7.92x40 CETME


I recently acquired this cartridge and was wondering what the consensus is for the label.

It wraps around the entire case and reads:

“7.02 x 40 CA-001
Core & jacket are
not swaged. First
(1951) to 1954”

The 1954 is Xed out on each number.

Was 1701 a reference number for the first type experimented with?
Should I leave the label on the cartridge? I don’t know what taboos are associated with labels, but I know cleaning and polishing is pretty well frowned upon.


Lanza refers to a 1969 book "CATALOGO LANZA De Cartucheria de Fabricaciom Nacional (1893-1969) Version Militar and 1701 is the number where this cartridge is found in the book.
Lanza was a Coronel Doctor Ingeniero de Aemamento

There some things in this book I find very hard to understand / confusing. For example the illustrated headstamp is FNP 7.9 55 and he notes it as a Model - Experimental 53

Perhaps someone else can enlighten us?

The CA-001 seems to also be part of his listing number. But I may be wrong about that.
This bullet and case type also exists as a 7.62x40 & is one to look for as it’s quite hard to find.

Here is the bullet and core I’m not sure what the note “Core & Jacket not Swaged” means.

As to labels, if the label was generated by someone of importance, then I would leave it, as that is of importance in establishing provenience. However if it was generated because the last owner needed a reminder what it was, then if you don’t need it, and have the information and reference recorded elsewhere then I’d remove it. My 2¢

Ps you have a typo- 7.02 instead of 7.92, fat fingers?


I figured the CA-001 wasn’t a reference number related to the project, but there are inert dummy cartridges with 1701 engraved on the side that follow the early style (951 era h/s). What these correspond to I haven’t the foggiest.

I typed the exact label text, so maybe the previous owner suffered from higher caliber fingers? It contains the typo 7.02 (which would make this cartridge a whole lot more interesting if it were actually 7.02x40!).

I have read the 7.62’s are harder to find (albeit not as hard as the caseless CETMEs). Without having measured the diameter, I can believe this is a 7.92 because of the h/s, but I’ll grab some calipers just to be sure…

I’m fairly certain “Core & jacket not swaged” refers to later 7.92x40s having a heavy crimp where the leading edge of the core and jacket connect. Municion.org has some good detail shots of this.


Here are the #1701


Thank you! Is this book in your possession? Are there more pages on the CETME cartridges?


I can add that “CA-001” is a CETME designation -not Lanza’s- and its initials stand for Cobre-Aluminio (Copper-Aluminum). However, the jacket material is in fact made of gilding metal, not pure copper, but given that in Spanish language we don’t have an equivalent for this word, it is commonly refered to as cobre (copper), without distinction from “pure” copper. On the other hand, gilding metal is designated at a cartridge factory as latón 90/10 (brass alloy made of 90% copper and 10% zinc). Brass is commonly called latón, but to avoid confusion, in a cartridge factory it is called latón 70/30 (70% copper and 30% zinc).


So in the above diagram, the jacket (vaina) is Laton 72/28: 72% Copper, 28% Zinc?


WOW well I don’t think I’m going to be picking up a copy of Lanza’s book anytime soon, however fascinating it may be. The least expensive one I’ve found is 272 Euros. Birthday present anyone?


You are right, in Spain cartridge brass is usually designated Latón 70/28, and in Argentina Latón 70/30. In any case, these are nominal designation, since the alloy used may not agree with those exact percentages.


So what I’m gathering is there are multiple designations for each cartridge (CA-001 is also a 1701)? Is there a reason for only a three digit “year” stamp for the 951 or is this not a reference to the year?


Regarding three digit date stamps on headstamps,
this was a common practice with both Spanish and
Italian headstamps. I don’t know if there was any special
reason for it. In the case of Italian rounds, they used tw0-digit
dates, three-digit datesand even four-digit dates, all relatively
contemporary with each other (perhaps within a ten-year or so

John Moss


Hope the following might add to the discussion.

I’ve appended three photographs of an inert 7.92x40 and 7.62x40 CETME from 9-1951 and 9-1954.


The longer (OAL) cartridge has the 9-1954 headstamp.

Dimensions in mm:

9-51 = Case 40.50, Bullet = 8.24
9-54 = Case 41.30, Bullet = 7.90



Thank you for the clarification John!

Sam, thank you, too! Is this a factory inert 7.92?
Also, the 7.92 appears to be the swaged version which is nice to see


Hi Strelok,
Unfortunately, I have no information regarding the provenance of these two examples…beyond that they are inert.


Do they have a number etched into the side or have they been drilled?


You say the 7.92 in Sam3’s picture appears to be the swaged version.

What is the swaged version look like? How is it identified?

As the aluminum core on these is one-piece, the copper alloy jacket must be pressure fitted. At least I can’t imagine how else it could be attached.

Here are the three 7.9’s I have,. On the right is a 54 and the middle & left are both 53’s
The right one has what looks to be a taper crimp, typical of that seen on a case mouth. The other two show faint turn marks as if metal was removed.
I was of the understanding Swaging was forming metal through a die under pressure. So can you please explain how & why this term is being used?
Thanks for the help

Edited to add that this 1701 number is ONLY a designation Lanza used for ease of direction others to this cartridge or as a catalog number for HIS collection. there is nothing formal or factory about it. That it’s in his book as 1701 it could just as easily be 1505.


These all appear to be second style with heavier swaging (Municion refers to it as crimping, so either could be the proper term?). All have the crimp/swage around the core/jacket seam, however the second style is much heavier. As far as I can tell, only 951s have the lighter crimp

As for terminology, the label refers to it as swaging, Municion uses “crimping.” Seems like the reasoning was to keep the projectile more stable in flight.

The difference is that the crimping of the second model is greater, to avoid the disorganization of the bullet (which separate core and envelope).

Source: Municion.org

The reason I asked about the 1701 reference number is that Municion refers to it as a factory-engraved number on the side of the case?


looked up Swaged in the dictionary on my MAC

swage |swāj|
1 a shaped tool or die for giving a desired form to metal by hammering or pressure.
2 a groove, ridge, or other molding on an object.
verb [ trans. ]
shape (metal) using a swage, esp. in order to reduce its cross section.
• [with adverbial ] join (metal pieces) together by this process.
ORIGIN late Middle English (sense 2) : from Old French souage ‘decorative groove,’ of unknown origin.


Hi Strelok,
Have looked carefully with an eyepiece. There are no ‘etched’ numbers or markings.


Okay, here’s what I was referencing:

Caption (translated):

Experimental cartridge, inert with the factory-engraved reference number (1701). Aluminum bullet with partial brass casing.

It is possible that Municion is incorrect. They have pictures of examples with 1701, 1702, 1703, 1705, 1706, and 1707 etched in the same location and all are referred to as “factory engraved.” 1703 and 1707 are blanks, though and not inert. Is it possible Lanza had these engraved and not the factory?

Pete, as for swaging and means of construction I am not sure! Although you make a great point in how the sheath has to be fitted. It might be that the swage/crimp is simply referencing the finishing work done to achieve a tighter fit (although I wouldn’t think you could get any tighter than pressure fitting).