The heavenly crimped D.C.Co round how far does that round go back?? The round with the MW 1917 Stamp
comes from a subsidiary of Sellier+ Bellot an was only in use for 4 years how scarce is that one?? the WRA
with the open primer pocket is that a dummy or just a lost primer and the one with the 22K stamp and
trunketed bullet is that dutch production? and the 9mm 41 British Royal Laboratory how many of these
were made?I understand only a short run was done??
Sherryl
The K22 truncated looks Kynoch to me. And yes, possibly for the M11 Dutch service pistol of the KNIL. Let’s say the Vickers-Luger. And maybe you should rectify the date function of your device.
You are correct about your British Royal Laboratories round being made in a small quantity. Royal Laboratories made a small pilot lot in 1941 but ceased production of this calibre in the same year when other companies took on production.
Jim thank you for writing I am sure you know there is blank to that round but it is more scarce than a hen
thees what I really wanted to find out was how many were actually made?? Now I found it very ought that
no one reacted to that D.C.C.o round yes normally D.C.C.o is nothing out of the ordinary but in this case
it seems a little different first look at the heavy crimp this musst be one of the first 9mm produced by that
company after the introduction of that round by the Germans and it is also before the name change by that
company.The other one is the MW 1917 stamp nothing seems to be known about that one the only info I have
is that it was a plant taken over by the German military at the beginning of the first war and produced for 4
years.
duqjans
thanks for the note I should have realized that the K stands for Kynoch.Thanks for the advise regarding the
date correction nothing wrong with that however you musst realize that at my age such things represent
major problems if were to attempt that by the time I finish there would be no more Computer and this thing
would be at the bottom of lake Nippissing sitting at the dept of the TITANIC.I am lucky to know when I want
to operate this thing that I must raise the lid first and when things break down I am in real trouble I just
scream for my wife. Sherryl
Sherryl,
Some nice items. I think the DCCo hst must be post WWII because in 1941 or early 1942 the British Ordnance Board went out to all the Commonwealth asking if anyone had produced 9mm Para cartridges. Canada replied that they had never produced this caliber. The specifics are in the OB Procs. I think the earliest DCCo headstamp on 9mm P is on a blank, The Colonel who ran the Frankfort Arsenal during WWII was also a cartridge collector and I visited him when i was a young Lt which would have been about 1968 when he lived in Columbus Ohio. He had a drawer with 8 or 10 WCC steel case 9mm, which all had different case finishes but had corroded to the dates on the headstamps were unreadable, In the drawer he had an extended case blank headstamped “D.C.Co. .351 S.L.R.” that had a tag on it that said “Experimental”. He said the Canadians had sent some down during “the War”. He was kind enough to give it to me that evening, and I have never seen another.
Dominion did sell 9mmP before the war but the boxes said that it was made by Kynoch. The rounds in my Canadian boxes of the period contain K 22 rounds like the one you picture. Kynoch boxes from into the 1930s contain this round. Kynoch first made ammunition for the Dutch “Vickers” Lugers in 1920 and continued through 1923. However it appears that the 1922 production was rejected because in 1922 FN produced this ammunition for the Dutch, and the K 22 ammo appears to have been sold off in Canada and the UK for at least a decade.
The R^L round is nice and not often seen anymore. B^E also produced this round in small quantities in 1941. Note your round lacks a primer crimp that is on production ammo.
The MW 3 17 round is a nice WWI item. Lot 2 of 1917 (actually Feb 1917) was the first Schoenbeck production so your’s is an early round. They appear to have ended production in November 1915 and begun again in May 1918. No December (12 18) production is known but there are a couple of rounds known dated Jan 1919 (1 19) which are very rare.
Thanks for posting your rounds!
Cheers,
Lew
Lew
I thank you for your very informative letter no it is not possible to argue against a letter that stated no
production of 9mm ammo had taken place previously but boy that heavy crimping and old stamp surly
got to me however you and me both over looked a small item on that round that wich verifies your avaluation
that round has a RED ANNULUS and that in itself most likely precludes it as an early round the marking of
the annulus is a science by itself but I doubt that it was in use before the first war.The info about the MW
round was very good thanks again.I noticed in another post discussion about some faa rounds are these on
the scarce side?? yes I have quite a few military ones myself but only 3 faa ones 13 43 13 44 and 44 9
but I do not have boxes thanks again Sherryl
Sherryl,
You make a good point on the primer seal color on the DCCo round. Since there are no pre-WWII Canadian 9x19 rounds I have no basis for dating the red pa on this round. I do have a DI 42 9MM round with a pink pa, a '43 with a red pa and yellow cms and another with a red stripe across the base and A '44 with a green pa, In addition, my DC 42 9MM has a pink pa. Based on this I can’t rule out the possibility that a red pa couldn’t exist in the same time frame.
Keep posting interesting things!
Lew
Lew
Thanks for your lines like I said before what bothered me the most on that round was that old D.C.Co stamp
but you cannot ignore irrefutable facts now perused some of mine there is a DC 42 9mm DI 42 9mm
Di 42 9mm dummy Di 43 9mm Di 43 9mm with 3 stab crimp holding the primer DA Canadian arsenal mark
45 9mm and chromed case nowhere any sign of that old mark out of that period.Now Lew I am going out
on a limp is there a possibility that they have produced a very special handfull of round for very certain
purpose like the Germans produced a hand full of Sten guns that to this day cannot be kept apart from the
real Mc Coy.I know this is right out but think about it in May 1942 Heydrich was assecinated in Prag however
what I am getting here is the fact that the deed was to be done with a Sten Gun wich malfunctioned wich
forced the attacker to resort to a granade.However the question here is why did that Sten malfunction was it
the AMMO??? or was it the Gun I could never find out may be result was complains about poor ammo??/
rapid fire of these guns forcing bullets into casings and causing failure!! Do not forget Lew they did not tell
the public the truth then and they are doing it even less today
Sherryl
Sherryl,
in my opinion it was neither the gun nor the ammunition but, as in 99.99 percent of all “jams” I have witnessed, an operator that did know how to operate his gun properly.
Heydrich’s driver showed the same: under stress he pressed the magazine button and lost the magazine.
Peelen
yes what you are saying i believe is quite right however in this case you mis under stood I was refering to the
check attacker he had a Sten gun hidden under his over coat or what ever it was and intended to shoot
Heydrich with it and the Gun mal functioned what you related happened after the Attacker had thrown a hand
granade into the car after wich Heydrich even with a piece of spring in his back and the driver chased the
attacker for a bit until Heydrich collapsed he died later of sepsis what later happened you and I only know to well
Sherryl
Sherryl,
I fully understood you were referring to the attacker (I am not sure who it was, Kubis or Gabcik, one Czech, one Slovak) with the Sten. You stated we do not know whether the gun or the ammunition failed. And I tried to convey my opinion that neither failed and the attacker was in the end responsible for the “jam”. It was his job to know the strengths and weaknesses of his weapon and make sure it worked when needed.
I disagree with the convenient view that in case of a “jam”, automatically the weapon or ammunition must be at fault. In my experience, practically always the operator is the culprit. Faulty weapons and cartridges exist, no doubt, but they are extremely rare compared to operator mistakes.
I’ve read that the reason for that Sten to malfunction, was that the attacker had removed the stock to make it shorter and easier to hide under his jacket. But the ring on the stock that attached it to the gun, is a vital part to keep the recoil-spring in place. The cup and lock behind this ring is not strong enough to take shooting without the stock attached. There are pistol grips that is possible to attach to Sten in the same way as the stock to avoid this problem. But they didn’t have this. If they had just cut of the stock, and left the attachment ring in place, the gun would probably not fail. Picture of a Sten MkII with pistol grip instead of stock. The silencer is a postwar made for Stay Behind.
