9.5x18R

[ChrisP]

I am looking for information on the “9.5x18R”. The ECDV classes it as a version of the .380 Short C.F. and shows a number of bullet variations, but I remain unconvinced.

Dimensions (9.5 * GR *): RØ: 0.425, HØ: 0.374, MØ: 0.373, BØ: 0.373, CL: 0.719

G. Roth loaded several variations of the .380 Short C.F. and the two most common G. Roth headstamps are:

Dimensions (GR/ * /380/ * /): RØ: 0.419, HØ: 0.374, MØ: 0.373, BØ: 0.357, CL: 0.678
Dimensions (GR/ /380/ /): RØ: 0.427, HØ: 0.374, MØ: 0.373, BØ: 0.357, CL: 0.678

Note that the bullet diameter on both the .380’s is .357 (9mm) but the bullet on the 9.5x18R is .373 (9.5mm). The difference seems excessive IF we are talking about the same caliber by the same manufacturer.

So, can anyone shed any light on this?

[MRT]

Chris Do you have an idea of a date on this hs. Could it be a contract for 9mm Danish army revolvers (model 91)? Nice find.
Gerry

[WBD]

This is quite possibly a “Cattle Killer” cartridge. There were several 9.5/9.6 x 15-19mm cases produced all over Europe for such purposes.

[Forensic]

This is not a cattle-Killer…Its from the metric row of GR for “scandinavian” countries…which asked for metric stamps on Inch Cartridges
There are cartridges stamped GR * 8 *, GR * 8.5 *, GR * 9 *, and this GR * 9.5 * and they should be 320, 340, 360 and 380…
Brandt mentions this also in his book…
But I have never seen a box for this ammo with this headstamps. I have them all, and the 8.5 and 9 are usually hard to find…whereas the 8 and the 9,5 are really common here…

Forensic

[ChrisP]

Thanks Peter,

If it is for a .380 Revolver (and I have no reason to doubt you), I am still confused as to why G.Roth would load a .380 for Scandinavia, or anyone else, with a bullet diameter a ½ millimeter larger than their other .380 rounds?

[Fede]

Chris, I have never seen the box of this cartridge either, but I believe that this is an early variation of the .380 Revolver by G. Roth, which would explain the differences in measurements (other than extreme manufacturing tolerances). In some circumstances this is explained because some companies started with an outside lubricated bullet with heel and later changed to an inside lubricated design with an expanding base cavity or an entirely hollow base.

Also, even if I don’t think this is the case, if this is indeed an unknown 9.5x18R cartridge, then its G. Roth case number would be unknown as well, as there is no reported number for a 9.5x18R other than number 100, which is clearly described in catalogs as a .380 Revolver.

Here is a comparison of your specimen with another example with the same headstamp and a .380 Revolver by J. Roth:

In inches:
Dimensions 1 (9.5 / * / GR / * /): RØ: 0.425, HØ: 0.374, MØ: 0.373, BØ: 0.373, CL: 0.719
Dimensions 2 (9.5 / * / GR / * /): RØ: 0.425, HØ: 0.375, MØ: 0.371, BØ: 0.375, CL: 0.702
Dimensions 3 (JR / * / 100 / * /): RØ: 0.413, HØ: 0.373, MØ: 0.370, BØ: 0.366, CL: 0.708

In millimeters:
Dimensions 1 (9.5 / * / GR / * /): RØ: 10.79, HØ: 9.47, MØ: 9.47, BØ: 9.47, CL: 18.26
Dimensions 2 (9.5 / * / GR / * /): RØ: 10.79, HØ: 9.52, MØ: 9.42, BØ: 9.52, CL: 17.83
Dimensions 3 (JR / * / 100 / * /): RØ: 10.49, HØ: 9.47, MØ: 9.39, BØ: 9.29, CL: 17.98

For further comparion with other extreme measurements in .380, these are the dimensions of an early Eley example with copper case and “battery cup” primer (in millimeters only):

Dimensions 4 (no headstamp): RØ: 10.94, HØ: 9.61, MØ: 9.59, BØ: 9.58, CL: 17.64

And another one by SCB loaded with a hollow lead bullet (in millimeters only):

Dimensions 5 (SCB * 380 *): RØ: 10.90, HØ: 9.58, MØ: 9.57, BØ: 8.98, CL: 17.16

As you can see, if for some reason this 9.5x18R is something different from a .380 Revolver this is not clearly defined by its dimensions.

Regarding its designation, it seems that G. Roth considered that 9.5 mm was the equivalent to .380 from the 1880’s until c. WWI, and later changed to 9 mm. In the following excerpts you the see the designations used in 1886, c. 1910 and 1927, respectively.

Regards,

Fede

[ChrisP]

Thanks Fede, and everyone.

The evidence of evolution in the caliber from Roth’s own catalogues seems to fully support it being simply an early version.

Now, back to .450’s !!

[PetedeCoux]

Better late than never, a photo of mine with an off-center primer, dark toning & a ding (or two) on the bullet, but which has a .361" dia. bullet.