The military breakthrough for Bergmann finally came in 1903 with a new locking system for the pistol, designed by Louis Schmeisser (who had also designed the previous Bergmann handguns). In 1901, Schmeisser developed the new lock, and it was patented by Bergmann (his employer) primarily for use on heavy machine guns. It was used in these (and Bergmann HMGs saw some use in WWI), but it was also scaled down for use in the 1903 pistol. The new system used a square block that encircled the bolt and could travel a few millimeters up and down. This system externally looks very similar to the C96 Broomhandle Mauser, but is mechanically reasonably different.
This new locking system was more cost effective to manufacture and more reliable than the side-tilting bolt of the 1897 Bergmann, and it was also quite strong. Bergmann exploited this strength by introducing a new cartridge for the 1903 model – the 9mm Bergmann (clever name, eh?). Thanks to the Spanish, we know this round today as the 9mm Largo. It was a 9x23mm case, firing a 135 grain FMJ bullet at 1060-1115 fps (325-340 m/s) depending on the loading. This was the most powerful production pistol cartridge designed in continental Europe at the time, and had performance very similar to Browning’s .38 ACP.
Bergmann’s first major break came in 1905 when a Spanish testing board officially recommended the 1903 for military purchase and use. On September 5th of that year Spain placed and order for 3,000 Model 1903 pistols, chambered for the 9x23mm cartridge. This brought along a new problem for Bergmann – how to actually make them. Since 1896, Bergmann pistol production had been subcontracted out to V.C Schilling in Suhl, and Bergmann’s own industrial works were not tooled up for pistol production. In 1904 Schilling was taken over by the Krieghoff company, which decided to end the factory’s relationship with Bergmann.
The cost of setting up a pistol production line is quite significant, and Bergmann knew that his previous pistols had never managed to bring really significant sales numbers. Being the intelligent businessman, he was hesitant to make the investment in tooling and jigs for the 1903 without having more than the relatively small Spanish order. His solution was to use the facilities he had already set up for making the various prototype 1903 pistols. This allowed some production, but not at a very fast pace. In addition to the Spanish order, this production had to include commercial sale guns and samples for other testing (like the US trials). Bergmann’s own plant produced less than a thousand model 1903 pistols in total, and only a small number of these were sent to Spain by 1908.
IMHO this, the Luger and the C/96 just beg to be reproduced in both 9mm Luger and .45 ACP.
“this (…) just beg to be reproduced in both 9mm Luger and .45 ACP.”
I would add .38 Super, if Bergmann design might be adjusted for that, as .38 Super is closest dimensions-wise to 9×23 Largo from popular automatic pistol cartridges.
I think that it might be also rescaled for .30 Carbine cartridge, with unlimited grip shape (see AutoMag III)
Or alternatively, magazine in front of trigger, allow to use high-capacity, two-column or multi-column magazine without problems with grip thickness
I have a reproduction Luger made in the early 1990’s and I don’t remember exactly what it cost but it was in the ball park of modern pistols at that time and it was a lot less than historical pistols. In fact it was less than the modern Browning High Power I bought in that same time frame.
A .45 ACP Luger would sell like the STG-N that HMG is trying to bring to market. That is as much an unobtanium dream for any US Luger owner as the Strumgewere is for the vast majority of us.
Interesting. Which company made them and did they make any money? And if they did, why aren’t they making them any more? Here’s an article that also seems to agree that making repro Lugers isn’t really a good business:
http://www.guns.com/2013/01/03/mitchell-arms-p08/
Problem with the C96 and Luger is cost. Both are legendary, but would there still be enough people willing to pay a quite high price for a modern reproduction? Problem with the Bergmann Mars is that while its a more economical design, it is not nearly as well known, which limits the number of potential buyers.
In any case, a substantial investment would be required to make any of these three guns in series. The repro industry concentrates mainly on revolvers, single shot and lever action rifles, all of which are less costly to manufacture that early semiauto pistols.
“would there still be enough people willing to pay a quite high price for a modern reproduction?”
Then maybe use prepayment with catch that it will be delivered if enough orders will be done, otherwise cash will return?
http://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/Campo-Giro/campo-giro.html states that Spanish 9mm Largo cartridge was weaker than original Bergmann:
(…)Spain standardized the 9mm Largo cartridge with a lesser charge of powder than the 9mm Bergmann cartridge, using .40 grams of powder rather than the .48 grams used by the Bergmann.(…)
Excepting the weird trigger reach distance, 1903 Bergmann pistols were simpler, sturdier and practical handguns than C96. What unlucky for Bergmann was, the more samples carrying the real needs for practical handguns like Browning’s been developed and offered to use within the the time gap from 1896 to 1903. IMHO.
Excepting the weird trigger reach distance, 1903 Bergmann pistols were simpler, sturdier and practical handguns than C96. What unlucky for Bergmann was, the more samples carrying the real needs for practical handguns like Browning’s been developed and offered to use within the the time gap from 1896 to 1903. IMHO.
“(…)unlucky for Bergmann was, the more samples carrying the real needs for practical handguns like Browning’s been developed and offered to use within the the time gap from 1896 to 1903.(…)”
Timeline aside, Mauser has probably more contacts with potential buyers, due to sale of own rifles, as well more respect/trust from said users.
Name recognition was a problem for the Bergmann team. That aside, the magazine seems to be the problem. Even if it is detachable, I can’t see HOW one is to pull it out after depressing the release switch. When clean, the magazine might drop out when the button is pressed, but if it was dirty, would the user be required to YANK on the bottom plate surface to extract an empty magazine (and potentially rip that piece away by mistake)?
If noticed, succesfull Bergmann locked breech pistols all follow Mauser C96 pattern. Unshrouded barrel extention is identical, take Down Process is nearly same, Manual safety locks the hammer and newly added disconnector works by the push of elevating locking block. It might be understood that, Herr Schmeisser, using the advantage of seeing the points to be worked on at the proven design of C96, had simplified, rather shrinked and streamlined the construction into a more practical and sturdier form.
Ian,
What happens when the last round is fired, does the bolt hold back , and if so is there a release mechanism? Compared to the C96 Mauser the Bergmann looks to have a lower bore-to-grip dimension which might make it recoil/jump less. lowering the bore-to-hand dimension seems to have also pushed the hammer down as well. It looks like the back of the grip has a bump on it to force the back of the hand down and away from the hammer to guard against hammer bite, making the bore axis sort of far away again. Does this make the gun point low in a quick draw/aim situation?
What is your impression of the handling qualities of these guns? Have you fired any of them? Are they light, heavy to hold, or just average?
Thanks for these great Bergmann history lessons, have a great day.
Jim
Ian,I’m thoroughly enjoying the Bergman series,but yesterday’s Engraved Bergman
post (with video?) wouldn’t load or even show to load.
Yeah, I accidentally let that post go up early, and then fixed it. It will post tomorrow.
You also posted this video first on YouTube instead of Full30.com, probably by mistake?
Was the cartridge no more powerful than a .380, although it had a case length that was 4 mm more than 9 para?
No, as it was stated:
“(…)It was a 9x23mm case, firing a 135 grain FMJ bullet at 1060-1115 fps (325-340 m/s) depending on the loading.(…)”
According to GECO (ammo manufacturer):
https://geco-munition.de/fileadmin/datasheets/geco-9-mm-browning-kurz-vollmantel-rundkopf-6-15-g.hunt.de.pdf
9mm Browning kurz (that is other name for .380 Auto) with 6,15 g (~95 grains) bullet has V0 = 300 m/s, that is lighter and slower bullet.
135 grains launched at 1115 fps for about 370 ft·lbf is much more powerful than any .380 Auto loading I know of and comparable to standard pressure 9×19mm Luger.
As for someone making a modern reproduction, Bergmann pistols like this would probably have a much smaller potential market than a Luger P08 (at least here in the USA) due to both popularity and AWB issues, since a pistol having a forward magazine makes it a restricted “assault weapon” in a number of states that have ‘AWB’ laws modeled after the 1994-2004 Federal assault-weapon ban. It’s also unfortunate that original Bergmann pistols made after 1898 are not considered exempt antique firearms under state laws.
Since it seems that a new emerging trend is the banning/restricting of pistols that accept double-stack magazines, a modern Luger reproduction might be particularly appealing in such anti-2nd-Amendment states, since the Luger has neither a double-stack magazine nor an outside-the-grip magazine.
For example, in Washington State, where a new bill currently being spearheaded by the State Attorney General proposes to restrict:
“A semiautomatic pistol, or a semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition”
… which is somewhat ambiguous but seems to me to be a ban on ‘high-capacity’ pistols rather than ‘high-capacity’ magazines.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Htm/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5050.htm
As HMG recently discovered with their STG-44 replicas that got slapped with a new assault-weapon-ban in California just as the first rifles were coming off the assembly line, manufacturers would be wise to consider the future likelyhood of additional state-by-state gun restrictions, and high on the list are AWB-influenced bans on pistols with (Tec-9 like) forward magazines and 11+ round capacities.
So while I can see the future possibility of a new reproduction Luger, the potential market for a reproduction Bergmann will likely continue to get smaller and smaller — at least in the Democratic Party controlled states.
I was just going to say that this would be potentially good design to reproduce IF there were not the legal restriction you talk about and which I had no knowledge of. This is unfortunate because I see good side of this layout being in favourable weight distribution adding to better balance (maintaining point of aim).
“This is unfortunate because I see good side of this layout being in favourable weight distribution adding to better balance (maintaining point of aim).”
In place where no law interfere with magazine-forward design it is used in some target automatic pistol like for example Walther GSP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_GSP
such layout also allow altering of grip shape without any problems
“original Bergmann pistols made after 1898”
Aren’t they Curio & Relic?
“restricting of pistols that accept double-stack magazines, a modern Luger reproduction might be particularly appealing”
But notice that there are many, many, many, many (…) many automatic pistol which feature single-stack magazine, and inside that set (ALL automatic pistol designed for single-stack magazine) there are multiple automatic pistol superior in this-or-another aspect, for example in term of price, I suspect, Makarov automatic pistol is superior and if you have stockpile of 9x19mm cartridge, then why not grab Star Model Super B?
I think he meant people would still be willing to pay premium for a Luger due to its iconic status. Like you say, from a pure functional and economical point of view there are numerous better choices for a single stack semiauto pistol, not to mention that all of the modern desings like Glocks could easily be modified to accept single stack magazines only
“Glocks”
In fact there exist single-stack GLOCK automatic pistol, known as G43:
https://us.glock.com/products/model/g43
The G42 in .380 Auto also has a single stack magazine. When the G42 was introduced a few years back, all the US gun bloggers said “Fine, but we want it in 9mm”. Hence, the G43.
That Mitchell Arms Luger is the one I have. I did not pay that much for mine. As I indicated above around the same time frame (1992-96) I also bought a new Browning Hi Power and it was more at a big box store than the Luger was at a local FFL non-chain gun store. And it was less than like new original Luger’s were selling for in that time frame.
I have to say that this is the only Bergmann design I like. It is simple, smooth in appearance and conduct (machining)and meaningful in nearly every aspect. Kind of shame the long struggle did not get any further.
If noticed, succesfull Bergmann locked breech pistols, Model 1903 and on, all follow the C96 patern. It might be seen and understood that, Herr Schmeisser, carefully selecting the usable features of proven C96 design, first discarded the shroulded recoiling barrel and replacing it with the one piece barrel with the extention of Mauser and geniously coorperating it with a pass through, cam working vertically acting locking block and engaging it with a positive disconnector working in the same manner very much like with the C96, created, rather low shooting axis, replacable magazine, simpler, more robust, more practical updated version of the well known C96.
“updated version of the well known C96.”
Mauser also tried to make C96 successor – namely C/06-08
http://sportsmansvintagepress.com/read-free/mauser-rifles-pistols-table-of-contents/model-06-08-mauser-automatic-pistol/
but as above link states
weapon was one of the most clumsy and useless designs ever attempted
Thanks Daweo, Mauser might be accepted as one of the most fertile small arms developers of all times. According to the trends of the related times, the number of guns both designed and produced by this brand, seemed having all superior features as compared with the others. Model C06/O8 might be ununsuccesfull but happened as the step for popular Model 1910/14 handguns. After the Great Wars, the staffs of Mauser origin also continued the innovations in another company which should be accepted as one of the leaders of the current times.
“Model C06/O8 might be ununsuccesfull but happened as the step for popular Model 1910/14 handguns.”
Well, even the best can make fails.
When FN M1905 and .25 Auto, it fast become popular and often replicated design. Most of that automatic pistol where of small size, which make it often not very comfortable to grip, Mauser 1910 was somewhat larger which enhanced reliability aswell magazine capacity.
After First World War Mauser produced automatic pistol in size similar – Mauser WTP I – but it didn’t enjoy success as big as earlier Mauser 1910.
Other automatic pistol worth nothing from Mauser is Mauser HSc, which was well-suited for concealed carry, for example it has hammer unlikely to snag, which also prevent debris going inside.