30-06 possible hand loads / fake?


#1

I have two 30-06 rounds that someone possibly hand loaded using unfired military cases. Would like opinions before X raying or pulling projectiles.

First is lead round ball in F A 25 R case.
Second is lead spitzer in FA 36 case.

joe




30-06 Double Round Ball
#2

Joe, the bullets look to be cast, so my money is on handloads or if you paid a lot of money for them, then fakes.


#3

I can only add to that, that the FA 25-R headstamped cases were made available
in large quantities to shooters to make their own loads.

René


#4

I was also leaning toward hand load, but I mention fake only as the buck round seems like it could have been a military experiment. I have not found any information to back any of this. I say to myself however, you would think that at some time the military would have experimented with buck in the M1906 case? Also the cast spitzer in FA 36 case could possibly be a gallery load experiment?

No real money in them as they were part of what I received out of Phil’s left over items. So now I sit here wondering if they are military experiments that I have not found reference to, or a home experiment on unfired cases. That is probably why Phil had them in the “do not know” cigar box. I have identified most out of the box, but these are a few of the ones that elude me.

Joe


#5

Joe

F.A. did load round balls in the 30-40 cases, both single and duplex, but I’ve never seen such a load in the M1906 case. There were more than one lead bullet gallery/guard loads in Cal .30 but none of them look like the ones shown. The FA 36 primer does not look original to my eye so I’d guess it is a reload, or one made using a NPE case.

I would not go so far as to call them fakes. That would imply they were made to fool someone into thinking they are something they are not. I would call them, simply, handloads.

Pulling the bullets is your option although I don’t think you’ll learn anything by doing so.

JMHO

Ray


#6

Looking at the FA 36 primer it does appear that the copper primer had been scrunched in when seated possibly after the crimp was put on. The crimp does not appear to have been cut or swaged. Ray, I feel you are correct in saying pulling the projectiles would probably not reveal much. I think for now they need to go back in the “do not know” cigar box. Thanks for all replies.

Joe


#7

I am not so sure about whether pulling the bullets would reveal anything of not. I think it would be worth it

The spitzer bullets is cast, It looks like a H&G #99 which would lean more towards a commercial caster than say a Lyman style, but is it lubed and has it got a gas check?

Type of lube would be revealing, soft (amateur) or hard (professional). Even the colour is informative to some people. Sizers leave marks, I can’t see any on the nose but it could have gone through a Star, or similar, which pushes them nose first but that would leave questions on how the GC was fitted without marking the nose.

Cast bullets in rifles usually require a fairly stiff crimp because they are a totally different setup ballistically. They are usually self limited to around 1600 fps and use different powders to mainstream loads. They generate lower pressures hence the need for crimp.

I can see no crimp at all which is not what I would expect to see but proves nothing (except you should be able to pull it without too much trouble.)

Has it any powder? If it has it could be as low as 12grns of a pistol/shotgun powder or a 50-75% load of one of the more gentle rifle powders. You will not be able to identify the powder but the amount could be of interest.

At the moment I would say dingbat or home load, its not worth faking, but it still doesn’t explain where the cases came from. That’s the significant question to me, it doesn’t look as though it has ever been fired


#8

The primers used in the 1925 and 1936 cases would have been brass, not copper. The FA 25 R was not crimped whereas the FA 36 would have been.

Ray


#9

[quote=“VinceGreen”] . . .Cast bullets in rifles usually require a fairly stiff crimp because they are a totally different setup ballistically. They are usually self limited to around 1600 fps and use different powders to mainstream loads. They generate lower pressures hence the need for crimp. . .

At the moment I would say dingbat or home load, its not worth faking, but it still doesn’t explain where the cases came from. That’s the significant question to me, it doesn’t look as though it has ever been fired[/quote]

Vince

As Rene indicated, new empty cases, either primed or unprimed were sold to handloaders during the 1920s and 1930s, and again in the 1950s through 1970s. Both Match and standard cases were available. As were bullets. I have several boxes and cartons of both, and Rene probably has many more than I do.

Most, if not all, of the Cal .30 lead bullet gallery and guard loads that I have seen are not crimped. They are very light loads using fast burning powders and a crimp really is not necessary.

Ray


#10

Ray, the thing is I have a M1906 MATCH round with F A 25 R headstamp copper primer uncrimped with purple sealant the same as this BUCK round. The purple sealant of course was used extensively before 1906 thru the 30’s and then the shade changed to a darker one along with a reddish sealant also. I wish I had more F A 25 R headstamp examples, but it seems consistent with what I do have. Also Marcello reports seeing aluminum cases with the F A 25 R headstamp so they obviously were doing some serious experimenting using that headstamp. Frankford did load a double BUCK round for Guard use, but is was a F A 12 03 headstamp. They also had a 156-gr. lead Guard bullet with a 42-gr. ball beneath it, but that is superfluous. The F A 3 6 headstamp with the lead spitzer should not have a copper primer and I do believe it is a hand-load. Frankford did load a Cal. .30 Ideal 198-gr. cast lead spitzer bullet for gallery practice cartridges, but that was in 1908 -1912. The F A 3 6 headstamp is most likely a hand-load but I am not sure on the buck round yet.


#11

OK, pulled the F A 3 6 case. The inside is very dark resembling a fired case. The projectile weighs in at 171-grs. The powder at 37-grs. is a donut shaped powder consistent with some pistol powder.





#12

Vince, when shacking the lead round ball in F A 25 R case it seems to have very little powder like 10 - 20% case capacity.


#13

xjda68

The only lead ball loads in the M1906 case that I’m aware of were some early experimentals, with very limited production. On those, the ball was swadged rather than cast and the case neck had a cannelure below the ball to keep it from falling into the case body. Very similar to the Cal .30 (30-40) gallery practice cartridges.

The copper primers were phased out starting around 1918 and discontinued in 1919 or 1920 when the F.A. #70 mixture was adopted. The last M1906 was manufactured in 1921 and I don’t think I’ve ever seen an M1 cartridge with a copper primer.

I collect Match cartridges and have several National Match, International Match, and Palma Match cartridges with the FA 25 R headstamp. They all have brass primers and a reddish or purple primer seal. It may be that the seal color gives the primer cup a coppery appearance? On your photo, that is the way it looks to me.

The perferated flake powder looks like one of the Hercules products, popular powders available to handloaders of those days.

Ray


#14

[quote=“RayMeketa”]xjda68

The only lead ball loads in the M1906 case that I’m aware of were some early experimentals, with very limited production. On those, the ball was swadged rather than cast and the case neck had a cannelure below the ball to keep it from falling into the case body. Very similar to the Cal .30 (30-40) gallery practice cartridges.

The copper primers were phased out starting around 1918 and discontinued in 1919 or 1920 when the F.A. #70 mixture was adopted. The last M1906 was manufactured in 1921 and I don’t think I’ve ever seen an M1 cartridge with a copper primer.

I collect Match cartridges and have several National Match, International Match, and Palma Match cartridges with the FA 25 R headstamp. They all have brass primers and a reddish or purple primer seal. It may be that the seal color gives the primer cup a coppery appearance? On your photo, that is the way it looks to me.

The perferated flake powder looks like one of the Hercules products, popular powders available to handloaders of those days.

Ray[/quote]
Yes this ball definitely looks to be swadged not cast. The experimental Cal. .30 Guard cartridge I am referring to is actually a model of 1903 with two 42-gr. balls. Yes it had a cannelure added to the neck of the case to hold the rear ball in place. That is why I am tempted to also pull this round to see what is holding the exposed ball in place.

I agree that copper primers were phased out starting around 1918 and discontinued around 1919 or so. I cleaned the primer with fine bronze wool on both cartridges and it is definitely copper. I appreciate the information on the primers in your FA 25 R headstamped loads. My M1906 MATCH round with F A 25 R headstamp copper primer uncrimped with purple sealant is odd because of the correct color sealant, same as the round in question.

Little confused on what you are referring to “last M1906 was manufactured in 1921”. When I say M1906 or Cal. .30 M1906 I am referring to [Caliber .30 Ammunition, Model 1906 Type]. Began development around March of 1906 and the last “DOD single manger for conventional ammunition book complete 31 May, 1990” I have, still lists the M40 Dummy singles and M72 cartridges clipped for procurement. Are you talking about the Model 1906 bullet? Thats not what I am referring to. Sorry for the confusion.

The perforated flake powder that looks like one of the Hercules products to you, being you are senior to me, do you remember was it pistol, rifle or both types came this shape. I started reloading it 1983 and have never seen it for sale to me. I have pulled some older pistol cartridges and found it however.

Joe


#15

When I said Cal .30 M1906 I meant the original cartridge loaded with the 150 grain CN bullet. It was last loaded in 1921. It was followed by the Cal .30 M1 adopted in 1926, and the Cal .30 M2 adopted in 1938. I realize that those designations are correct only for the Ball cartridges but they do describe the evolution better than the generic (and incorrect) “30-06”.

Of all the Match cartridges that I have in my collection the latest with a copper primer is dated 1918. If you have a spare of the FA 25 R with a copper primer, would you be interested in trading??

The Hercules powders that I am most familiar with from that period are Sharpshooter, W.A., and Lightning. They are all rifle powders. They were discontinued years ago and the only place you will find any is by pulling bullets from old cartridges. (Foreign cartridges excluded as some of them may still use the large perforated flake powders) A charge of 37 grains, such as you found, would indicate a rifle powder rather than a pistol powder.

Very interesting discussion. I hope you can track down the origin of your two lead bullet cartridges.

Ray


#16

Ray, I unfortunately do not have a duplicate as Peter Gorbenko got my last and only duplicate. I have found a handful of items for you twice before but it was decided that the shipping on just a handful was not realistic. I was hoping to bring some items you wanted and meet you at the last WSCCA show in Prescott but you were busy picking up your boys or something. Someday we will meet. Anyhow I think I am going to pull my M1906 MATCH round with F A 25 R headstamp and copper primer uncrimped with purple sealant as it does seem odd and besides it has a cracked neck. I will post here what I find. The round lead ball has a flat area around the circumference. This is what I believe to be swadged as cast would have a ridge like the other round I pulled with the lead spritzer. Correct or no?

Joe


#17

I decided to pull down the F A 25 R possible NM round with the copper primer. Well it has seen better days to say the least. Anyways without trying to clean it all up and weigh the projectile, it looks to be a standard 172-gr., 9-degree BT, GM jacket (M1 type). But of coarse people had access to cases and projectiles I understand, so it could just as well be a hand load with this headstamp. Especialy with a copper primer.



#18

Yes I would expect that, its quite a dangerous practice with the wrong powder but there are some powders that can deal with it, most notably one of the Alliant powders, which is actually a well known shotgun and pistol powder, but its very forgiving in these applications and isn’t affected by extremely low loading densities.

My friend has had some correspondence with the technical people at Alliant about squib loads in general. Most of it wouldn’t be allowed on here but sufficient to say they are well aware of the practice and have researched it fully. They seem to have a good grasp of the subject.

So it falls within what could be described as sound practice and not somebody’s attempt to make it into the Darwin Awards.


#19

Joe

In that terrible condition, I suppose it is impossible to tell if the case had been previously fired. That would have told us something. Can you pull the bullet enough to make sure it is the M1 Type rather than an M1 ?

Ray


#20

Ray–What is the difference between a M1 Type rather than an M1 ?