Damaged carbine

[Edward Tinker]

Here is a early model or as some people call it a 1902 carbine. This one has been fairly heavily buffed and re-blued and a new barrel has been put onto it, it’s in 30 Luger, which was the original caliber.
however it still has the forearm and the piece that is metal and goes on barrel as a helper and I’ve talked to GT and he’s going to try to put it altogether for me
I ordered a barrel however it’s in 9mm, so will have to use low power shots

——————
Question, should I have new barrel blued before I have installed or after?
—————-
I know Jerry warned me about the tab on the forearm, I’ll find that and warn GT
.
.

[Ron Wood]

ED,
I don't know of any tab on the forearm that Jerry has warned you about. There is a tab/lug on the bottom of the barrel that contacts the spring loaded accelerator plunger in the forearm...is that what you are talking about?
Also, is the new barrel you have ordered made for the long frame/receiver?

[Edward Tinker]

I do not know. It is a Martz barrel, am I making a mistake? Eugene says he’d make me one...

9mm Martz "luger carbine" barrel. It is new, unblued, complete with exc Martz copy of the original 3 position rear sight, and ramp front sight (which is loose and needs to be attached, once you determine the desired length). The barrel is currently 12&5/16" (31.3cm) and nicely crowned and chambered. So if you want it be the original carbine length of 12cm, you will have to cut if down a bit...

[Ron Wood]

Don't know Ed. Martz made long and short frame carbines, so you would have to check the treaded portion of the barrel. A long frame is 2mm longer than a short frame.

[Edward Tinker]

Originally Posted by Ron Wood

Don't know Ed. Martz made long and short frame carbines, so you would have to check the treaded portion of the barrel. A long frame is 2mm longer than a short frame.

I would actually guess that he made it for new model lugers...

Perhaps Lugerdoc knows?

[DonVoigt]

Ed,
If you want a .30 barrel, it can be done fairly easily. I have one or two that could be adapted.
No reason the 9mm would have to use reduced loads, DWM sold old model 9mm pistols with leaf springs and 4" barrels; a longer barrel is heavier and would be fine with normal loads, IMO; especially with the aux. spring in operation.

Ron makes a good point with regard to the receiver length. I would expect that most of Marz barrels were for short receivers.

Does the barrel that is left have the "tab" ? I don't see it.

How about a picture of the frame where the "arm" attaches?

If you are not going to reblue the entire "upper" when done, then , yes have the barrel blued before it is installed.

I guess by "restoring" you also mean to go back to the rear sight on the barrel?

[Ron Wood]

The laminated leaf spring on the 9mm guns had one leaf that was 50% thicker.
Ron

[Edward Tinker]

Here is close ups.

There is no hook, because that is some aftermarket barrel - I would like it to look as carbine original as possible.

rebluing the entire gun would likely make it look no worse than it is?


----------

NOTE - that the action was funny, not stiff, but almost no spring action, so, took out that spring and put in another I got off of ebay (turns out i have 4 other 1900 springs ) - working much better, but if I switch to 9mm, it would need a welded on leaf?

[lugerholsterrepair]

Ed, This pistol is a nightmare scenario..Should be fun for awhile though...That rear sight addition is kind of ugly.
The barrel. That's going to be a real trick to come up with one of those! You need a long frame thread, a rear sight (tricky right there!) and an underlug to interact with the spring assist. All in 9MM? Whew! That's a tall order.
Well, These kinds of projects can be fun. Good to have help.

Just curious why you would want to switch to 9MM?

[Edward Tinker]

Well Tom says he has a 9mm Martz, with rear sights already - I assume its a short frame barrel, I couldn't tell if I was looking at it.
GT says he could probably work it either way.
Eugene says he can make me an exact replica, I just don't want it to cost $2500 and I get it back in 2 years....

[Rick W.]

Measuring the barrel tenon is the way to tell long or short action requirements.

If one looks at early long framed navy's on Simpsons site, say early 1906's versus later 4" navies on same site.............looking at the frame curvature just in front of the takedown pivot might infer that yours is a long version. Purely conjecture from here, measuring is the absolute way; I am sure G.T. has a depth mic.

The 2mm difference is about a turn and a half on said barrel threading, so if one got a short barrel for a long frame; the shoulder would have to support said modification(set back).

I appreciate seeing the attachment of the forearm hanger, something for me to save off as a piece of knowledge. Also thanks for the general posting of your new acquisition.

[Dwight Gruber]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

Ed,
If you want a .30 barrel, it can be done fairly easily. I have one or two that could be adapted...

The problem is not making the barrel. The problem is re-creating the rear sight.

--Dwight

[Edward Tinker]

thanks all - will keep this thread open as we move along.

As an aside, I was trying to decide if i was going to strip the stock - and instead started slow and using dish soap and warm water, it looks remarkably better!

I have sent an email to Lugerdoc telling him I would take the 9mm barrel and sight and would go from there.

[Dwight Gruber]

Originally Posted by Rick W.

...looking at the frame curvature just in front of the takedown pivot might infer that yours is a long version.

The 2mm difference is about a turn and a half on said barrel threading...

I appreciate seeing the attachment of the forearm hanger...

The frame is assuredly a long version, it is an original Old Model carbine.

I would appreciate it if someone could authoritatively post the precise barrel threading difference between a short and long receiver.

The forearm hanger is originally only soldered to the front of the frame. The screw attachment on Ed's carbine is an owner modification.

--Dwight

[DonVoigt]

Originally Posted by Dwight Gruber

The problem is not making the barrel. The problem is re-creating the rear sight.

--Dwight

Dwight,
you have a knack for stating the obvious!
Like the Geico commercial says: "everybody knows that".

[Ron Wood]

Originally Posted by Dwight Gruber

...The forearm hanger is originally only soldered to the front of the frame. The screw attachment on Ed's carbine is an owner modification.

--Dwight

Well, yes and no. Production carbines had only a soldered connection of the forearm hanger to the frame, but originally on the very first prototype carbines the hanger actually employed a screw as well as solder to affix it to the frame.

[DonVoigt]

Originally Posted by Dwight Gruber

The frame is assuredly a long version, it is an original Old Model carbine.

I would appreciate it if someone could authoritatively post the precise barrel threading difference between a short and long receiver.

The forearm hanger is originally only soldered to the front of the frame. The screw attachment on Ed's carbine is an owner modification.

--Dwight

I'm not sure what you want to know "precisely" about the threading difference; but there is an long frame old model drawing in Goertz and Sturgess around page 1740 in the red books, and the short chamber drawing is readily available. The length of the barrel that extends into the receiver is 21 mm on the long frame and 19mm on the short frame.

[DonVoigt]

Originally Posted by Ron Wood

The laminated leaf spring on the 9mm guns had one leaf that was 50% thicker.
Ron

DWM and GL had lots of trouble deciding what thickness springs to use, on both the old and new models!!

See page 222 in the Red Goertz and Sturgess book for more info on the leaf spring "saga".

According to them, the final 9mm springs were 1.15mm and 0.85mm for the Siamesed main and secondary leaf springs.

[Ron Wood]

OK, my 50% was a ballpark number. If you consider the specified +/- 0.02mm tolerance on both measurements, the difference could be as small as 0.075mm [(0.83X1.5) - 1.17 = 0.075], slightly smaller than the diameter of a human hair. So, splitting hairs, I think 50% is close enough.

[DonVoigt]

Originally Posted by Ron Wood

OK, my 50% was a ballpark number. If you consider the specified +/- 0.02mm tolerance on both measurements, the difference could be as small as 0.075mm [(0.83X1.5) - 1.17 = 0.075], slightly smaller than the diameter of a human hair. So, splitting hairs, I think 50% is close enough.

I did not mean it was not about 50%!
It makes interesting reading for anyone who wants a little more info.