8 mm Blank tear gas

A friend of mine gave me a 8 mm Blank “tear gas” cartridge.It came from an anonymous plastic box so I have no info about the maker or about the load

It is headstamped 8 mm SAX CS

I think that CS refers to the load ( CS gas? )but never seen a “SAX” hds

It is identical to the standard 8 mm Blank rounds with brass case but it is close with a yellow plastic cup instead of a green one

When fired from my friend’s austrian blank pistol ( that can also shoot flare cartridge as it has the barrel only partially closed),it produces a small cloud about 1 meter from the gun.I suggest not to breathe the gas contained in that cloud…

Try this link:
if works.

Thanks,it is the same cartridge.

I can’t read most of the german text but I understand that there is a german factory named “SAX”


The Egun Link shows a place called Landsberg, Germany with the town code 86899.

The only thing I found is a gun store

This corresponds with the German brand registration info.

The brand ‘Sax’ is registered by Sax, Harald, 86899 Landsberg in the area of guns, ammunition, sports- and hunting.

The brand was registered between 1989 and 1999.

Thanks,any info about the tear powder containde in this cartridge?

it is CS
You have ctges (in the same caliber) loaded with CN.
(CN is less powerfull than CS)

It is not completely correct to say that CN is “less powerful” than CS. That depends on the type of carrier it is in. CS is more effective in gas and smoke form. CN is more effective in a liquid carrier, such as found in “MACE” projectors, and similar products. In a liquid carrier, CS is pretty impotent.

I would agree that in the typical gas cartridge fired from pistol-like tear gas projectors, CS is probably more effective than CN, but you need to include that “modifier” when discussing the relative incapacitation abilities of the two forms of tear gas.

You are right, John,about the influence of the carrier.

Keeping on the same subject, I wonder why they don’t use in ctges pepper compound (Oleor

Rather exposure, concentration etc.
Comparison of riot control agents:
au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/med … trv699.pdf

Exposure is, of course, the most important. A face full of CN is more effective than one little drop. Concentration is also important but in the instance of civilian devices, that is normally controlled by laws and regulations, either at the manufacturer or the law enforcement level, and therefore beyond the capability of the user to control. In the case of all of the aerosol versions of which I am aware, CS or CN, due to the concentration available in these containers, CN is the most effective in a liquid carrier. The civilian-grade CS containers, if one can even find them anymore, and again I am speaking of liquid-carrier units, are not good for much.

Also, civilian devices are much different than the military use of controlling chemical agents, and since the 8mm cartridge about which this thread was started is normally used by civilians, rather than police or military, that is what I am speaking of. Frankly, I am not well versed in military chemical agents nor do I have much material on them in my library.

J-P: I think they still do make the Capsicum devices (Pepper Spray) but not sure, in my state, if they are generally legal. They are often used as dog-repelling devices, because as you know, the tear-gas agents don’t work on dogs due to their differences in physiology (as I recall, dogs don’t have tear ducts). Squirting a dog in the face with plain water is about as effective as squirting him with CN or CS in a liquid carrier. Pepper spray works much better on them.

A strong capsicum spray is also fairly effective on people, I believe, although it generally takes a little longer in incapacitate them than does CN. Of course, that is partially affected by the will to resist of the person sprayed. Some people, especially if they are familiar with tear-gas agents and have a strong will to resist, can overcome even CN gas, as one of the main control-functions, the causing of panic, is gone for those people. At a civilian level, the use of chemical-agent devices against an attacker, especially an armed one, is always a crap shoot. If the user of the device isn’t aware of the wind, for example, he can “gas” himself rather than his opponent. I have never fired one of the tear-gar pistols - they are illegal in our state and have been forever - it is not one of the more or less current anti-gun (hell - anti-everything) laws passed by the liberals here. I suspect that the wind affects them as well.

Thanks folks