6,5 X 53R Dutch - again

Hi all,
I was recently given a lot of 6,5 Dutch.
I checked first in several posts in this wonderful archive but not able to find an answer.
I also had a look into this old thread

but no results.
Among those I identified, more or less all of them, I am in trouble with one (the last one here below): I was not able to understand why the upper half of the case is tinned.
Could you please help me?
Proof? Short range?

Others HS are DWM, USCoo, K&C, P.A.H., etc

This is a Dutch anti-riot / guard cartridge issued to military personel in case of riots. It has a reduced powder load.

1 Like

Can you please post the other HS as well? I`m mostly interested in the first and third from left to right .

Of course




Who/what factories are K&C and P.A.H.?


A nice tutorial on 6.5x53mmR Dutch: http://www.militarycartridges.nl/dutch/army_start.htm


1 Like

Romanian, “Pirotehnica Armatei” if my spelkling is correct (likely not).

K&C Keller and Co.

The FN 22cases were delivered Empty to Holland, which then loaded them according to second date. Also done in KNIL as well.


Thanks a lot for the headstamps (especially the Romanian ones). Note that I asked specifically about the first and third from the left knowing they are Romanian - they have a thicker rim than that of the Dutch (although being essentially the same caliber).

For more information about the Romanian headstamps, please check my topic here: 6.5x53.5R Romanian Mannlicher 1892 & 1893

To me, by far the most interesting one of this lot is the U.S.C.Co one marked “11”, a very early manufacture. I have seen only “17” (1917) dated ones so far. Makes me wonder who was contracting 6.5mm ammo in the US in 1911??

The only users of M93 6,5x53R in 1911 were Romania and Portugal.
Portugal had just had a anti-Royalist Coup in 1910 (??).
Portugal had used M896 M93 carbines and Naval short rifles since the late 1890s, in the Romanian cartridge.

Interesting production by USCCo.

Doc AV

To be honest it is possible that the USCCo HS had a poor bunt and the second one “1” might be a “7”.
I’ll check tonight, giving you a best evidence.

1 Like

It is a 17 from the photo

I think you guys are right, definitely a “17” that is slightly mis-stamped. Although the top line is extremely faint, you can see the second line is not parallel to the first and not vertical, therefore it should be a “7”.

I was not able to get a best picture than this one, but I looked at it with a numismatic magnifier and I can confirm that is definitely a 7