What do you think of this ammunition that I have just acquired?
I have very little information.
Thank you .
Thanks for the link.
Is it rare?
Is there a known case length that can be associated to this one?
The examples I’ve seen the fit at the case walls of the threaded base and the side of the case is very close. This example would not chamber. I would ask you to look very closely at the threads on both pieces to see if they seem 'cleaned up"
In looking closer at your somewhat dark on my screen photos it looks to me as if yours has a 2-piece head it looks like the threaded part has a added sleeve see the arrows & why it does not fit as closely as it should along the side. I’m not aware of this type of head / base manufacture, in the perhaps 5 or 6 of these I’ve handled. No to say I’ve see them all, but as this is a one piece base / head why go the the bother of adding the extra work to fit another piece?
Alex these were made in several hole configurations and as a 1-piece case without holes. CL on my fired examplee is 2.180" / 55.37mm.
Pete, thank you for the case length!
Does your proj. have a light blue tip?
What you see on Vickers’ case head looks to me like a somewhat uneven chamfer.
I’m trying to make better pictures tomorrow but for me it’s all in one piece.
The length is 55.46 mm
Yes the tip is light blue
Great thread! Thanks to all for posting!
Here are more pictures.
The base is indeed in one piece.
All dimensions are identical to those shown in Peter Labbett’s article.
Have a nice day.
Yes that head does look correct. I just don’t understand why it fits so far away from the body at the front it being a fired case, as mine also is.
I have seen others where it wasn’t as close as it is on mine, but those were not as far away as yours seems to be. Perhaps just an illusion & so much to do about nothing?
May be a brand of matrix.
sorry about the photo quality, my scanner has gone on holiday! from Tony Edwards ’ The Broadway Trust Company’ publication.
Never heard of this before. My question is “why?” AFAIK, by 1940, there were several existing cartridges that would have similar ballistics. Reduced recoil seems kind of gimmicky.
Waterman, others may have more knowledge of this than me, but my understanding is that it was not for reduced recoil. The idea was to produce an increase “in the pressure space-curve having a high mean value” (from P. Labbett’s article above which quoted from Burney’s patent). In other words, to increase the area under the pressure curve to increase muzzle velocity without peak pressure becoming too high. Not really successful (at least for other reasons having to do with gun function), but still a very interesting experiment.