.380 acp?


Pictures attached.
Overall length 1.086”
Bullet diameter at mouth 0.354”
Brass Case length 0.670”
Case base diameter 0.372”
Rim diameter 0.372”
Case diameter at mouth0.372”
Bullet is magnetic. Looks more grayish tinned color than CNCS.




The case length you show would be right for the .380 cartridge. However, the bullet in that cartridge you show is the wrong ogive and length in comparison to the B-40 9 mm Corto (.380 Auto), appearing to be a 9 mm Parabellum bullet. Also, the case length looks right for a 19 mm case in proportion to the bullet, although I realize the case measurement is much, much more definitive than a picture.

Despite what I wrote you in PM concerning this round, when I had not checked the measurements (I think in metric for the case length of auto pistol cartridges), this round seems to be a “put-together;” that is, a .380 with a 9 mm para bullet seated in it. That is, if the pictures are not badly distorted, and they do not appear to be.

John Moss



Ok, so maybe I should pull the bullet…

Picture comparison with a “C.A. B - 42” .380 ACP NON magnetic round so folks know what John is referring to about the bullet that just does not jive with the case.


Well… John is right as usual. I should have figured as much as there is extractor marks on the rim. I had thoughts it was chambered and punched off center, failed to fire and extracted. Upon further examination is see the case cannelure is ironed out from firing compared to the other round pictured.

Toss the bullet in the recycle and put the FIRED case back in the collection.




Surely this is the M34 9mm Kurtz (Cartuccia a Pallotalla Cal 9 Mod 34) and not a .380 ACP??



The same cat with a different name:

.380 A.C.P.
.380 Auto
.380 C.A.P.H.
9 mm Kurz (no “t” in the word - German)
9 mm Scurt (Romanian)
9 mm Corto (Spanish and Italian)
9 x 17 mm (General metric name)
9mm Modelo 34 (Italian)
9 mm Short
9 mm Court (French)
9 mm Naboj vz. 1922 (Czech)
9 mm Kisa Browning (Turkish)

These are just the names I can think of off hand. There are other designations,
I am sure.

All the same cartridge. Variations in bullet type, but all interchangeable in any
quality .380 automatic.

John Moss


Hi John,
yes I know they are all in essence the same round but as a collector and on a forum for collectors I feel that a round should be described with its correct nomlenclacture ie the Italian 9mm short wasn’t ever described as a .380 ACP by the Italian manufacturers.
Sorry I’m not ‘nitpicking’ and we all do it,I used to get tremendous tellings off by Ray Meketta for calling early US .30" light rifle 7.62 Nato!, it’s just one of my pet hates much like bullets/projectiles being referred to as ‘heads’…arrrggghhh.




I understand completely. I have some pet peeves too - you hit on one
of them. “Heads” are the area of the cartridge that is headstamped, not
the projectile. “Bullets” are the projectile, not the whole cartridge.

My feeling towards the use of cartridge names probably comes from the way
I store my collection, which is all rounds of a single case type together, with
the exception of the strange habit of designating some cartridges are a different
“caliber” due to its loading. The Italians light-loaded the 9 mm Parabellum cartridge
due to the weak locking system of the Glisenti pistol, and refer to the cartridge as
“Cartucheria M910” or “9 mm Glisenti.” The first is fine. Why it is given a separate
name like 9 mm Glisenti is beyond me. The 9 mm Para cartridge is loaded with bullets
weighing from 88 grains to 158 grains (excluding some odd “special loadings” at each
end of the scale) and to velocities in an extreme spread, but we still call it 9 mm Parabellum
or 9 mm Luger, the current CIP and SAAMI “authorized” description. The 9 mm Glisenti is
simply one of many different loadings of the 9 mm Parabellum cartridge. However, I play
the game and keep them separate from 9 mm P. Only one example.

Within each case type, I store them alphabetically by country, and within the a single country
whatever seems logical - chronologically, alphabetical by maker, etc.

Because of that, I think of them under one cartridge name, although I am generally familiar
with the major designations used for any given case type. Being American, I tend to think of
those calibers used widely in this country by the designation most used in the US. As a dealer
in arms and ammunition for 36 years, I almost had to use those designations. I was discussing
calibers with the average owner, they would not have known that a “9 mm Short” (in any language)
was the same as a “.380 Auto.”

While it bothers me not at all if someone uses the correct designation of the country of use or manufacture
for each and every single specimen, I don’t tend to do it because of the factors mentioned above. However, you are absolutely correct from a student’s view of ammunition.

I got taken to task by Ray once in awhile, myself. :-)