Can any one help me with infomation on the 10.6 Russian rnd. I think it is from the late 1800s and was in use before the 7.62x54R nagant. Thanks tony h
Do you mean the .42 Russian Berdan ?
I think there was the No1 & No2 M69 with and without a Mauser A rim/base. There was also a .42 Russian Berdan Carbine round.
The full name I have fore this round is. 10.66x57 Burdan Russian rifle and 10.66x48 Burdan Russian carbine. tony h
Tony, it should be 10.67x57R.
Also, it is “Berdan,” not “Burdan.”
For the rifle version,here you can find some info
These also came in a blue paper wrapped packet tied with string.
I rechecked the headstamps in the blue packet and have a question.
Are the first two both from the 1st lot (month?) of 1881? 1918 seems to be pretty late for this type cartridge.
I originally thought the third one was a
Phil: The headstamps you display here beget a whole lot more questions than I’d attempt answers for, but a couple of observations may help. First, some Imperial period Russian headstamps include two cyrillic letters, one being the producer of the case, the other (probably) the supplier of the metal. Another thought is that at least one of the figures that appears to be a numeral “one” may in fact be a cyrillic I (old style; the modern I looks like a Latin N turned around). All the foregoing being said, the stamps shown here display so much variation it’s hard to believe the folks making these bunters were all playing on the same team! JG
So is that to say that the 8 (@3:00) and 1 (@9:00) doesn’t indicate a date? Very interesting!
As you can see I know next to nothing about early Russian headstamps!
Phil: No, I’m not nearly that sure; I thought it possible that at least one of those things that look like a numeral might be a letter. It would help a whole lot if all those headstamps appeared to have the same piece of information in the same location from one to another. In the final example (last picture) the three parallel lines across from the cyrillic G is apparently the letter SH. They’re very interesting but confusing! JG
It is 1881 and the roman figures on 6h are the trimesters.
EOD: that explanation seems to fit the last image, but will it work for the first one? JG
J.Gill, I think so.