6.35x48 with an odd bullet profile

I have a 6.35x48 Winchester with an odd bullet profile. I’m wondering if it is a legitimate round, or if I’ve perhaps misidentified it. It is the one on the far left in the photos (W C C 5 8). As you can see, it doesn’t have the short, conical projectile that all of the other cartridges in the series have, nor does it have the same crimp as all of the other 6.35x48 cartridges.

In the photo the case looks a bit longer than the other 6.35x48 rounds, but I think that is just because it is not crimped.

Can anyone provide more information about this round? Thanks in advance!

6.35x48 Ball W C C 5 8
6.35x48 Ball F A 5 9
6.35x48 Ball W C C 5 9
6.35x48 Duplex W C C 5 9
6.35x53 Ball F A 5 9
6.35x53 Proof F A 5 9
6.35x53 Duplex F A 5 9


That is indeed an odd 25 WINCHESTER cartridge.

There are at least 12 FAT numbers assigned to 6.35mm bullets. This could well be one of those not ordinarily found in the 1.880" case.

Is it steel? I believe there are only two bullets that are listed with a lead core. That could help to pin it down a little. The cannalure would suggest an FA bullet which were usually a steel GM clad jacket and steel core. WCC bullets were solid steel, GM plated, with a smooth crimping groove.

The early date would indicate a cartridge made prior to the FAT115 (Duplex) or FAT116 (Simplex) which are all headstamped 59.

I would certainly send the particulars to Frank Hackley. He has been working on that particular cartridge for HWS Vol III and he may have something on it.

Finally, a little nit picking. I don’t think you’ll find anything that refers to the case lengths in millimeters. They are the 1.880" and the 2.080" length. Also, the WCC cartridges are CAL 25 WINCHESTER. The FA cartridges are 6.35 MM BALL.

Keep us posted if you find anything.



If you have one of the CAL 25 FOR LIGHT RIFLE cartridges, compare the bullet profiles. It could be that earlier bullet. Although, the homologous bullet appears to have a little longer ogive.

And, of course, I always hesitate to say this but, the lack of a crimp and the odd bullet could indicate a wrong bullet stuck into a right case, or vice-versa.


Thanks very much for the input Ray, and I’m always happy to be corrected!

The jacket seems to be GMCS since it takes a magnet all the way to the point. Is the Cal 25 for light rifle the same thing as a homologous? I do have a .25 homologous but it has a longer, more tapered bullet.

I also just noticed that the neck of this cartridge does not show any discoloration from annealing, although all of my later ones do.

I was definitely suspicious that it might be a reload or “stuffer”. I don’t see any evidence of the case mouth having ever been crimped though. The primer sealant looks intact and the primer matches the other Winchester rounds. Still, someone could have taken a new primed empty case and stuffed a different bullet into it.

I will post a follow-up if I find out any additional information.

In one of the back issues, Bill Woodin mentioned that Frankford Arsenal may have experimented with 90gr bullets in the FAT110 case during the early SAW program.


I hope you don’t think I was “correcting” you. I was nit-picking, as I said. I would never presume to correct another collector. I’m too ignorant.

Yes, the CAL 25 FOR LR is the homologous. It does appear to have a longer ogive than the one you have.

Since there is no crimp, you could probably pull the bullet without damaging anything. If it was mine, that’s what I would do. That way, you can weigh the bullet and powder charge and also determine the make-up of the bullet. The GMCS bullets usually had a lead plug at the base, about .115" thick, and the steel jacket was GMC both inside and out.

Once you have the bullet particulars you could contact one of the HWS guys to see if it fits one of the FAT numbers that they have.


That “90gr” bullet reference is very interesting. Can you direct me to it? For a while it was thought that the FAT116 E1 was loaded with a 90 grain bullet, but it’s not. Apparantly there was an FA drawing somewhere that showed a 90 grain bullet. Maybe that is/was it??


Ray, it is in Issue 289, Pg 5 (seventh page of the PDF).

“However, there is some indication that Frankford Arsenal tested some special 90 gr. GMCS bullets loaded into 6.35MM FAT110 brass cases (headstamped WCC 58) for SAW evaluation. Exactly when (and if) this was actually accomplished in connection with this program has not been determined.”



Can’t be more specific than that!


All the more reason to find out about the weight of that bullet. And I can guarantee you that H, W, or S would like to hear from you about that cartridge.


Dan - Speaking as a member of the Board for Woodin Lab, I would urge you to electronically send the labe a picture of that cartridge along with the total cartridge weight. If you don’t have their email, please send it to me. My email address is on the first page of every IAA Journal for the past ten years up until December 2007. If you don’t have any of those issues to get it, please PM me and I will provide it. I would need the photo and information sent to my own address so I am sure that I can successfully forward it. I don’t have much luck doing “fancy” things off of PMs on this Forum.

Thank you.

Thanks again for the all the info guys. I am lucky enough to live in Tucson so I’ll give the Woodin lab a call. Hopefully it will turn out to be something interesting rather than just a random bullet someone stuck in a case!

Chip - Thanks. I already mailed bill a print-out of this thread, and sent him the picture electronically as well.

Wish I lived in Tucson. Great city. Don’t like the heat, but parts of California are just as hot, and more humid. Same goes for the deadly vipers! Well, we have them here, too, even in some parts of the greater San Francisco Bay Area. In fact, Mount Diablo, which can easily be seen from the San Francisco area, is lousy with rattlers. Luckily, we don’t see them in the area I live in.

Hi Chip,

Here is a copy of the box label for this round. I have 2 projectile variations (with and without cannelure).



SAWS and SAW were two separate programs.

SAWS = Small Arms Weapon Systems

SAW = Squad Automatic Weapon

SAWS was run from 1964 to 1966 to determine what weapons, if any, should replace the current standards of M14, M60, and M79. Weapons evaluated in live fire included the XM16E1/CAR-15 family, Stoner 63, AR-18, and HK33 (as the H&R T223). Evaluated by computer were the SPIW, UMG, Gyrojet, and AVROC. Based on the computer studies, one agency advocated adopting the SPIW and UMG. However, others concentrated on the live fire studies and decided between the XM16E1 and Stoner 63. Since the XM16E1 was lighter and more importantly, already in service, it was given the nod as the rifle choice. In addition, they decided that the Stoner 63 wasn’t sufficient for the LMG role.

SAW ran throughout the '70s and ended with the adoption of the FN Minimi as the M249 in the early '80s.

Thanks, Daniel.

I have often treated the acronyms as interchangeable - obviously they are not. I appreciate the correction and explanation.

As an aside, is there a similar difference between CAW and CAWS?

I haven’t heard of any separate CAW vs. CAWS programs. But that isn’t my area of expertise. It appears to me that the individual weapons were the CAW, and the program as a whole was CAWS.

Thanks for the reference Paul. Nice to know it is a legit round!

Its amazing the amount of useful information that I have found out about 6.35s/25s from reading this. Here is another one I am curious about.
I have it listed as a 6.35x52mm FA-T experimental
It is shown 2nd cartridge down after the 6.35x53 and before the 2 different 6.35x48s. It has a CN projectile and a UMC 25 REM h/s.
Were these cartridges supplied to FA as cases to be loaded?
Can anybody give me any more info on this cartridge please? :)


That 25 Remington Auto cartridge is probably a ca. 1920s Frankford Arsenal trials experimental. Possibly part of the development of the Pedersen rifle when the Army tested .256, .276, and .30 caliber bullets. A good find and one that somebody needs to do some research on.

Nit picking but please read my previous post re the mm designations for the 6.35 MM cartridges. The case length was not referred to in mm but rather in inches. (Until someone finds a box label otherwise).


I forgot to ask. Is the hs UMC or REM-UMC ? The ones I have seen have the REM-UMC headstamp.



Bill Woodin got back from Europe. His response to my letter was:

“That 6.35mm with the 90-grain bullet was a much later project - not part of the early one - I think related to the SAW Program, but using the early cases supplied by Winchester-Western. I have a couple of labels, one with the date October 1970.”

This would seem to go along with one of Paul’s sheets that I glanceed at on this thread. The small print discouraged me from reading it carefully, since this is not my field - no criticism of it. It is completely legible. I just didn’t work at it.