LugerForum Discussion Forums my profile | register | faq | search
upload photo | donate | calendar

Go Back   LugerForum Discussion Forums > General Discussion Forums > Repairs, Restoration & Refinishing

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 05-09-2019, 08:53 AM   #1
Scottrt
User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: So. Minnesota
Posts: 33
Thanks: 20
Thanked 20 Times in 9 Posts
Default Am I the first to notice this??

My latest acquisition, a 1917 DMW Navy, is fussy about how you pull the toggle to charge it, and I think I discovered why.

For reference, let say that straight rearward on the toggle is zero degrees and straight up is 90 degrees.

To cycle the Navy's toggle I must pull at an angle no greater than 30 degrees. Any higher angle and the toggle jambs up tight after moving the breech face about 1/2 inch. What happens is the upper doesn't move far enough rearward to allow the toggle heel to rotate without binding on the rear of the grip frame. The more rearward pull angle helps get the entire upper back far enough to avoid this as the toggle heel rotates.

I have two other 1917 DWMs'.... a PO8 and LP08, and they aren't fussy.

Comparison showed that the effective length of the toggle drop link is shorter by almost 1/8th ... due to the S bends being more compact. It looks to be the original as is everything else. It is not a numbered part, so can not be sure.

So is this typical behavior with some of these guns, and I am just learning about the idiosyncrasies of individual Lugers?... or does this sound unlike anything you have personally encountered?

Just picked it up yesterday and will test fire it Saturday. I am sure it will run fine because the slide runs all the way back before the toggle folds when cycling.

Thoughts?

Scott
Scottrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-09-2019, 09:24 AM   #2
mrerick
Super Moderator - Patron
LugerForum
Life Patron
 
mrerick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Eastern North Carolina, USA
Posts: 3,909
Thanks: 1,374
Thanked 3,110 Times in 1,510 Posts
Default

The toggle lock on a Luger or Maxim gun works because the action remains locked for a short period time while the cartridge remains in the chamber and the bullet exits the gun. It works like the human knee.

The joint is locked by a slight negative angle until it is pushed slightly into a positive angle that can then completely bend and collapse the action.

The original M1900 Lugers had a small metal point that retained the toggle joint in that position until it was pushed or pulled straight back slightly. This was found to be unnecessary and removed with the M1906 changes.

I don't have a M1917 Navy, so am not sure if its action is exactly like the M1906 / P.08 actions.

Is there excessive galling on the front face of the frame ears (whose job is to push up the toggle, breaking the breech lock condition)?

Note that there is a range of recoil springs used in Lugers, and different models need different springs. See the FAQ document for details.
__________________
Igitur si vis pacem, para bellum -
- Therefore if you want peace, prepare for war.
mrerick is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-09-2019, 09:55 AM   #3
Norme
Always A
Lifetime Forum
Patron
 
Norme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,417
Thanks: 226
Thanked 2,603 Times in 933 Posts
Default

Hi Scott,
What is the serial number with suffix (if present) of your 1917 Navy? Also, we would love to see photos.
Norm
Norme is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-09-2019, 11:03 AM   #4
Scottrt
User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: So. Minnesota
Posts: 33
Thanks: 20
Thanked 20 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Serial number is 275, no suffix. It was refinished at some point, but very well done, and priced accordingly lower.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	2376_1.jpg
Views:	216
Size:	40.1 KB
ID:	76746  

Click image for larger version

Name:	2376_2.jpg
Views:	212
Size:	50.8 KB
ID:	76747  

Click image for larger version

Name:	2376_3.jpg
Views:	229
Size:	19.4 KB
ID:	76748  

Click image for larger version

Name:	2376_5.jpg
Views:	214
Size:	58.2 KB
ID:	76749  

Click image for larger version

Name:	2376_6.jpg
Views:	214
Size:	64.6 KB
ID:	76750  


Last edited by Scottrt; 05-09-2019 at 11:33 AM. Reason: add text
Scottrt is offline   Reply With Quote
The following 8 members says Thank You to Scottrt for your post:
Unread 05-09-2019, 11:15 AM   #5
Norme
Always A
Lifetime Forum
Patron
 
Norme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,417
Thanks: 226
Thanked 2,603 Times in 933 Posts
Default

Hi Scott,
Thanks for the photos. As a new member of the Navy Luger owner's club you are eligible to receive the Navy List, the listing of all known Navy Lugers world wide. If you send me a PM with your email address I can send you the link,
Regards, Norm
Norme is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-09-2019, 11:08 PM   #6
Mark1
User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 72
Thanks: 332
Thanked 74 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Hi Scott, If you are referring to the coupling link (part 009 on the diagram here on the forum) being shorter than on your other 1917 model Lugers. Then I don't think this is correct, all "new model" coupling links should be identical. I can't find a reference but seem to remember that "old model" coupling links are a different length and perhaps this is part of the problem.
Hopefully Tom H. (Lugerdoc) will be along shortly and can confirm that I have this right.
Mark
Mark1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-09-2019, 11:45 PM   #7
Scottrt
User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: So. Minnesota
Posts: 33
Thanks: 20
Thanked 20 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Yeah, I assume they should be the same. The whole point of my post, which I guess I totally failed at making, is that I have a gun that, for some reason, has a slightly shorter (due to its bends) coupling link, and the net effect of that is you have to pull rearwards much harder to charge it.'

I suspected I may be the first guy to run into this phenomenon and actually suss it out.

Scott T.

Last edited by Scottrt; 05-10-2019 at 12:12 AM. Reason: clarify
Scottrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2019, 09:03 AM   #8
Norme
Always A
Lifetime Forum
Patron
 
Norme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,417
Thanks: 226
Thanked 2,603 Times in 933 Posts
Default

Hi Scott,
Here is a photo of the "S" link on a 1917 Navy #898", close in serial number to yours. Can you discern a difference?
Norm
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	L32.jpg
Views:	208
Size:	71.2 KB
ID:	76754  

Norme is offline   Reply With Quote
The following member says Thank You to Norme for your post:
Unread 05-10-2019, 09:27 AM   #9
Scottrt
User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: So. Minnesota
Posts: 33
Thanks: 20
Thanked 20 Times in 9 Posts
Default

As I mentioned, i own two other 1917's that I used for comparison. They all look the same, but my Navy toggle is about 3 millimeters shorter as measured with a digital caliper.

The fussy charging travels with the upper regardless of what lower it's on. That's what led me to start measuring things and found the togglelinc had slightly sharper bends and overall reduced reach.
Scottrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-10-2019, 12:57 PM   #10
Lugerdoc
Patron
LugerForum
Patron
 
Lugerdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: POB 398 St.Charles,MO. 63302
Posts: 5,089
Thanks: 6
Thanked 736 Times in 483 Posts
Default

The M1900 recoil link is indeed shorter than the standard P08. The one show here is the correct PO8 type, but due to use has become malformed. TH
__________________
Tom Heller POB 398 ST.Charles, MO. 63302
Tel 636-447-3006 [email protected]
Lugerdoc is offline   Reply With Quote
The following member says Thank You to Lugerdoc for your post:
Unread 05-11-2019, 07:20 PM   #11
Scottrt
User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: So. Minnesota
Posts: 33
Thanks: 20
Thanked 20 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Had the Navy at the indoor range today. Ran 8 magazines of S&B 115 gr FMJ perfectly. Shot 1.25 inch groups at 25 ft. Shot 2 mags with a shoulder stock attached... worked great...real nail driver, but it kicks hard enough for that narrow board to dig in uncomfortably.
Gun seems to charge reasonably, too. What a bummer that the funnest to shoot Luger that I own is also the one I least want to put at risk.

Anyway, no longer concerned about the connector link as the gun cycled beautifully without imprinting the rear toggle heel into the rear of the frame.

Scott
Scottrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-11-2019, 07:23 PM   #12
Ron Wood
Moderator
2010 LugerForum
Patron
 
Ron Wood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso
Posts: 7,022
Thanks: 1,090
Thanked 5,179 Times in 1,703 Posts
Default

Glad it functions properly...if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Ron
__________________
If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction
Ron Wood is offline   Reply With Quote
The following 3 members says Thank You to Ron Wood for your post:
Unread 05-11-2019, 10:15 PM   #13
DonVoigt
User
 
DonVoigt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: near Charlotte NC
Posts: 4,681
Thanks: 1,442
Thanked 4,350 Times in 2,040 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottrt View Post
My latest acquisition, a 1917 DMW Navy, is fussy about how you pull the toggle to charge it, and I think I discovered why.

For reference, let say that straight rearward on the toggle is zero degrees and straight up is 90 degrees.

To cycle the Navy's toggle I must pull at an angle no greater than 30 degrees. Any higher angle and the toggle jambs up tight after moving the breech face about 1/2 inch. What happens is the upper doesn't move far enough rearward to allow the toggle heel to rotate without binding on the rear of the grip frame. The more rearward pull angle helps get the entire upper back far enough to avoid this as the toggle heel rotates.

I have two other 1917 DWMs'.... a PO8 and LP08, and they aren't fussy.

Comparison showed that the effective length of the toggle drop link is shorter by almost 1/8th ... due to the S bends being more compact. It looks to be the original as is everything else. It is not a numbered part, so can not be sure.

So is this typical behavior with some of these guns, and I am just learning about the idiosyncrasies of individual Lugers?... or does this sound unlike anything you have personally encountered?

Just picked it up yesterday and will test fire it Saturday. I am sure it will run fine because the slide runs all the way back before the toggle folds when cycling.

Thoughts?

Scott
To answer your question,
NO it is not normal. If you have not lube it well with oil.
Since you have now fired it, how does it work?
As Tom pointed out, your S link may be bent and causing some strange binding.
__________________
03man(Don Voigt); Luger student and collector.
Looking for DWM side plate: 69 ; Dreyse 1907 pistol K.S. Gendarmerie
DonVoigt is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-12-2019, 02:16 AM   #14
Scottrt
User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: So. Minnesota
Posts: 33
Thanks: 20
Thanked 20 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonVoigt View Post
As Tom pointed out, your S link may be bent and causing some strange binding.
Where does he say that, Don, exactly ?
Scottrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-12-2019, 11:40 AM   #15
DonVoigt
User
 
DonVoigt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: near Charlotte NC
Posts: 4,681
Thanks: 1,442
Thanked 4,350 Times in 2,040 Posts
Default

In Post #10 above:
"The one show here is the correct PO8 type, but due to use has become malformed"

Maybe you didn't realize that "malformed" = bent.
__________________
03man(Don Voigt); Luger student and collector.
Looking for DWM side plate: 69 ; Dreyse 1907 pistol K.S. Gendarmerie
DonVoigt is offline   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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1998 - 2024, Lugerforum.com