Very nice find, Norbert! I would say a broken bunter?
Norbert, these dnh St+ 2 42, are they Sintereisen? Already in 1942?
I think the first SE from “dnh” was the first lot of 1943.
Dutch - while I believe you are absolutely correct for normal production, I have a 9 mm SE cartridge in brass case, headstamp dnh * 2 41. However, it also has a copper-cup Sinoxid “O” primer. I think it was likely loaded much later than the case was made, and either for some special, non-military purpose, or simply very late in the war as a “clean” up of components still on the shelf at RWS.
If anyone has a different theory, please let us know.
I have had this round for decades, and at the time acquired, was “just another old 9 mm round” as far as price goes. All the factors involved rule out a “fake” or “stuffer” for in my opinion.
The cartridges without the star, where these in the box you did show?
I do have the same cartridge with and without * in my collection too, they seem not to be very rare, but I have never seen a box of them.
I have these four different ones dnh lot 2 42:
dnh * 2 42 m.E brass/tombac (+cutaway)
dnh 2 42 m.E. brass/tombac
dnh 2 42 m.E steel/blackened
dnh St+ 2 42 m.E steel/blackened
With regards, Jaco
The earliest dnh St+ SE Round I have is (case)lot 4 in '42. Steel case, Primer 08/40
Jaco the dnh 2 42 without the star are in the box dnh 1942 7. L.
History of German SE bullets Mostly from memory without looking up the details!!!
Most of this information is from original German correspondence from VDM Sintermetallwerk G.M.B.H, Ettlingen, Baden via the Halstead Exploitation Center (HEC) and through the Imperial War Museum back in the 1970s. VDM held the original patents on SE bullets which apparently date from mid-1939. A quick glance indicates the file date back to 1940. It appears that VDMs first interest was SE bullets in 7.9mm and driving bands for artillery shells. I do not have the information on large caliber work, but the 7.9 work was apparently dropped because the bullet tips kept breaking off. Early 1941 appears about the time VDM got interested in 9mm P08. They did a good deal of development along two lines, a blunter 9mm SE bullet and a jacketed bullet with an SE core. I have an SE core load headstamped by eej in 1941, and the Woodin Lab (ex Randy E) has a blunt bullet SE load with an hla headstamped case from 1942. The VDM documentation states that testing during this period was conducted by eej and hla and implies that these companies did the loading. The eej case has a distinctively reddish lacquer and is probably an experimental case finish with left-over cases used for inhouse testing. Eventually the SE core bullet was accepted by by the Army for production and over a million bullets were ordered. Production was delayed by difficulty getting material to construct the production facility. In the mean time VDM located (or perhaps designed) a sintering machine that produced bullets that were less likely to break and returned to development of a full SE bullet. Testing was moved to DWM, likely at Lubeck. At one point DWM apparently offered the Germany Army their version of the SE bullet because one of the documents was a letter from the President of VDM to someone who apparently very high in DWM. In this letter, he was furious at this DWM tactic and accusing the DWM guy of “behaving like a Jewish person”. WOW!!! The letter closes “Heil Hitler” and a signature which I can’t read.
As testing progressed, problems turned up with the light weight of the SE bullet. When the MP40 was fired up or down it would not feed properly. A number of differnt SE Lang bullets were tested, apparently to add weight to the SE bullet. This also required a compressed powder charge. I have three different rounds and a number of collections in both Europe and the US have these or similar bullets. All the ones I have seen came from a lake at the Lubeck range and are a bit rough. Obviously the feed problem was solved some other way because the SE Lang bullet was never accepted and the well known SE bullet was accepted and went into high rate production in 1943.
John, There is no mention of RWS (dnf or dnh) ever being involved in this VDM effort. There is no evidence that either eej or hla was involved after 1942. I believe your round is a normal load (or normal components) that someone put a production SE bullet (from your description of the bullet) If it is heavier or blunter than another bullet than that is another discussion. Clearly the normal SE bullet probably didn’t exist until sometime in 1942 so the case is not contemporary with the bullet, and you pointed this out above. I am not asserting this is a fake round.
(Based on your information that your dnh * 2 41 round has a Sinoxid primer without the normal red primer seal, I believe it was most probably a dnh produced load. )
The SE round was an interesting technical innovation and was undoubtedly of great interest to RWS. I am sure they would have liked to gain a piece of that production. The dnh SE loads show up as early as case lot 2 of 1943 (lot 4 of 42 based on Rolf’s post above). and the yellow pa Helmet Test loads in case lot 4 of 1943.
The dnf SE loads occur with case lot 6 of 1943. RWS did experiment with a truncated bullet with grooves around the case (Woodin Collection) that appears to be SE. The case is dated lot 9 of 1942 which may have been a parallel program to the VDM work. I think your round was something put together by dnh to support their own development effort.
PS: Sorry if there are errors or this post is disjointed. Have a lot going on just now.
edited to remove errors.
Lew - if just a bullet in the case, I would agree with the assumption that my cartridge I described was just a stuffer - that is, a bullet put in an empty case by someone who couldn’t stand it being empty. Several problems with that however. Firstly, I purchased it or was given it, I don’t recall which, decades ago, as I mentioned, before the collector world decided to value an slightly unusual cartridge like it was made out of gold. Secondly, it has an RWS Sinoxid primer, which fits in with its headstamp (same manufacturer as the case). Thirdly, if I paid anything at all for it, it was pennies compared to prices today, as generally speaking (of course, some exceptions), 9 mm cartridges were not highly priced like things like Mars Pistol Cartridges (I paid 20.00 for my first Mars round - bear in mind at that time I bought it you could buy a pretty good .303 Enfield rifle for about ten bucks in most gun shops in San Francisco).
Nothing in particular points to this as being a fake or stuffer. My best guess was that it was part of a late war utilization of left over components. While I like it in my collection, I do not value it highly or consider it to be any kind of early experimental cartridge, but rather just the use of any components available at a time when Germany was possibly already way down on the spiral of total defeat.
Just my thoughts on it. Rounds like this, unless documented with scholarly sources of information, in my view can never be positively identified and shouldn’t be treat as anything “special,” but rather just as an interesting oddity.
Lew this could be for the 9mm. For the 7,9 I think they started in 1943.
Dutch, It appears only one lot of 9mm cases was made by eej and these are steel headstamped eej St 1 41. That is an interesting looking bullet. It could well be that VDM continued working on the 7.9 bullet. The flattened tip would likely have been to help prevent the tip from breaking off. The bullet looks turned and the VDM SE bullets are not turned or at least I have not seen any that I recall as being turned!
I wasn’t clear in my previous post, and in a rush, made some mistakes. The points I intended to make were:
- There is no evidence that I can find in the 1942 or later VDB documents that dnh or dnf were involved in the VDM development of the SE bullets in 9mm caliber.
- The bullet in the dnh case appears to be a standard VDM SE bullet which was introduced in 1943 and not one of the the experimental variations. (Rolf, Your dnh St+ 4 42 SE is interesting. My earliest is lot 2 of 43. dnh appears to have made only 3 case lots in 1942. I wonder what the load date/lot was for your round. Would be nice if you have the box!!!)
- This round could well have been a dnh (or dnf) test effort independent RWS test effort and not a fake round.
Sorry, I will edit my post!
Your description of the dnh SE round mentions a Sinoxid primer, but all Sinoxid rounds I have with this headstamp have red primers. You mention a “copper-cup”. Does this indicate that there is no red sealant on this round?
There is no red sealant, which is another reason I believe my round was likely a clean up of “on-the-shelf” componenets, perhaps late in the war. The copper cup was just that, a copper primer cup as opposed to steel, nickeled, or brass cup. Police and Commercial (Export) rounds did generally have the red primer sealant. Just for the record, I never thought, and think I said that, that the 1941 case was contemporary with the SE-bullet loading, nor did I mention (since I didn’t know either way), any RWS involvement with the actual development of the SE 9 mm bullet.
One of those many, many items from that turbulent era that likely can never be properly identified.
When you mention the Sinoxid primer I assume you mean it is a copper primer with a circle impressed on it. Is this correct? I have never seen these primers in any other than a copper cup. It is interesting that these primers are patented by RWS but from my limited experience only show up in Geco and RWS cases made at the Geco Durlach factory.
Does anyone have examples of RWS made cases loaded with Sinoxid primers???
Ref the N marked boxes. These would very probably be production for the SS and perhaps other Nazi organizations. Neither the code nor the label meets Army specifications. A good deal more information is available at:
for LEW ,i would know how to difference the RWS cases made by RWS from those made at GECO
in my list i had R.W.S. . 1 39 and R.W.S. . 1 40 with sinoxid primer
Lew - yes, I meant the primer with the impressed “O” on its face.
I believe that RWS supplied the primers to Geco. I am not aware of any doubt or controversy over who made the impressed “O” Sinoxid Primers. Since in the period you are speaking of, RWS and GECO were both controlled by the same parent company, I don’t find it surprising at all that GECO used these primers in both the GECO-marked and RWS-marked cases made at Geco.
Ammogun, From another Forum topic’
In 1927, Geco and RWS reached an agreement where RWS made all rifle ammunition and Geco made all pistol ammunition for both companies.
Both of the headstamps you mention are made by Geco and are found in the “N” code boxes