.22LR Hstp question


#1

I have another .22 LR ID question. Brass case, Hstp: See picture shown. Am I right in thinking that this is Fiocchi?


#2

My first thought is Federal; the Fiocchi rimfire headstamps I’ve seen have a stylized “GF” (Guilio Fiocchi) or a small “f” serif letter that looks like an “s”.


#3

Definitely Federal Cartridge Company.

.


#4

Thanks. This case came from an inert WW1 German 7.92 that I pulled with my new puller, as it needed no rattler recause it had a struck primer. A new .22 Hstp I didn’t even know I had for about a year!! Well, the 7.92 may have had an unstruck primer at one stage, but some idiot has tried to set it off with a phillips screwdriver, leaving a distinctive cross shaped mark.


#5

Falcon,

I’ve been informed privately by a gentleman whose knowledge and expertise far exceeds my own that this might be a post-1990 Bulgarian round. Where I’ve never seen that headstamp, I would modify my previous reply to say it “appears” to be a Federal loading to me and throw this back to the floor for further discussion!

.


#6

A Pre-1900 round would be interesting, but this case looks too new.


#7

Falcon–Unless it is miss-drawn, I don’t think it is Federal. All the Federal “F” headstamps that I have seen have a serif on the righthand ends of the top and middle bars. I also doubt if it is WW-I era as brass cases were not used on most .22’s until after about 1925. I am not familiar with the Bulgarian round that was mentioned above, so I can not comment on that. I have never seen an Fiocchi case with that style of “F” either.


#8

Falcon, is the case copper or brass? Am assuming it is an impressed hds. The way the hds is drawn is the circle the case rim or a circle around the F? Kass rimfire hds list does show any Federal “F” without serfs on the bottom of the vertical or top and center bars. Looked at all my F hds rimfires in my catalog 22 and up and do not see one like that. That is minus serfs.


#9

Brass case, impressed hstp, circle is case rim.


#10

Falcon, 1990 NOT 1900. M. Rea


#11

Ah…90 years out. I was reading/replying in a hurry.