7.62 mm Nato M61 T93E2


#1

Hello everybody. It’s nice to read from you again.

The story about the .30 Light Rifle Armor Piercing box first posted by Fatelk has reminded me of a box that I have.
This empty box was found at the CETME armory in Madrid. The label is pasted over another one, but it is pasted with so much glue that I haven’t been able to peel it off. Is this label legitimate? Did a M61 T93E2 load ever exist?
A couple of things make me think… The use of the comma instead of the dot in “7,62 mm”, and the use of a lettering template with what looks like a ballpen. Anyway, I can’t see the point in faking a label at the armory.


#2

schneider

I don’t have an informed answer to your question but the label on your box is different than the label on the box I have, even though they are only one lot apart. Maybe that was the changeover point from .30 Cal. T93E2 to 7.62 NATO M61.


#3

I have a box of Lot #12013. Same label and headstamp as Phil.

My first reaction is fake. Pre-NATO boxes (LC 54) had the “T” designation while NATO boxes (LC (+) 55) would have the “M” designation. It would seem odd that any would have both.

But, stranger things can be found so maybe it is legit and a transitional label. It is strange that the lot number is between two other boxes that are clearly T93E2 and from Lake City.

Without any cartridges it’s going to be hard to come up with a clear answer. I know if it was mine I’d soak the label to try to see what’s underneath or to remove it intact. It can always be re-applied. It does appear that it could be either an LC or FA box. But, other collectors would cringe at the suggestion. I hate unanswered things such as this. We can only learn by finding the answers.

JMHO

Ray


#4

Lake City produced the T93E2 from early 1954 to early 1955. The first and last lot numbers were LC 12000 and LC 12021 respectively. The T93E2 was standardized as the 7.62mm NATO AP M61 during late 1954. The first M61 lot number was LC 12022 and is headstamped (+) LC 55.


#5

[quote=“RayMeketa”]I have a box of Lot #12013. Same label and headstamp as Phil.

My first reaction is fake. Pre-NATO boxes (LC 54) had the “T” designation while NATO boxes (LC (+) 55) would have the “M” designation. It would seem odd that any would have both.

Ray[/quote]

If lots 12010 and 12012 from Lake City are known, it seems that this box of lot 12011 should be legitimate. If nobody has seen this precise lot, maybe it was an experimental lot sent to Spain.

The CETME armory stored a lot of interesting ammunition from the US, imported to aid in the development of domestic production. Some time ago I posted a photo of an early 5,56 mm military box from Remington. It was printed “caliber .223” but was rubber stamped “5,56MM” later, at the factory.

Here’s another box from the same place. I don’t have a specimen at hand, but if memory serves the headstamp was (W C C 5 6), ringed-in primer, red primer seal. As I had a fistful of these I tried to fire some in 1989, in a FR-7 bolt action rifle (a Mauser M1893 action with a 7,62 X 51 Cetme barrel). The primer came so badly flattened that I didn’t dare to fire any more rounds.

Is this a military contract box? Shouldn’t it bear a lot number?


#6

FYI a box of M61 (by LC) I have is lot number 12032 and it also contains the same headstamp as lot 12022 does: ⊕ LC 55


#7

The information I have indicates that the last brass-cased LC M61 production lot was LC 12033 and that lots LC 12022 through LC 12033 were all headstamped (+) LC 55. Lake City also manufactured 3 lots of steel cased M61 cartridges headstamped (+) LC 56.


#8

Schneider

Lot number 12011 is a legit number. It’s just that I would question the label. Why would LC hand make an overlabel for that one lot, even if it was sent overseas?

Again, I’d sure make an effort to see what’s under the covers.

I hate to tell you this but if you fired (or tried to fire) some of those T65E3 cartridges you were shooting one of the rarest T65 Experimentals known. The correct headstamp would be WCC 54. If they were WCC (+) 56 they would be first issue NATO by Winchester and not in the correct box.

BTW, even that T65E3 box is very collectable. Empty, full, whatever. I’d buy it from you in a heartbeat.

Ray


#9

Ray, I have the same box and you are right the headstamp is W C C 5 4, but about rare, if I have it … . Jan


#10

Jan

I think like you do. If I have one it can’t be worth much. But in this case, you’ve got a keeper. Lucky dog.

Ray


#11

Jan–concerning your statement that if you have it, it can’t be rare. Remember the old adage–Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn. It’s amazing what it’s possible to find at a flea market or local gun show.


#12

Isnt the T65E3 just 7.62x51 but pre NATO acceptance?
Please correct me if Im wrong, I have US maufactured 51mm case length cartridges
covering the years 49, 50, 51, 52 and 54 in ball, AP, API, tracer, and HP test.
Like I said… please correct me,
some of you guys have forgotten more about cartridges than I will ever know :)


#13

I also picked up one of these rounds a couple of years ago - together with a copy of the box label - and only paid a few pence for it. I was curious about it’s history and contacted Bill Woodin and this was his reply, word for word;
[color=#400080]The T65 series through E3 have flat-based lead core bullets: E4 and E5 are boattail.
The E3, which goes with the 51mm case is very rare because by that time the ball rounds were largely the steel-cored T104 series (which became the M59) or the boattail lead-cored T233, which was redesignated from the E5 and became the M80.
The T65E3 is so rare that I have never seen one until some years ago when I encountered a partial box in Spain (the same headstamp as yours).
So it may not look much but it is a really good item[/color]
[color=#000000]Jim[/color]


#14

[quote=“Jim”]
The T65E3 is so rare that I have never seen one until some years ago when I encountered a partial box in Spain
Jim[/quote]

Mr. Woodin’s box came from the same place as mine, I guess…


#15

Here’s a WCC 54 T65E3 in the middle, flanked by the FA 54 T104E2 on the left and a LC 54 T104E2 on the right. You can see that the 65E3 has the older 7 ogive bullet while the others are 10 ogive.

Maybe HWS III will tell us more about the 65E3. My question is, why did they make it???

Ray