22 Carbine?


#1

I think this is a 22 Carbine blank?
Ctg. L 42.78mm
Head 9.48mm
Neck 6.11mm
Headstamp R A 6 4


#2

Hi Bruce, these short body/long neck blanks were reported by David Hughes in the 1970’s as being movie blanks made from .223 Remington cases (also exist with F C 6 6 headstamp). Some examples have several profound dimples in the neck and shoulder area, evidencing swaging. That’s all I know. Regards, Fede.


#3

The 22 Carbine was an SCHV/SALVO I cartridge from the 1950s. It had a 1.32" case length. I’ve never seen one dated as late as 1964, nor have I seen one loaded as a blank.

Ray


#4

Ray, I’m posting this purely from an interest perspective and I’m not supporting Krag56’s theory at all…I’m sure both yourself and Fede are absolutely correct.
However, here is a .22 APG round with a JSP bullet made by Frankford for the Ballistic Research Laboratory in or after 1970. Apparently it was for ‘recoil impulse trials’ in connection with Colt’s IMP project. The ID was made by Bill Woodin.


#5

Jim

Agreed that the impulse round is the same dimensions as the .22 Carbine/ .22 APG/ .22 Gustafson. I suppose it all comes down to what we choose to call them. I tend to name and catalog them by time period, purpose, basic case, and bullet type.

Ray


#6

I have the same as krag56 & consider it a 22 APG , Carbine, Gustafson as it should fit the weapon. Other than that…

News to me it’s a movie blank, but that’s OK as I like movie blanks!


#7

Just because it looks like a duck - it may not really be a duck. No matter how you parse it, krag56’s blank cartridge is NOT a .22 Carbine/APG/Gustafson. The shoulder angle is wrong, the base to shoulder dimension is too long, and the case length (you have to interpolate here) is also too long. There’s no way it would chamber in a 22 Carbine, assuming you could find one at this late date.

Ray

P.S. Thru the magic of PhotoShop, and a little help from krag’s and Jim’s photos, here are the two, showing the differences.


#8

Trying to get a better quality of my photo of a photo, but i guess this is it.

Ray


#9

Hmmmm, impressive work Ray. My thought now though, if it is a movie blank, what weapon would it have been intended for?


#10

Jim - Most likely a movie prop gun. With such a long neck, it would have required a special chamber.

You give me more credit than I deserve. I’m really not that smart. Most of my technical computer work is done by my son-in-law or granddaughter. My only contribution is giving them the basic photos to start with, and an idea of what I want it to look like. As you can see by the quality of the image I posted, things go down-hill when I get my hands on it. ;-)

Ray


#11

Ray, perhaps I should have made this point clear at the outset but the round I have pictured is 1mm shorter in overall length than the usual .22 Carbine. This difference is purely in the bullet length and not the case length but I do hope it hasn’t affected the accuracy of your Photoshop comparison.


#12

No Jim, that doesn’t affect my conclusions. It was merely a coincidence that the OAL of both cartridges came out the same. I have 3 different 22 Carbine cartridges, each having a different bullet, but none have the same soft-point as yours.

Ray


#13

221 Fire Ball on the L. & 22 Carbine on the R.


#14

While it may appear that the blank is a 221 Rem, it will not fit in a pistol or rifle so chambered.

Trust Fede and his identification.

Ray


#15

Ray, thanks for your trust in me but my information could be wrong. My only reference is what it was said many years ago by a knowledgeable collector but he didn’t mention for which chamber this blank cartridge was made. Wish I knew more.


#16

OK I was wrong about the APG. it’s not.

Here is my blank with the same headstamp as krag56’s next to a .221 Colt-Davis Bushmaster headstamped just ’ R - P ’ at 12:00.

The shoulder angle is slightly longer on the blank but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t chamber. After all headspace is at just one point of the chamber not along the complete side of the shoulder. Also if these were made for movies, the firearm(s) being used could have had an altered or worn chamber & perhaps even using a shot-out barrel?

Plus the neck of the blank is smaller than the .221 at the top of the shoulder, .246" vs .256" & so it should chamber even with a longer shoulder.

Movie blanks are about noise & flash, perhaps also to function the firearm & if it chambers & the firing pin strikes the primer, that is often all that is needed for the movie industry.


#17

Pete

The only problem is that the throat of the chamber quickly tapers to the bore diameter (.219") only a few thousandths of an inch forward of the case neck. There is no way you could jam a .240" “bullet” into the bore unless the rifle (or handgun) was rechambered. I’d bet that the movie prop gun was chambered specifically for the blank cartridge with its .240" neck. The larger diameter neck on a live .22 caliber cartridge (.250" +)would keep it from being chambered and fired.

JMHO

Ray


#18

good point Ray