9x19 "D 43 9mm"


I’ll assume it is Canadian Dominion. Is the line behind “D” represent “I”, like Dominion Industries?


Hi Vlad,

It would make more sense if the primer crimp wasn’t there. The headstamp is actually DI 43 9mm. The DI is Defence Industries.



DI==Defence Industries…a company completely different and independant from either the Dominion Arsenals ( Govt.) organisation, or the Dominion-CIL private contractor. Set up with assistance from the fore mentioned in 1941-2 to manufacture BOXER primed ammo ( .303, 7.9mm, 9x19mm and possibly .380 and .455 Revolver ammo… 30 cal is also a possability…
Production Terminated 1945, but it is surmised the plant was “resurrected” ( either in situ or elsewhere) to make “Covert” ammo (The “MM” series) after WW II…the jury is still out on the dating…Maybe Wikileaks will find some old CIA docs somewhere???

Doc AV


I believe the “9 MM 40” (and subsequent dates) was made by Dominion Arsenals. The black primer seal and sequence of magnetic bullets is the same as their ammunition made in the 1950s.
By that time, DA was making boxer-primed ammunition. While the jury is still out on the precise years the clandestine ammunition was made, I do not believe it is out on the fact that it was not made in the years that it was dated.

Vlad - the pilot lot of 9mm made by Defense Industries was headstamped “DC 42 9MM.” Subsequent production all used the “DI” headstamp. That information is from Jim Houlden (now deceased) who was one of the principals in the whole operation. He sent me a ball round and a couple of different pattern dummy rounds that they offered up (he referred to them as “try dummies”) but were rejected.

I need, when I have time, to review my notes. I wrote an article on this ammunition for one of the bulletins, the California one I think, years and years ago. I got a very stern letter from Mr. Houlden basically saying he was sick and tired of everyone getting the stories of DA, DC and DI wrong. I didn’t know who he was and was going to send him back an equally vitriolic letter telling him all the Canadian sources my information came from. I thought better of it and wrote him a nice letter asking about his credentials in the field, and informaing him of all the sources I had used. I got back another letter, very, very nice and was I glad I tempered my anger when I saw who he was. We developed a very good friendship and I rewrote the article to his satisfaction. It might even be time to resurrect it. He set me a very good lot of information, along with the warning that most of the “common knowledge” among Canadians was wrong.
Today, not just through my article but just through the much higher level of research being done, I suspect all the Canadian collectors, and and the publishers of a series of booklets on Arms subject, have the correct information these days.

If I remember this thread, after Christmas, the next time I will have much research time, I will try to find my article, and get out my file on Canadian 9mm Ammo, and see if I needs a new Journal article, or if I can condense it down to the Forum. I would rather do the latter.


Thanks Doc,

Don’t know what I was thinking. I knew it was Defence Industries! I’ll edit my reply.