Cetinje Arsenal Montenegro?


This 303 was posted before without result I have found after some searching the meaning of the stamp mark
it is depicting wings and is apparently the sign of the CENTINJE Arsenal of Montenegro giving a date of CIRCA
1870-1890 now the emphasis is on the word Circa since I have not been able to find out when this place
ceased operations altogether!! The point here is that the cartridge has a C in the stamp wich in my opinion
denotes CORDITE however the info I have is that the first MARK 1 CORDITE loads were not produced before
1891 on top of it you will note a 9 in the stamp what meaning has that one 1889??? Opinions would be


It’s a MK II Cordite load from factory 6 which you should be able to find listed on Tony Edwards excellent website


Here is the URL




Opps Peter I think that’s factory 6


Yes, it is not a “9” but a “6”, that is the code of the manufacturer that supplied the case to RL Woolwich to be loaded there. Known numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 8.

Number 6 has been identified by the late John Pople-Crump as being the code of King’s Norton Metal Co.




Thanks for passing this list to me looked for it and could not find it thank you


Thank you for your reply no I would not argue with the late Pople- Crump a 6 it is wich is very interesting to me
you state that case was than loaded by RL Woolwich?? Than what is the meaning of the Emblem on the case
I got that out of the THE CARTRIDGE GUIDE BY IAN V.HOGG on page 160 under the heading 2142 is a
cartridge bottem reprinted with that symbol and it is the only one in the book further on page 162 it states under
1870-1890 now if this should be correct Kings Norton should have delivered those cases to that Arsenal to be
loaded but how much and when??If 1890 and that is where the word Cirka comes is correct than of course
the whole cartridge is in question since the first MK 1 cordite loads did not come out before 1891.Advise


Sherryl, I would be careful of Hogg. I have found him less than accurate on occasion. In one book he discusses an FN M1900 with a French North Africa somewhere that is clearly Chinese made! A number of very knowledgeable British cartridge and ammunition experts, some who knew him personally, have been less than complementary of his accuracy. We all make mistakes, but a word of caution in this case.



Sherryl, I think you may be confused by the symbol shown at the 7 o’clock position on your headstamp. This is a Roman numeral ‘2’ and not a pair of wings. It is clearer to see in this photo of a Kynoch headstamp from the same period. The symbol at 2 o’clock on my headstamp is the same symbol as at 7 o’clock on your cartridge.


The answer is an absolut no and no again this is just the idea of this question and answer


Sherryl, as mention by Jim, this is a Cordite Mark II cartridge having a “6” at 12, a Roman numeral “II” at 4, and a “C” at 8. There is no connection with Cětinje.




I thank you for your reply and your exceptional expertise is widely recognized by everyone however on this
one no and no again this is not a roman numeral 2 I know that pic is not to good I thought long and hard
before I put this thing out the same happened already the first time I posted that cartridge a while back
That is exactly why I tried it again here is some new pics maybe they are op help


Sherryl, this confusion is caused because it was headstamped with broken bunter, but it is not a cyrillic letter “П” or anything else, just a Roman “II” with a missing top.




I have followed this thread and have to add to what many knowledgeable people have already posted…There are no “wings” here…the cartridge was headstamped with a bunter missing the center part of the top line of the Roman numeral II (2).



Please be so kind and take another look the top is there just As I have drawn it and you will not believe it
the idea that it could be cyrillic had not even entered my mind


Yes, I can see it, but to read this headstamp properly you must position the “II” at 4 o’clock, so the missing part is on top (facing inward), not on the bottom like shown in your drawing.



Why do you persist thinking it something is what it is not. MANY British case types use Roman numerals to denote the Mark of the cartridge. 9mm, .450, 455, & 303 to name a few. EVERY one of these case types shows on some examples the same bunter flaw you persist calling something that it isn’t.


I would point out that there are a great many bunter style variations on headstamps of the same type. Such as thicker vs thinner, filled-in spots, broken spots, scale-of-size differences even, etc. And so to see a known headstamp that is not terribly uncommon, having a bunter characteristic which makes one character look like something else is not unusual. For a collector who has not seen what the original correctly-styled headstamp looks like, it is entirely understandable as to how they can interpret the character as something it is not. The image posted by Jim shows the same sort of error, but the strike is more pronounced and thicker looking, so not the same exact bunter as the one shown by Sherryl, but same idea. There are also many headstamp characters which are nearly identical, but which depend entirely on context to know which one they are, to say nothing of the unintended error headstamps which resemble other things.

This would explain via the path of least resistance why the letter C for Cordite does not fit with a cartridge of the era or origin that it was thought to be (Cetinje) in the original post - because it is not.

I recall that when the new Browning branded ammo came out last year that there were a lot of questions about the “Arabic letters” on them, but then once turned to a certain angle, and compared against their known trademark (buck’s head), the image became clear.


I agree with Pete.
All British and as far as I know, all Commonwealth countries used the roman numerals exclusively on service solid brass cased ammunition from the 1890s to around 1945.

In my 65 years of collecting, and studying military ammo I have seen many instances of badly formed roman numerals. Sometimes poorly struck, or little bits missing from the bunter. I believe this is one of those instances.

This is the first photo I picked at random. Badly struck bunter and note the poorly formed II.