7.62x63 U.S.C.Co.18; with/without asterisks

I got them on the same charger. What’s the meaning/difference of * ?


That’s a Cal. 30, M1906 made for Marlin MG use. (That’s also the reason for the extra primer crimp) The * means the case was made by the extrusion process. I have no idea why. Maybe to make the brass tougher to withstand the pounding from the Marlin?


Thanks. Since Marlin light MG was belt-fed, these rounds don’t really belong to this charger, correct?


After WWI the Army had millions of rounds on hand and the manufacture of new ammunition could hardly be justified. The cartridge was the standard Cal .30 dimensions and there’s no reason it could not have been used in the Springfield rifle as well as the Marlin. All of them that I have seen were in the brass stripper clips. I have had probably 20 or more clip-fulls at one time or another. They make good trading material.


Now y’all have got me confused. Are these the .30-06 or something else?

7.62X63. And the Cal .30 M1906 designations. Same-o same-o .30-06?

Except for the primers?

Don’t make me break out Mr. Punnett’s book.

Hey Rick,

My take on it is that 7.62x63mm is the common metric designation for the .30-06. The Cal. 30 M1906 is the more formal U.S. designation for early ball loads if I’m not mistaken. The .30-06 designation is a commercial invention and helped distinguish it from the earlier .30 Government (.30-40 Krag) and the in-between .30-03. You’ll see old '06 marked “.30-G-1906” and I guess that took too much time to to say so it got chopped down to good old .30-06.

The funky primer crimp is seen on loads for a machinegun Marlin made that tended to lose the primer from regular crimped brass which was no fun with aircraft guns.

On the other hand, Mr. Punnett’s book would be a better source of valid info than myself…


Thanks Dave. I believe you.

Dave E has it pretty much correct.

No self-respecting collector of US Military would call the cartridge anything but the Cal .30 Model of 1906, or, informally and amongst friends, the Cal .30.

30-06 is what deer hunters call their cartridge.

The same for the 7.62MM NATO. It’s not the 7.62x51 and it definitely is not the 308 Winchester, another deer cartridge.

;) ;) ;)



It’s Cal .30 between you and me now, fer sure.

On the cartridge nomenclature front, I have to defer to the “Collectors” hereabouts. BUT, I point to Tony Williams’ examples and listings noting, I believe without exception, an all metric designation system. For the consistency in it. Considering his status in these circles, are YOU going to correct him when he makes mention of the 7.62X63?
Where is the line drawn? If a commercial loading, then .30-06? If mil-spec, then Cal .30? Makes sense. But there are more examples out there and I think Ray needs to publish a list of all the options for the various mil-commercial examples. With pictures. Maybe work up a PowerPoint for SLICS. For the Thursday nite event(s). I promise not to heckle. At least DURING the presentation.

Ray, I hope I am not insulting anyone when I use “7.62x63”. I mostly handle Mosin-Nagant and AK ammo and “7.62” carries a different meaning for me. And I am not Navy or Army, so official labels from ammo box sides are not images burnt into my deep cortical areas. Since I don’t specialize in any patricular ammo type and just freely roam around from one shop/show to another and buy whatever is not overpriced and not bolted down to the table, I have difficulty remembering all these names and calibres. Metric is more comfortable for me, and also sites like MUNICION.ORG are mostly metric. So, as a civilian, I deserve some slack.

You guys need to take note of the three winking faces at the end of my last post. It was partly tongue in cheek.

I like to use the official designations for military cartridges. In the USA the Cal .30 is appropriate. It may be that 7.62x63 is the designation in metric countries and that is what should be used when describing those cartridges. Likewise with the 7.62MM NATO and 5.56x45.

I know that I’m a nit-picker, but I’m working on it. My therapist says I’m making progress.

Now, about calling my BMW a Beemer, or my Porsche a Porsh . . . ;)



Does this mean you’re NOT going to post the variations thing? :-(
I was sooooo looking forward to commenting.


That’s already been done. It’s in the archives. Do an exhaustive search. We’ll all wait right here while you find it.

I can’t recall exactly, but I hope there are several variations of the 7.62x39. I’m getting soooooo tired of that moniker showing up on every other thread.

Again, ;) ;) ;)


Sorry Ray and all - I WAS in the Army, and I am a 45-year student of ammunition, but its still a “.30-aught-six” to me, and always will be. : ) : ) : (

John Moss

Back to the headstamp. The cartridges with the heavy ring crimps were made especially for synchronized aircraft machine guns. At first they selected from normal lots of ammunition after functioning tests. Later they were specially made with adaptions to prevent the machine guns from jamming.

USCCo had much of its contract aircraft machine gun made by the Hooker extrusion process. The Hooker extrusion used less machines and operations, but was still more expensive to produce. Why, I don’t know.

The Marlin machine gun did not provide much support to the head of the cartridge case and was therefore prone to blow the primers out of the pocket and jam the gun. This is the reason the for the heavy ring primer. The last thing a pilot flying in a dogfight needed was a jammed machine caused from a blown primer. I imagine pilots did not have enough hands to unjam the gun and fight simultaneously.


IIRC the 30 cal ammo made on British contract in 1940 had this style ring crimp. Was that because some of the US arms received were Marlin MGs? I have saw Marlin MGs included in arms sent to Britain.


The Brits bought the ammunition for aircraft use in the Battle of Britian. They specified the headstamp and primer crimp. When Remington started producing Cal 30 for the US the received permission to continue the crimp in order to save re-tooling costs.


Have you ever seen an M1 Rifle marked 30-06?


One to Ray!

Go Navy!!!

Ray - no, I haven’t. Now, you have to ask me if I care. I know full well the military use of the caliber designation. I simply don’t care. I like my .30-aught-six Ml Garands and 03 Springfields very much. : ) : )

John Moss

USCCo had much of its contract aircraft machine gun made by the Hooker extrusion process. The Hooker extrusion used less machines and operations, but was still more expensive to produce. Why, I don’t know.[/quote]
Could it be that the machinery setup costs or case rejection rate were higher? Just an idea.