Are these things "collectible"?

I’m not a collector but am an accumulator. Picked up some cartridges because they looked “interesting” and don’t know if they are of interest to collectors, nor do I know if they have any “value”.
The first item is a 7.62-mm NATO round, all “chrome-plated” that was produced for Frankfort Arsenal’s bicentennial (I think it was the bicentennial). Originally this round had a black plastic base into which it fitted, but I lost that years ago!
Second item(s) are two cal. .50 BMG “duplex” rounds. One has what appears to be two bullets in an “ogee” white plastic “case” fitted into the mouth of the cartridge. The headstamp appears to be S L 5, with the S and L at about 11:00 and 1:00 respectively and the 5 at about the 5:00 position. The second duplex round contains two(?) more pointed bullets and the headstamp is 4 5 T W. The 4 and 5 are at about10:00 and 2:00, respectively, the T and W being at about 7:00 and 5:00 respectively.
The third cartridges are two 6-mm SAW fmj rounds, marked F A and what appears to be T and 5.
The final cartridges are Trounds in what appear to be .38 caliber. They are light green. The headstamp is DC and I can’t read the year!
Any info on the collectibility of these would be appreciated as well as any info on the cal. .50 duplex program. (Just curious about that!)

The simple answer is “yes” they are all collectible. The .38 Trounds are fairly common and not expensive, but all the others are in the $5 to $20 range.


The 50 BMG cartridges are not “duplex” rounds but are Salvo Squeeze Bore. They contain 5 individual projectiles in a plastic sleeve. The Browning MG was fitted with a special tapered muzzle adaptor and the five projectiles emerged as 30 caliber and would spread out to increase hit probability. There are several variations of the sleeves. They were loaded using WWII empty cases but actually date to the late 1960s. These were discussed in an earlier thread and I posted a photo of the projectiles, but I’m not sure it is still there. Collectible, but more or less common.

Are you positive that your SAW cartridges are not headstamped F A 7 5.


Bob - regarding your 7.62 NATO round from Frankford Arsenal, it was not a “Bicentennial Round.” Frankford Arsenal never reached its Bicentennial, regretably. It opened in 1816 and was closed in 1977. Those dates are reflected on the headstamp. They call this Frankford Arsenal’s “Tombstone” round, recognizing the fact that it “celebrates” the death of the Arsenal as an ammunition facility. There also exists a version called the “lightly-sturck” headstamp, which is not plated, and one with a normally-struck headstamp, which is also not plated. I have heard once or twice that they loaded some of these as well, but I have never seen anything but dummies, and can’t see any reason why they would have loaded any.

They are collectible now, and as time goes on, will get more and more so. Even now, you seldom see one for sale or for trade.

John Moss

I think the common 6mm SAW headstamps are F A 7 2 and F A 7 3.

Ray–Concerning your statement that the Project Salvo .50 BMG used 5 bullets “to increase hit probability”. This is not quite right as there was no way to aim the 5 bullets. The real use was by the Riverine Patrol Boats in Viet Nam for “saturation” fire into the jungle along the rivers. There was nothing but pure chance that any of the bullets hit an enemy, but with 5 bullets for every shot, it sure as heck tore up the jungle and made the enemy keep there heads down. Simply a case of spraying 5 times as much lead for your effort with no thought of a specific target.


I suppose we disagree on semantics. To me, “hit probablility” is what a bunch of bullets fired all at once accomplishes. A shotgun increases your “hit probablity” vs. a rifle and a rifle on full-auto increases your “hit probability” over semi-auto. A squad of soldiers firing a volley increases the “hit probability” vs a single rifleman. Flechettes and fragmenting grenades increse your “hit probablity”.

I think you’ll find “hit probability” as a goal quoted in a lot of official Ordnance documents.

I’m sure you’ve heard the age-old soldiers expression, “Put enough bullets in the air and the target may walk into one.” That’s the ultimate description of “hit probability”.

What description would you use?


Ray–OK, I can agree with your definition of “hit probability”.
I guess what I was trying to point out was that the .50 BMG Salvo was intended to be used for saturation fire, not aimed fired.

Thanks to all who responded! I learned alot. One of the 6-mm SAW rounds is headstamped FA 75 and I simply cannot make out the stamp on the other round. Interesting about the Salvo rounds. The photos posted are representative of the two cal. .50 rounds I have. The 6-mm appears to be an interesting round and I wonder why it “didn’t make it”. The long bullet theoretically should be pretty stable out to long range ('course this is just a novice opinion) and the total length isn’t that greater than the 5.56. Wonder if a commercial ammo mfgr ever thought of picking this one up. The now collectible Remington M600 (?) – the one with the “reverse M1917 bolt handle” would probably be sweet in this caliber. . .(?) Again, many thanks!


Who’s to say that Remchester won’t be introducing one of the 6mm SAW cartridges tomorrow? It seems that there’s a new one each day. I still hear talk about what a great sporting cartridge the 276 Pedersen would make. ;)

There were several versions of the SAW. (One was a twin of the 6 x 47.) There are current factory and wildcat cartridges that are ballistically identical to the others so another cartridge would not exactly be breaking new ground. The 6PPC and 6BR are two factory cartridges that come to mind and I can give you an entire catalog of wildcats that can do whatever the SAW cartridges would be capable of.

I don’t know the exact reasons why the SAW never made it to adoption but I’d guess that it had everything to do with changing military requirements. The government is notorious for always taking too long in developing new technology that is almost immediately obsolete.


The 6mm SAW was intended to provide a longer effective range to supplement the 5.56mm M193. In the end, it was decided that it made more sense to develop a better long-range loading for the 5.56mm. NATO then got involved, and the outcome was the Belgian SS109 5.56mm loading, made in the US as the M855.

When you say that 6 X 47 is a twin of a 6 SAW version do you mean that these two cartridges are interchangeable?



During the early days of development of the SAW there were several bullet and case iterations that were computer generated and brass cases were fabricated or purchased accordingly. Some were loaded and tested and some were not. In reading the descriptions it appears that the 222 Rem Mag necked to 6mm was one that was actually tested.

I can’t say positively that the 6 x 47 and the early SAW were “interchangeable”. Since the 6 x 47 was already a proven wildcat, common sense would have told them to leave it as is. But my military mind tells me that FA could have specified some very minor changes, for whatever their reasons.

I believe that the SAW cartridges were loaded using commercial 222 Rem Mag primed cases so identifying a genuine specimen would take some serious provenance documentation, IMHO.


Ray, I’m not sure if there is some confusion here over what is meant by the “6mm SAW” cartridge, but the two I have (6x45 steel cased and 6x50 light-alloy cased) have rim and body diameters of 10.3mm, compared with 9.5mm of the 5.56x45, 222, and .223 family. As far as I know the 6mm SAWs had unique cases, not based on anything else.


I believe the typical SAW cartridges familiar to most collectors are the later and final iterations. There were a host of cases and bullets that were computer designed (not all were tested). There were earlier threads here and on the old Forum that discussed and showed some of them. And you can also find articles in past issues of the JOURNAL that discuss some of the earliest ones.

When I said that the commercial 222 Rem Mag brass was used I was referring to just that one iteration, specifically. That was in answer to Pivi’s question about the interchangeability with the wildcat 6 x 47.


OK, understood Ray.