Which was the better gun, Luger or C96?

Which was the better gun Luger or C96?

  • Luger

    Votes: 60 64.5%

  • C96

    Votes: 24 25.8%

  • Not sure?

    Votes: 9 9.7%
  • Total voters
    93
Colin

Colin

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
51   0   0
Location
Vancouver
So I was cleaning my New Luger last night and marveling at all of the workmanship and machining required to make it work. It’s fascinating looking at this pistol and at my Broomhandle, how they approached the problems and likely how German Culture influenced the design process. Both the Luger and Broomhandle are complex guns. They were both around at roughly the same time. So I thought it would be good to ask which was the better gun. I think the Luger made a better sidearm to be carried a lot and used a bit. The Broomhandle especially in it’s later version in 9mm with detachable mags likely was the better “assault pistol” to be used in attacks on trenches and such. So what is your opinion and why?

I left out comparisons with other guns such as the 1911, although if you want to talk about guns related to either the C96 or Luger that's fine.
 
I have both as well. I like the feel and aesthetics of the Luger, but the toggle action is the weak point. In that respect, I feel the 96 will be the more reliable.
 
Which is funny as i'd go the other way for exactly the same reason :D The P-08 came out 12 years after the mauser, and it was a time of rapid change. The ergonomics of the C-96 where pretty poor, and it was more effective as a carbine then a holster gun, unless you where mounted. The luger took what it started and made an effective personal sidearm. Accurate, reliable and naturally pointing. The mauser was good for the first 2....

They're both great fun to shoot. If i had to pick one and depend on it, luger.
 
It's the normal way , C&L, ask two gun owner's their opinion, you'll get 3 answers!:D

It also seems to work with farmers and truck drivers.
 
I like the Luger over the C-96 as it's a classic sidearm vs a machinegun-type pistol. However both are excellent examples of fine German workmanship in small arms for their time.
 
Luger

Never had a hankerin' to own either but if I did it would be a nice Luger...

2007-10-27_091302_1aCoffee.gif

NAA.
 
I doubt there's any reconciling this issue. It's sort of apples and oranges, and each has its supporters. At the start, the cartridge each fired had a lightweight bullet, but the C96 fired it at a very high velocity. For years the C96 was the gun used to proof "bulletproof" vests. But it's big and awkward. There's no way the gun can be used outside the military and a large and cumbersome holster. The Luger is far easier to carry and handle. When the Luger was changed to fire the 9mm round, it became a more robust sidearm. Both were engineering marvels, but very expensive to manufacture. The Luger was sensitive to ammunition types, and it was sensitive to dirt, but aggressive marketing carried it around the world. The C96 was the first really successful autoloader. The P-38 was superior to both as a sidearm.
 
Funny, every one always talks about luger tight tolerances and how the smallest bit of dirt will jam em. And ammo issues. Feed them ANY hardball and they will run without a hiccup, or any round nose lead. The action was built to function with round nose 115 g and thats where its happy and dead stone reliable. The mag lips are easy to damage, adn that is where is suspect the real culprit lies. I had someone who will remain nameless :kickInTheNuts:, accidently dump a mitfull of fine sand from a loading bag into my open luger that he was shooting and then close and run a mag thru it before he told me (double:kickInTheNuts:) Ran fine. He ran as well when he saw the look on my face.

The luger was originally in 30 mauser, the same caliber the 96 was. Actually even more reliable, the bottle neck feeds sweet.
 
MTF said:
I doubt there's any reconciling this issue. It's sort of apples and oranges, and each has its supporters. At the start, the cartridge each fired had a lightweight bullet, but the C96 fired it at a very high velocity. For years the C96 was the gun used to proof "bulletproof" vests. But it's big and awkward. There's no way the gun can be used outside the military and a large and cumbersome holster. The Luger is far easier to carry and handle. When the Luger was changed to fire the 9mm round, it became a more robust sidearm. Both were engineering marvels, but very expensive to manufacture. The Luger was sensitive to ammunition types, and it was sensitive to dirt, but aggressive marketing carried it around the world. The C96 was the first really successful autoloader. The P-38 was superior to both as a sidearm.
Click to expand...

I have to agree that the P-38 was the better of the two,with all three put
together with great engineering with the only screws being those that held

the grips on . People say the luger had only two screws,the P-38 only one! And the P-38 had fewer parts!

All three great enginering examples of thier time!

Bob
 
Colin, I'm curious about the barrel and stock on your Luger. Is the gun an Artillery with a custom stock? Is the stock permanent?

To Cocked and Locked: you're quite right that the original calibers of the Luger and the C96 were both .30, but the cartridges were very different. The C96 .30 was much more penetrative than the Luger .30. Also, 9mm Lugers are quite famous for being fussy about bullet shape (there isn't much choice in .30 Luger) and ammunition in general. The original 9mm bullet shape was a truncated cone, not very common now. And you're absolutely right about the bottle-shaped .30 feeding well, actually much better than the 9mm. I'm glad your Luger runs fine with sand in it, but most don't.

They're both really neat designs, from the days when machinists weren't paid hardly anything and could be made to produce beautiful work for not much money. By the mid-1930s, both designs were unprofitable to produce. Too bad. Everything changes.
 
Colin said:
Here is a picture of my 2, nothing special, except they're mine!
Click to expand...

Curious ... where did you get the shoulder stock/holster? I had a C96 (my brother has it now) and was always looking for a stock.

Baby brother also has my artillery Luger with matching numbered stock. I fired the Luger a few times without worry but was always afraid to shoot the Mauser. That's why I voted for the Luger in the poll.
 
MTF said:
To Cocked and Locked: you're quite right that the original calibers of the Luger and the C96 were both .30, but the cartridges were very different. The C96 .30 was much more penetrative than the Luger .30. Also, 9mm Lugers are quite famous for being fussy about bullet shape (there isn't much choice in .30 Luger) and ammunition in general. The original 9mm bullet shape was a truncated cone, not very common now. And you're absolutely right about the bottle-shaped .30 feeding well, actually much better than the 9mm. I'm glad your Luger runs fine with sand in it, but most don't.

They're both really neat designs, from the days when machinists weren't paid hardly anything and could be made to produce beautiful work for not much money. By the mid-1930s, both designs were unprofitable to produce. Too bad. Everything changes.
Click to expand...

Really?! well blow me down?! I thought they both used .30 mauser, and that the bottle neck was simply removed to up the size to 9mm. Are you sure? I know the 96 round was no where as hot as the 7.62 X 25. As for my luger running with sand in it, i can assure you that I wasn't happy about it when i found out.

I hear you on the design comment. I'm a tool and die maker myself and i take have been know to dissassemble my luger and sit and look at the pieces and imagine the set ups required in the time before CNC. They where craftsman in those days!
 
Howdy

Well I'm going to jump into this one. I've owned broomhandles, I currently own Lugers, both German and Swiss, and a P38 as well.

I thought a Broomhandle was the coolest thing on the planet, then I got one, and soon got rid of it. Not very accurate, does not point naturaly, you can't top up the mag easily, not the fastest thing to unload, and if the mag spring breaks(happened often), it becomes a club. And if that bolt stop breaks, you'll be so screwed, I just hope they get you a great plastic surgeon.

Lugers are much more handy as a sidearm, easy mag change, points naturaly if you are in a situation that you can't take the time to aim down the sights. And much more accurate. It's not dirt so much that screws up a Luger, it's bad mag springs. More so in a 9mm chambered pistol. .30 Luger chambered guns still feed great with a weaker mag spring.

I've cronied lots of factory ammunition in both .30 Mauser and .30 Luger and I've seen faster velocities with some types of .30 Luger ammo vs some .30 Mauser loads.

As far as the P38, it replaced the Luger because it was faster(cheaper) to make. I've yet to see a P38 outshoot a Luger, most P38s I've seen have either blown their extractor or their top plate. And I've seen several with cracked slides. That's why most P1's have a fat slide.
 
Cocked and Locked, the 7.63 Mauser cartridge and the 7.62 Tokarev cartridge are essentially the same. I have a friend who shoots them interchangeably. But the 7.65 Parabellum cartridge just isn't the same at all. Looks like the same, but really isn't. Some Luger rounds were made for submachineguns and some for the Luger carbine. These rounds are higher energy rounds than the pistol cartridge, but they all shoot a bullet that's pretty lightweight and is about .30 caliber. You're right about the 9mm round being developed by "blowing out" the .30 Luger round. It's too bad they got away from the bottle-necked round. It definitely feeds better. Maybe they should have made a bottle-necked 9mm round. That would have been a real screamer.
 
MTF said:
Cocked and Locked, the 7.63 Mauser cartridge and the 7.62 Tokarev cartridge are essentially the same. I have a friend who shoots them interchangeably. But the 7.65 Parabellum cartridge just isn't the same at all. Looks like the same, but really isn't. Some Luger rounds were made for submachineguns and some for the Luger carbine. These rounds are higher energy rounds than the pistol cartridge, but they all shoot a bullet that's pretty lightweight and is about .30 caliber. You're right about the 9mm round being developed by "blowing out" the .30 Luger round. It's too bad they got away from the bottle-necked round. It definitely feeds better. Maybe they should have made a bottle-necked 9mm round. That would have been a real screamer.
Click to expand...

MTF, the Mauser and the Tokerov round chamber interchangable but are loaded to different pressures, the Tok being the higher of the two. If you feed Tok rounds to a 96 sooner or later you will shear off the bolt stop and eat the bolt.

I'll grab some reference data from the library and double check pressure/load stats and post it. (or find out i'm wrong and come back and hold up my hand to admit the error of my ways )
 
F#$K a duck! (Cocked&Locked raises his hand and admits the error of his ways)

Turns out i was wrong , and not just wrong, wrong two ways.

There are 3 cartridges in question. I believed (quite wrongly it turns out) that the 30 luger and 30 mauser where the same cartridge. They are not, though it appears you can chamber the 30 luger in a mauser or tokerov, but the other two (ie the mauser and tok) are longer and won't feed into a luger.

The luger round IS lower pressure, a 93gn bullet at 1220fps

the tok is a 87 gn at 1390, and the mauser a 86 gn at 1410.

MTN, you where right and i was wrong

Pardon me while i nip off and fall on my sword now. Bugger, i hate being wrong....on the bright side, i did learn something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom