their methods of operation, and their unique design principles like the Sturmgewehr and Einheitsmaschinengewehr concepts.

The Germans were short on weapons and could never produce them in the quantities they required. One sees all sorts of weirdo things like Wehrmacht units using Browning Hi-Powers manufactured in the captured FN factory. It was also common to see Wehrmacht units armed with the BREN of all things. And didn't the Wehrmacht even have an official, type-classified 9mm conversion kit for the PPSh machine pistols captured on the Eastern Front?
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old August 22nd, 2005, 07:30 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
I've never heard of a Bergmann light machine gun adopted by the Germans in WWI. There's the various Maxims MG08, MG08/15 and the MG16 (the original Einheitsmaschinengewehr introduced in 1916). These supposedly were all used by the Germans as well in WWII.

My new MG34/MG42 book lists various other MG's besides the MG13 that are historically intertwined with them as well. Namely the Knorr-Bremse LMG35/36 and the MG S 2-200.

BTW-I think the adoption of the Browning Hi-Power was a natural for the Germans due to it's 9mm chambering. And I believe the BREN's used by the Germans were the original Brno factory design. A goodly amount of MG34 and 42's were made by Waffenwerke Bruenn (Brno).

I'm reading that the Kreighoff production of the FG42 was not at Ulm but rather at Leige, Belgium. Kreighoff took over the Pieper plant there during the war.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old August 22nd, 2005, 07:44 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
I'm reading that the Kreighoff production of the FG42 was not at Ulm but rather at Leige, Belgium. Kreighoff took over the Pieper plant there during the war.

Hehe. I love it. Invade a country and take over it. Take over all of the gun plants and put them to work for you. It was probably very skilled labor at Liege too.

The current Krieghoff plant is in Ulm but I thought the pre-1945 plant was in Suhl. I'm far from sure though. All I know for sure is that I'm pumped up about Krieghoff producing the FG42 and actually refining the design a bit. Although I much prefer the evil looks of the Rheinmetall version with its sheetmetal buttstock and swept-back pistol grip, it's still very exciting to me that Krieghoff produced the FG42. That's just way too cool.

I had always loved this engraving on the bottom of my K-80's receiver:


Now I wish my K-80 were engraved on the bottom: "DEATH MACHINES of ULM".
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old August 22nd, 2005, 09:35 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
LOL-Looks like Jack is still reading Ian Hogg...

http://www.9mmlargo.com/1910/

However, it points out another interesting connection between his Bergmann, the Pieper plant in Liege, and Krieghoff. hmmm
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old August 22nd, 2005, 09:38 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
I'm curious why you insist on referring to the Bergmann guns as oddities or curiosities? Surely you label them as footnotes to somehow detract from their importance, relevance or worth. I fail to see how the Bergmann M1910 is any different from the so called "funky doubles" that you seem so excited by. To me the Darne's, Cosmis and Superbrittes are more readily characterized as fruitless efforts in the world of shotgunning. The traditional guns have proven so superior in the field. I find the "funky doubles" simply amusements. The Bergmann guns are unusual but very functional and well crafted. Their design and production was not widespread but I have never read that they had performance related shortcomings. You seem to consider the Bergmann guns to be in league with pepperbox revolvers and cane guns.

I suppose it has something to do with the precedence you give to mankillers over sporting arms. If a sporting gun is unorthodox you seem to appreciate some sort of ingenuity, but if a military arm is slightly unusual and ultimately not widely used it isn't worth talking about?
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old August 22nd, 2005, 09:43 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
What about the Bergmann MP18?



How is that not a revolutionary and effective weapon?
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old August 22nd, 2005, 09:57 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
Well Jack, I found a reference to the Bergmann MG 15NA LMG. Scroll down to the Germany section and it's the first MG. I'd never heard of it. Looks like it was used in air combat as well.

http://www.westernfront.co.uk/thegre...achinegun2.htm

The Bergmann MP was 9mm. An SMG not an HMG or LMG.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old August 22nd, 2005, 10:03 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
I'm aware of both the Bergmann MP18 9mm parabellum SMG and the Bergmann LMG 7.92. I can find lots of references to the LMG on the web. I've even read that 1 in 6 infantry squads had one by the end of the war, but the only picture I have is in a book and I can't seem to find a pic on the web. The weapon is actually listed in the BATF Section 4 of C&Rs.

My initial question was whether anyone was familiar with the Bergmann LMG. I figured you guys knew the Shmeisser developed MP18 already. But I did think the MP18 was a good example of a Bergmann gun that is not just a footnote.

gotta find you guys a pic...
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old August 22nd, 2005, 10:45 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,056
I love when you have nothing else to go on, and so you try to find contradictions when there really are no contradictions.

Sporting guns are toys made for leisure, not life and death. They're toys. It's interesting when they're funky or unorthodox. The same is not true for anti-personnel weapons, which are made for serious business. So weirdness is permissible on sporting doubles. Note that all of the funky doubles I like are shotguns, which are basically designed for pegging defenseless little birds. I don't see any Superbritte or Darne double rifles for dangerous game. And no matter how dangerous some animals are, at least they don't shoot back.

Also, funky sporting guns like the Superbritte and Darne are made funky on purpose, i.e., not for the highest and best possible function but rather just for shits and giggles. In other words, they're made shitty on purpose. When I look at that ridiculous Ingrid Bermann and that Jennifer Lopez shit, I can't help but think they were fully intended to be serious weapons. That's what is such a crack-up about them.

One thing I notice about your view on guns is that you like absolute rules. This sporting/fighting thing is little different from your search for a litmus test for what constitutes a rifle cartridge. Not all guns are to be judged by the same rules.

So the MP18 was revolutionary and effective? Let's start with revolutionary.

How was the MP18 so revolutionary? It's basically a heavy block of steel with a spring behind it. Its simple blowback method of operation existed well before the MP18. There's nothing revolutionary about it.

Was there something unique about its method of operation? Did the MP18 utilize some sort of delay to lighten the bolt so that the weapon would jostle less as the bolt bottomed out at the rear of the recoil cycle or slam forward in battery? Did it use rollers or gas pressure to delay the blowback cycle and enable the use of a lighter bolt? Did it even try to use some sort of delay like the superfluous Blish Lock on the Thompson? Or did it rely on simple inertia and a heavy spring?

Did the MP18 utilize advanced primer ignition so that the bolt could be made lighter without affecting the cyclic rate?

Did the MP18 utilize something as simple as closed-bolt operation? Didn't Bergmann realize that the 9mm Luger cartridge doesn't create sufficient barrel heat to have cook-off problems? Didn't Bergmann realize that open-bolt operation is completely unnecessary on a 9mm machine pistol?

Did the MP18's method of construction revolutionize weapons manufacturing and enable the MP18 to be fielded in great numbers? Or was it machined from forgings and take up lots of raw materials and table time to produce, just like the other weapons of its day?

The MP18 was not revolutionary in any way. It utilized methods of operation that existed well before it was designed. It utilized standard production techniques used on other weapons of its day. There's no ergonomic enhancement on it that other weapons of its day lacked. Just what is so revolutionary about this thing? Did you see it in Star Wars or something?

Let's move onto effective. How was the MP18 so effective? It's little different from other 9mm machine pistols like the MP38 and MP40. Didn't the Germans find the MP38 and MP40 wanting a few decades later? Didn't their machine pistols lack range? Didn't they lack terminal effect, both on hard and soft targets? Wasn't the ineffectiveness of the machine pistol why the Germans were forced to develop the Sturmgewehr in the first place? Didn't they do it because their machine pistols were ineffective?

You may say the MP18 was the first. But the first at what? The first at being ineffective? The only reason the MP18 came about was because the principles behind the self-loading rifle had yet to be perfected at the time and the slow rate of fire of the bolt-action in the trenches was a problem. That the machine pistol was available at a time when the self-loading rifle wasn't yet available isn't anything to brag about either, for the machine pistol's weak cartridge does not require a locked breech the way rifle ammunition does. Once the self-loading rifle was understood and in production, the machine pistol became almost worthless on the battlefield. And the invention of the assault rifle was the final nail in the coffin to military use of the machine pistol. I think the history of small arms development has shown the entire concept of the machine pistol to be a mistake. Being the first mistake in the chain is hardly anything to brag about.

At the very best, the MP18 was effective as a stop-gap. But remember that the MP18 was not the only stop-gap at the time the it was fielded. The Americans utilized the repeating shotgun for this task, which had a higher rate of fire than the bolt-action rifle and great short-range terminal effect. I think the Americans had a much better solution than the Germans did. Had the Germans not had such a cultural bias against the anti-personnel use of the shotgun, I can't help but think they would have come up with the same solution the Americans did.

I've given my reasons why I think the MP18 wasn't revolutionary or effective. Now let's hear your reasons for why the MP18 was revolutionary and effective.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old August 23rd, 2005, 06:11 AM
traveltoad traveltoad is offline
Aaron Shrier
KI6BCA
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,625
I won't even bother to pretend that I know much as these weapons. But I know that often times military equipment is used differently that originally intended and that this can make it historically significant.

That said, John is it possible that the MP18 changed how the machine pistol was used on the battlefield? Not it's designed or plan use/function but its actual use and/or function? Or perhaps the MP18's production methods help shape future manufacturing?
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old August 23rd, 2005, 06:42 AM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
The Mp18 was the first viable submachinegun in history. It may not be the ultimate infantry small arm, but the submachinegun has definitely left its mark.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old August 23rd, 2005, 10:06 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by traveltoad
That said, John is it possible that the MP18 changed how the machine pistol was used on the battlefield? Not it's designed or plan use/function but its actual use and/or function?


The MP18's claim to fame is that it was the first machine pistol widely used by a real army. Since it was the first machine pistol, it really didn't change machine pistol doctrine in any meaningful way that I know of.

The only reason the MP18 came about at all is because the principles of a practical self-loading rifle were not understood at the time. Imagine you're a weapons designer during the WW1 era.

You see how effective the Maxim machinegun is. It has an almost unreal rate of fire and its power and range from its smokeless rifle cartridges seems almost unreal. It was only a few decades before that soldiers were using single-shot muskets propelled by black powder and taking pot shots at each other from static lines. Now you marvel at how such tactics would be futile. You also marvel at how the Maxim uses the recoil forces of the rifle ammunition to cycle itself, with no power required by the operator. The Maxim is water-cooled, and so seemingly it can fire forever without grenading.

Not only can the Maxim fire lots of shots, but its shots are devastatingly effective. The Maxim stops men in their tracks when the bullets land. It even blows right through men and kills the men behind them. It downs horses decisively, as if they were pigeons. At the beginning of this war, cavalrymen were foolish enough to charge the Maxim on horseback. Of course this doesn't happen any more. Strangely, you don't see any more cavalry on the battlefield either, something that had been present in all human conflict since just after the sticks and stones era.

Even men trying to take cover behind trees are not safe, as the rifle bullets used in the Maxim slice right through the trees. Men in vehicles are not safe either, as the rifle ammunition slices right through these vehicles easily and ventilates the men within. The Maxim has the same effect on men trying to take cover in buildings. In coming years, the opponent will create a heavily armored car called a tank, just to resist the tremendous penetrative power of this weapon and its new ammunition.

You marvel at how the Maxim can be used against targets thousands of yards away as an artillery piece. It's very accurate, even at these long ranges, because its projectiles are propelled through a rifled bore. Its long/thin jacketed bullets are driven at previously unheard-of velocites by the new smokeless propellants. The streamlined shape and high sectional density of the projectiles slice through the air and do not bleed velocity quickly and thus are very effective even after traveling thousands of yards. These design attributes combine to make the Maxim frighteningly effective at these extreme ranges.

That's a very impressive weapon and you're quite naturally impressed. Then you see the Mauser bolt-action rifle, the principle weapon of the soldier at this time. This weapon fires the same modern, smokeless rifle ammunition as the machinegun does and it performs the same magic on its targets from a shot-to-shot perspective. But there is a glaring difference between the Mauser and the Maxim. The Mauser holds only five shots and must be reloaded after those five shots are expended. The Mauser must also be manually operated between each shot. In other words, the power of each cartridge is used only to drive the bullet down the barrel and spin it, drive it through the air, and and then drive it through the target. The power of the burning propellants inside the cartridge is not used in any way to make the Mauser reload and operate itself. This manual reloading can be done very quickly and smoothly by a skilled operator, but the soldiers at large are not skilled operators and it takes them precious time to reload their weapons manually. The rate of fire is slow enough that it's standard at this time to affix a bayonet on the end of the Mauser for some fencing action when the fighting is close and the weapon cannot be reloaded quickly enough.

You naturally compare the Maxim and the Mauser in your mind, and you try to incorporate some of the Maxim's virtues into the Mauser. The Maxim is an area target weapon and the Mauser is a point target weapon, but the Mauser does seem to suffer from a low rate of fire. After all, why would a bayonet even be needed if the rate of fire were sufficient? The Mauser is already powerful and has tremendous range, so nothing needs to be done there. So you naturally try to increase the rate of fire by trying to make the Mauser self-loading.

You examine the toggle short recoil method used on the Maxim and try to make this work on the rifle. In this system, as modified for rifle use, the barrel and bolt are locked together and recoil backward for a short distance when a cartridge ignites. After a short while, the barrel stops while the toggle joint on the bolt is broken and the bolt head continues backward until it bottoms out, then springs forward to strip a round from the Mauser's magazine, then continues forward to lock with the barrel once again, and both assemblies travel forward into battery for the next shot. Sounds fine. but you realize that this system won't really work on the Mauser because the resulting weapon would be too heavy. The powerful rifle cartridge generates such a recoil thrust that the operating components would have to be very large and heavy, making the weapon impractical as a shoulder-fired weapon. This is not a problem on the crew-served and large Maxim but on the Mauser using this system would not be practical.

You study other weapons to look for inspiration. You look at Browning short recoil, which also exists at this time. You face the same problems as on the toggle short recoil. The resulting weapon could work, but it would be far too heavy.

You abandon short recoil and try the simple blowback method of operation, a method that exists at this time because it's the oldest self-loading method. Under this system, a heavy bolt is held stationary by simple inertia and forward spring pressure to resist the rearward thrust of the igniting cartridge. When a cartridge ignites, the bullet is propelled forward at great velocity while the case head and bolt are driven backward. Because the bolt is so much heavier than the projectile, the bolt moves backward at a much slower rate. You quickly realize this won't work either, as the bolt of this blowback weapon would have to weigh 40 lbs. for it to contain smokeless rifle cartridges. Anything lighter than that and the bolt will fling rearward at too high a velocity and during the peak pressure cycle of the cartridge. A 50 lb. rifle wouldn't be too practical either.

So what do you do? You can create a self-loading rifle but you can't seem to create a practical self-loading rifle. You can't do it because you're not quite sure yet how to go about it. All of the existing self-loading methods you've examined won't work.

You rack your brain for ideas. You can't figure out how to make a practical self-loading rifle. But there's clearly a need for a higher rate of fire from the rifle. The current rifle isn't cutting it and your superiors are pressing you for something. Thousands of men are dying every day and the war is severely stalemated. Any edge you can give to the soldier might be enough to break the stalemate. Your superiors are even trying shit like poison gas to try to break the stalemate. You're under tremendous pressure to come up with something to try to solve the problem.

So you do. You can't create a self-loading rifle but self-loading pistols certainly exist at this time and their methods of operation are well understood. But these pistols are weak and are difficult to shoot well. So you come up with the idea of a shoulder-fired, self-loading weapon that fires a pistol cartridge. This weapon is shoulder-fired and thus easier to shoot well. That combined with the weak pistol cartridge chambering make this weapon very easy to shoot well. This weapon is self-loading and thus has the capacity for very high rates of fire. You know in your heart of hearts that a pistol cartridge isn't going to cut it, but perhaps more bullets will make up for the fact that each bullet is tremendously weaker than each rifle bullet. So you make the weapon fully automatic, even though this weapon is a point target weapon and not an area target weapon. If one bullet can't get the job done, then perhaps several bullets landing in quick succession on the target may do it. It's certainly worth a try, for the current bolt-action rifle isn't cutting it and the idea of a self-loading rifle seems like an impossible dream right now. Things are desperate and it's worth a try. So you run with the idea and create the MP18.

This gross oversimplification is basically how the MP18 came about. It was an attempt to increase the soldier's rate of fire in a time when rifles were manually operated and weapons designers did not yet understand how to make them self-loading. The machine pistol was never suitable for the job because of its lack of power, and it never supplanted the rifle. At most, the machine pistol supplemented the rifle. However, the machine pistol never supplemented the rifle adequately, the way other personal weapons like the pistol and shotgun did in the past and still do today. From the very beginning, the machine pistol was found wanting and weapons designers immediately searched for other solutions. Once firearms designers figured out how to create practical self-loading rifles, the machine pistol fell by the wayside. And the invention of the assault rifle basically killed the machine pistol.



Quote:
Originally Posted by traveltoad
Or perhaps the MP18's production methods help shape future manufacturing?


Small arms development comes in many forms, and better methods of production are definitely just as important better methods of operation, better ergonomics, better ballistics, etc. After all, wars are waged on a grand scale and the speed and ease with which a weapon can be produced and fielded are huge concerns on this macro scale.

But there is nothing innovative about the MP18's method of production. I believe the MP18 is machined from forgings, which was typical of its era. Its stock is wood and features the traditional rifle configuration. It's very typical of its time. There's really nothing unique about it.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old August 24th, 2005, 05:03 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ


I was just checking out that Phoenix Investment site and dreaming a bit. Wow. There are some nice Lugers on that page. I'm not "into" Lugers and thus don't know much about them, but this Luger really caught my eye:




I'm not crazy about the gold "CR" on the top of the receiver ring, but I'm digging the straw-colored pieces, dished toggles, grip safety (a pistol as complicated as the Luger just has to have a grip safety), and walnut magazine floorplate. One of the things I really like about the Luger and other weapons of that era is the lightening cuts in them. The dished toggles have that sort of look to me and I have always liked them. If that Luger were chambered in 9mm Luger and had the buttstock attachment points, it would be oh so nice. But I'm not sure if a Luger in such a configuration even exists.

Heck, as long as I'm dreaming, why not make my dream Luger in .45 ACP:




I love that funky trigger shape on the .45 Luger. I'm not sure if other Lugers had this trigger shape or if the .45 Luger alone had it. But it's definitely cool. If that .45 Luger had the cool-ass dished toggles, a buttstock attachment on the butt with that super slim Artillery Luger buttstock, several magazines in both stick and snail drum configurations, and of course a .22LR conversion kit, it would probably be my dream Luger.

A few years back, there was a company making best-quality reproduction Lugers in various calibers, including .45 ACP. This company was sort of like a Galazan's for Lugers, and made all sorts of configurations like .22LR Lugers, .380 compact Lugers, etc. The weapons were truly Best Quality. I'm not sure if that company still exists, as the .45 replicas were going for something like $5k if my memory serves. If that company were still around, it could probably build a .45 Luger for me in such a configuration. It would certainly be a nice weapon and it would, function and quality wise, be even better than the original Lugers. And it would have all of the quirky features that I like on the Lugers.

But then again it would not bear the name Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old August 24th, 2005, 07:01 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
You're thinking of of the Krausewerk .45 Luger. Handmade, beautiful handgun.

It was in the gun mags a few years ago.

http://www.krausewerk.com/return_45_luger.html
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old August 24th, 2005, 07:09 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,056
Oh man, that's sweet. I wonder what he charges for a .45 Luger nowadays.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old August 24th, 2005, 07:20 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
They were going for $10,000.

I was thinking it would be really cool to have it German proof-tested so it would have all the appropriate proof marks.
Reply With Quote
  #121  
Old August 24th, 2005, 07:21 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,056
This Krause guy would probably shoot me if I asked him for the dished toggles and stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old August 24th, 2005, 09:51 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
Well I would say I'm "into" the Luger thing, but to me the magic only exists with 1913 or thereabouts on the chamber. A repro just wouldn't do it for me at all. As much as it would be nice to have a pistol made to my specification I'm just willing to accept that I'm near one hundred years too late for that. But mostly when I hold the luger or any weapon that I admire of such a vintage it's the possible heritage of that particular weapon that I find stirring. For instance my Luger is a VoPo rework. It's about as uncollectable as it could be. It's condition is very good and it shoots extremely well but it bears the proof alterations and additions of a progressive history. Only period intact examples are valuable. Mine is more storied. It, of course, has the Imperial marks it received at DWM, but it has also been inventoried by the Third Reich as well as the East German police. To me, being able to trace that lineage is fantastic. It's like holding 20th century German history in your hand. A full century's worth. To the "collectors" it's near worthless. I'm also not particularly interested in knowing my pistol was made by an English speaker. I want to think of that skilled factory craftsman that meticulously finished the 115 or so parts of my pistol all in the heart of Germany. Just like my car being made in Stuttgart or even Solihull. I got no love for Detroit. I got no love for San Mateo.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old August 29th, 2005, 06:02 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,056
Got my books today. They're sweet.

The Oberndorf Original Sporting Rifles even contains detailed pics and specs for the Rigby .275, .350, and .416 models. Ooh la la!

I'm starting Sturmgewehr! tonight. It looks to be a superb read. There's even stuff in there about the FG42 and the early, roller-locked version of the StG45.

This is gun porn at its best.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old August 29th, 2005, 06:07 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
This is gun porn at its best.

LOL-I agree.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old August 29th, 2005, 06:36 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,056
I love this part of Sturmgewehr!:
Because it seemed impossible to invent an automatic rifle which would be suitable for infantry fighting, a German Lieutenant Colonel named Merkatz tested Mauser and Luger pistols fitted with shoulder stocks, longer barrels, and devices to permit selective fire. As recorded in a letter from the In2 to the IWG dated January, 1923, these trials had been unsuccessful because the light weight of these pistols meant that it was impossible to keep them directed at the target when firing on full-automatic.

The consequence was the development of the MP18/I, a heavier weapon which became the first submachine gun to be used in infantry action. Like the Luger and Mauser pistols, it fired the 9x19mm Parabellum cartridge, but due to the heavy weight of the bolt no special locking device was necessary. Compared to the G98 and the Mauser semiautomatic rifle the MP18/I was shorter, and due to the 32-round magazine magazine and the full-automatic function, much more effective in close combat. However, the G98 still had to be used for actions exceeding short ranges, because the effective range of the 9mm cartridge was limited to not more than 200 meters (656 feet).

That confirms my personal belief that the development of the machine pistol was more of a desperation move than anything else. That part is funny, but this part is even funnier:
Another disadvantage was the tactical deployment specified for the MP18/I. Like the MG, it was used as a crew-served weapon, each submachine gunner being accompanied by six soldiers carrying reserves of ammunition. It was planned to integrate one submachine gun team, consisting of one MP18/I gunner and six carriers (equipped with G98s) into each infantry company, but the end of the war in November 1918 prevented the realisation of this plan, which actually would have created additional problems with respect to the commanding of the infantry firefight, because there would have been an additional weapon to be directed beside the G98 and the MG.
That shit can't be true, can it? A crew-served machine pistol? Who thought up that one? LOFL. Now I've seen it all. So not only were the men who invented the machine pistol looney tunes for thinking the idea would work, they had hairbrained ideas for how to employ it as well. When it rains, it pours.

I'm a bit disappointed Stumgewehr! uses the term "submachine gun" instead of "machine pistol". I wish whoever translated this book stayed with "machine pistol". I believe J.T. Thompson coined the name "submachinegun" to describe his Thompson machine pistol, and I think Thompson was going for something catchier than "machine pistol".

I much prefer "machine pistol" and think it's more precise and technically accurate than "submachinegun" or "submachine gun". After all, "submachinegun" could even cover weapons like the modern squad automatic weapon, which fires a lesser round than the modern rifle round. "Submachinegun" is a nebulous term and I think "machine pistol" is much nicer.

But otherwise this book is tip top thus far.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Omega Speedmaster hanchung General 3503 September 12th, 2017 12:16 PM
First Hand Gun willroeder General 3 April 25th, 2007 06:47 PM
FN fiveseven USG ddavis General 8 April 2nd, 2007 06:36 PM
Weapons Choice ronward General 9 June 17th, 2004 07:34 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:57 AM.




Copyright 2001-2012 Expedition Exchange Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.