Borchardt-Luger Controversy

[Kyrie]

Hi Folks!

I came across an interesting letter, printed in the July 1901 issue of the â??American Machinistâ?� magazine, written by Carl Burchardt of the Technical and Patent Bureau, Berlin.

In this letter Herr Burchardt takes issue with an article by Grahame Powell printed in the â??American Machinistâ?� concerning the US Test Trials of the â??Lugerâ?� pistol. Specifically, Herr Burchardt takes Mr. Powell to task for mistakenly referring to the pistol as the â??Lugerâ?�, rather than more properly the â??Borchardt-Lugerâ?�, and for failing to credit Hugo Borchardt as the inventor of the pistol.

This letter is an interesting (to me, anyway) glimpse into the chicanery that eventually resulted in Hugo Borchardt loosing control over his own invention. Here is a scan of the letter.

Warm regards,

Kyrie

[Greg]

Kyrie,

Thanks for sharing such an interesting piece of history. Just shows that there were controversies surrounding the Luger (excuse me, the Borchardt-Luger) even in the early days.

Greg

[Big Norm]

A good article. But this is somethng that has confused me for a long while. From the acceptance by the German navy and army on, the gun has been known in Europe as the Parabellum. What was the name of the gun before 1904? Was the name 'Luger' patented in Europe? If so, then how could the name also be patented in America by a separate company in relation to the same gun? I have seen non-Luger guns with the name Luger molded on them. How do these fit in? Borchardt may have been the inventor but who actually owned the patent, Loewe, Borchardt, or DWM. It seems that Borchardt was an inventor, employee, owner of Loewe. But Loewe might be the owner of the patent as well as the commercial use of the name Borchardt.
Big Norm

[Herb]

Big Norm, If memory serves me correctly, Georg Luger, while working for Loewe on the Borchardt, came up with the design for the 'Luger' which was following the absorbtion of Loewe by DWM. There is documentation that it was named the Luger here in the US in the very early 1900's probably by Hans Tauscher, the importer at that time. If you need some more difinitive info I can do some research and get back to you.

[Big Norm]

Herb,
I am going to use a little logic here so admit that I could be wrong. (Did I actually say that!)
This is a period of rapid developement of the pistol and ammo. Ideas were flowing like water. New companies were being formed daily. The idea of naming guns my manufacture and model number had not yet been conceived.Companies like Loewe had the Loewe/Borchardt/rifle and the Loewe/Borchardt/pistol.Later they just shortened it to the Borchardt/rifle or Borchardt/pistol. Later, Georg Luger came along and so the transition guns got to be known as the Borchardt/Luger.For some reason, Borchardt got mad and walked off and essentially got lost.If he would have held the patent rights, he could have claimed money from either Loewe or DWM. But he probably didn't. That suggests that the company owned the patent rights. When DWM acquired Loewe they also acquired the patent rights.Since Borchardt burned his bridges behind him when he left the company, DWM just said "OK" lets drop the name Borchardt from the gun and just call it a Model Luger, or just Luger.
But then we get into Stoeger patenting the name "LUGER" in America. At that time, Hermann Boker & Co was the sales agent for Loewe amd DWM. Stoger was a large customer not to be offended. International patent laws may not have around at that time. At least not very strong. So Stoeger saw the window of opportunity and jumped on it by patenting the name in America. The non-luger Luger that I saw with the Luger name molded on it may have been in a plan by Stoeger to capitalize on the Luger name by producing their own guns in America under that name. Just guess work on my part. It could have been something else devised by DWM.
The article displayed earlier in this topic was written by Carl Borchardt about Hugo Borchardt. I wonder if the two were related. If so, then a bit of family pride or egotism may be involved.
But this is all just speculation on my part for the sake of discussion only. I own a Mauser Model 1934. So the concept of giving model codes to guns was not a common thing even in 1934 by companies as large as Mauser.
Big Norm

[Kyrie]

[quote]Originally posted by Big Norm:
<strong>What was the name of the gun before 1904? Was the name 'Luger' patented in Europe? If so, then how could the name also be patented in America by a separate company in relation to the same gun?
Big Norm</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hi Big Norm!

What we call the â??Lugerâ?� was known commercially as the â??Pistole Parabellumâ?� in Europe. With its adoption by the Imperial German Army in 1908 it also became known by the nomenclature under which the German Army adopted it; the â??Pistole 08â?� or â??P.08â?�.

Devices and processes are patented, names are not. Rather a name may be registered as a trademark, and this is what happened with Stoeger and the name â??Lugerâ?�. DWM didnâ??t care that Stoeger wanted to market the pistol as the â??Lugerâ?� - DWM already had their registered trademark for the pistol (Pistole Parabellum).

Hope this helps!

Warm regards,

Kyrie

[Kyrie]

[quote]Originally posted by Herb:
[QB]Big Norm, If memory serves me correctly, Georg Luger, while working for Loewe on the Borchardt, came up with the design for the 'Luger' which was following the absorbtion of Loewe by DWM. QB]<hr></blockquote>

Hi Herb!

The Borchardt pistol design was owned by Hugo Borchardt, in the form of various patents. Loewe, and later DWM, had the rights to market the pistol but did not own the design.

DWM brought George Luger in because the Borchardt pistols simply wasnâ??t selling as it existed and changes were needed to make it more marketable. The reason DWM involved Luger was Borchardt disagreed that the pistol needed changes and refused to cooperate in any changes to his design.

The sales problems were due to the size and weight of the Borchardt. DWM was marketing to the biggest of customers - the worldâ??s armies. At this time (circa 1900) self-loading pistols were the coming thing and many national armies (including that of the Germany) were thinking of transitioning from revolvers to self-loading pistols. This was an absolutely huge market; several times the size of all commercial markets combined. The problem with the Borchardt pistol is no one wanted a small rifle as a sidearm :-)

So enter Georg Luger.

Georg Luger made two changes in the Borchardt design; he changed the recoil spring and reduced the length of the cartridge. The recoil spring change was from a wound leaf spring to a straight leaf spring, moved from an overhang at the rear of the pistol to the grip frame. And that about sums up Georg Lugerâ??s contribution. He did not invent or design a new pistol - he just made minor (in the mechanical sense) changes to reduce the size and weight of the pistol.

Once this was done the pistol became potentially very marketable, and potentially hugely profitable. It was at this point that Hugo Borchardt was slowly squeezed out. The improved pistol was first offered as â??an Improved Borchardtâ?�, then as the â??Borchardt-Lugerâ?�, and finally as the â??Pistole Parabellumâ?�. This essentially removed Hugo Borchardt as an interested party, and saved DWM big mark royalties that should have gone to Borchardt as the pistolâ??s inventor.

Hope this helps!

Warm regards,

Kyrie

[Kyrie]

[quote]Originally posted by Big Norm:
<strong>
The article displayed earlier in this topic was written by Carl Borchardt about Hugo Borchardt. I wonder if the two were related. If so, then a bit of family pride or egotism may be involved.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hi Big Norm!

Sorry - I missed this in my earlier reply.

The letter was from Carl Burchardt (note the â??uâ?? rather than an â??oâ??) of the Patent Bureau in Berlin. No relation to Hugo Borchardt.

Hope this helps!

Warm regards,

Kyrie

[Jerry Harris]

Kyrie,
Didn't Luger make one other mechanically significant modification (in the later transition models) by eliminating the rear roller and cam in favor of allowing the cocking knobs to strike the frame ramps and start the toggle-folding action? This was another giant step in shortening and simplifying the action. I've always found it interesting and a bit ironic that the ramps were already present in the Borchardt, just not utilized! Then there's the matter of the angled grip frame with its huge gain in ergonomics and aesthetics, at the cost of trickier feeding from a slanted cartridge stack.

I think the name Borchardt-Luger was fair enough, considering the functional excellence of Borchardt's original design, balanced against the enormous practical and economic value of Luger's rework.

[Big Norm]

Thanks Kyrie. I hope that others enjoyed your post as much as I did. I tried to avoid the term 'parabellum' because I was not sure that it was used before the 1904 navy. I didn't know if the Swiss used the same term in their earlier adoption of the Luger. Then after reading "The Luger Book" by Walter I thought that maybe, just maybe, there may have been some hanky panky between Loewe and DWM to eliminate or bypass Borchardt. And that may have also been a contributary factor in getting Borchardt mad enough to walk away.
I have showed my 1893 DWM to a number of people now and we all agree that the gun in real life is not as heavy as one would think from looking at pictures. It is a bit awkward in comparision to a P08 but not that bad either. Personally, I think that it is so ugly that it is beautiful. Certainly it seems lighter and better balanced than a C96. But the C96 had other things going in its favor.
But thanks again for your post
Big Norm

[Lugerdoc]

Stoeger acquired the "Luger" trademark in the 1920s at auction of the assets of Hans Tauscher Co, DWM's US representative and appearantly a spy of the Kaiser. These assets were seized during WW1 by the US government. If any trademark protection is still valid under US law, Stoeger can call anything it markets, a "Luger".

[Brandon]

Hi Tom!
Just wanted to say it was a great pleasure to have met you in person! I had the time of my life at that show!

Kindest Regards Always!
Brandon

[Doubs]

Just a couple of comments; IIRC, DWM was owned by Loewe who purchased a munitions factory and possibly another company which, combined, all became DWM. DWM eventually became controlling interest owners of Mauser through bank debt purchases... again, from memory. One of Jan Still's books shows the transition from Loewe to Mauser, a lengthy and complicated affair.

IMO, the changes Georg Luger made to the Borchardt pistol were more than just "minor". The changes transformed an ugly duckling into a beautiful swan with the beauty being far more than skin deep. This is only my opinion and I have great respect for Kyrie's opinion. On this point, however, I respectfully disagree.

[Kyrie]

[quote]Originally posted by Doubs:
<strong>
This is only my opinion and I have great respect for Kyrie's opinion. On this point, however, I respectfully disagree.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hi Doubs!

Well said, my friend. When people reach the point they cannot agree to respectfully disagree they have lost something more precious than a discussion ;-(

Warm regards,

Kyrie

[Kyrie]

[quote]Originally posted by Big Norm:
<strong>Thanks Kyrie. I hope that others enjoyed your post as much as I did
snip
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hi Big Norm!

Thank you, sir, for your very kind words!

I suspect you are aware that the C96 is one of my passions. And it too is one of those pistols that is so ugly itâ??s down right beautiful.

As an aside, and on the subject of pistol balance, I used a C96 to teach a fellow how to â??point shoot.â?� It took him about thirty seconds to pick up on the technique. He quickly became bored performing center-of-mass shots and went to making head shots (all this without bother to use the sights). He went through about five hundred rounds of ammo while I watched, and I donâ??t recall he ever missed. The problem with the C96 is not that it is poorly balanced, but rather it has type of balance to which we are unaccustomed. Once used to the way a C96 handles, it points as well as any firearm - including the Luger.

And no, I donâ??t expect this post to make any converts as to the way a C96 handles. But give me an afternoon at the range and I may change minds :-)

Warm regards,

Kyrie

[Kyrie]

Hi Jerry!

The key to Luger function is raising the toggle train pivot above the centerline of the toggle train. If you will look at both the Borchardt and the Parabellum I think you will find they both work on this same principle, and George Luger made no fundamental changes here.

As an aside, getting the Parabellum design to work as a blow back firearm was a very simple thing. All it took was preventing the toggle train pivot from going to or below the centerline of the toggle train. If you will take a look at the ERMA â??Lugersâ?? (like the one pictured in the Ownersâ?? Corner, under Kyrie) you will be able to see this design modification.

The raking of the grip frame back was an unintended consequence of changing the shape and location of the main (recoil) spring. In short, the grip frame had to be slanted back to get adequate performance from the new spring/location. This was actually quite a headache for George Luger, and he was uncertain that it would really work - which was the origin of the toggle lock. The absence of any spring pressure preventing the toggle from bouncing back open was a real concern! In the event, this turned out to be an unnecessary worry. But we can see the level of concern by the complicated toggle lock and all the problems it caused by itself.

Iâ??ve always found it interesting that the arguably single most attractive feature of the Pistole Parabellum, the nice â??feelâ?? produced by the raked back grip frame, was an unintended consequence of a change to the recoil spring.

Warm regards,

Kyrie

[Heinz]

Kyrie, although I always enjoy your posts I would like to hear your references on the Luger grip angle and the Luger toggle placement. I worked for awhile as a draftsman and a mechanical engineer. I do not see anything about the recoil spring that dictates the precise grip angle of the Luger. Although the 1911 Colt and other Browning style designs use both a recoil spring parrallel to the barrel and hammer springs in the grip frame the angles chosen for their grips are a matter of design and not dictated by the function of the hammer spring. I think the Luger recoil lever could be adjusted for a range of grip angles. It would seem to me that it is the angle selected for the recoil lever that dictates the grip angle.

Also it seems to me that the toggle does have some spring tension from the recoil spring in the closed position but that spring tension tends to (very lightly) keep the toggle closed. The action of the toggle when it strikes the breech is a simple cam action. I cannot understand why there would be any question as to if it would work.

Again, I wonder if your reference may have been imaginative, or if this is a quote from one of the designers??

Thanks, Heinz

[Jerry Harris]

Kyrie,
This reminds me of one of those chess matches where the master strolls around making sequential moves in several simultaneous games. In my game, you wrote

"The key to Luger function is raising the toggle train pivot above the centerline of the toggle train. If you will look at both the Borchardt and the Parabellum I think you will find they both work on this same principle, and George Luger made no fundamental changes here."

I have looked at both many times, and am (and was) well aware that they each employ the depressed-center toggle lock, as did Maxim in the "Devil's Paintbrush" that inspired Borchardt.

Now, if you will look again at a cross-section of the Borchardt (for example in John Walter's "Luger Story," 2001 edition,p.28) it will be evident that the toggle-operating lever, roller and curved cam occupy a major portion of the rearward-bulging spring housing which Luger was striving to eliminate. So I think it is fair and reasonable to say that his idea for completely eliminating these parts and using the existing frame ramps to trip the toggle was a nontrivial, in fact vital, step in transforming the capable Borchardt into the inspired Parabellum, the timeless design that has attracted more than 400 appreciative members to this forum.

From what we might call the Physics teacher's point of view, it is true that the Parabellum differs only trivially from the Borchardt, and the Borchardt differs only trivially from the Maxim machine gun (after all, a toggle is a toggle). But from the firearms engineering point of view, Luger did a superb job of turning a promising curiosity into a commercial and artistic masterpiece. So I must join Doubs in respectfully disagreeing with you on what design issues were truly significant.

I also join the other members in thanking you for a wonderful historical post and stimulating follow-up comments.

[wterrell]

If the toggle were stationary in a horizontal position and its only movement was vertical, the rebound of the toggle would be a major problem in design. However the motion is also in a horizontal direction, travelling in the reverse order of breakover whenever closing. There is no 'bounce'. Borchardt knew this and Luger knew this. The concern came from the prospective contract/purchase clients who were not engineers.

[Kyrie]

Hi Heinz!

[quote]Originally posted by Heinz:
<strong>
Kyrie, although I always enjoy your posts I would like to hear your references on the Luger grip angle and the Luger toggle placement.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you for your kind words :-)

If you will consult the more common references (John Walterâ??s â??The Luger Storyâ?? comes to mind) I think you will find a common theme that the movement of the mainspring to the rear of the frame â??permittedâ?? Georg Luger to change the frame grip angle. My comment that the movement of the mainspring to the rear of the frame required, rather than permitted, a steeply angled grip frame is based on a published interview with Georg Luger in a technical journal dating, if memory serves, to about 1905. Therein the interviewer managed to get Luger to speak about the technical challenges he faced and overcame in the design of the Parabellum.
As an aside, Luger remarked that one of the most difficult of the early problems was finding a balance between the strengths of the main and striker springs. As you know the effect of the main spring on the toggle train is limited and does not obtain significantly over the full range of toggle train movement. The last fraction of an inch of forward travel of the toggle assembly to battery is performed purely under inertia - there was little or no remaining tension in the main spring. This last bit of toggle train travel was also the movement necessary to compress the striker spring, and the striker spring compression robbed the toggle train of momentum, sometime preventing the toggle train from going into battery. This balancing act of relative strengths of the two springs had not been successfully completed during the 1900 US Army Field Trials, and there a number of complaints that either the toggle train failed to return to battery or the striker spring was insufficiently strong to provide reliable ignition. As we know from history, this problem in spring balance appears to have been solved by about 1904, and was certainly solved in time for the 1908 Imperial Army contract.

Regarding providing references, Iâ??d normally be happy to supply a bibliography. But as you are (frankly offensively) concerned that my references â??may have been imaginativeâ??, I will leave the literature search to you so you can be assured my imagination plays no part in what you find.

[quote]Originally posted by Heinz:
<strong>
(snippage)
I think the Luger recoil lever could be adjusted for a range of grip angles. It would seem to me that it is the angle selected for the recoil lever that dictates the grip angle.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes sir, your latter comment is a paraphrase of what I wrote :-)

[quote]Originally posted by Heinz:
<strong>
Also it seems to me that the toggle does have some spring tension from the recoil spring in the closed position but that spring tension tends to (very lightly) keep the toggle closed.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Respectfully, no sir. What keeps the toggle closed is the rigidity of the toggle train with the toggle train pivot point below the centerline of the toggle train, The main spring plays no direct part in keeping the toggle closed.
The main spring does inhibit the rearward movement of the entire barrel/barrel extension, and does help delay, somewhat, the barrel/barrel extension movement to the point contact between the frame and the toggle knobs brings the toggle pivot point above the centerline of the toggle train. While I suppose one could regard this distant relationship between the main spring and breaking the rigidity keeping the toggle closed, this would not be a position I could support.

[quote]Originally posted by Heinz:
<strong>
The action of the toggle when it strikes the breech is a simple cam action. I cannot understand why there would be any question as to if it would work.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
(snippage)
Iâ??m sorry, but youâ??ll have to help me out here. The breechblock on the forward end of the toggle train doesnâ??t strike the breech of the barrel. Iâ??m unclear on just what you mean here - can you help me understand?

Warm regards,

Kyrie