Dominican .30 carbine ammo questions


#1

I just recently pick some of this stuff up. Its dated from 1954 to 1980’s… I have found a few issues…

I know that there was issues with .50 BMG that was made in the Dominican. Are there the same issues with other ammo made there?


I pulled a few apart… the older stuff has ball powder and the newer dates have stick powder. Most charges were within 2.0 grains when weighed. The disturbing part is that one had only 4.0 grains of stick powder.

Any thoughts welcome…


#2

This Dominican ammunition in .30 Carbine is no good, period. It has been covered here before.
I worked for a large store and we initially sold a little of it. One carbine was damaged very badly. The ammo was corrosive, when it was sold to us as non-corrosive. Lots of malfunctions.
Both overloads, underloads, and no powder at all. Don’t use this ammo for shooting. That is all I can recommend. We almost immediately had to withdraw it from sale.

This was years ago. I guess because so few people will buy it, this stuff will hang around forever.


#3

I had, and fired, one box of Dominican .30 Carbine maybe 15-20 years ago. No problems, but it is corrosive and not good for the gas piston in a .30 Carbine as it cannot be readily cleaned. The Domincans used a different type of carbine, called the Christobal, and not the U. S. M1. Maybe the Christobal did not have a gas piston and the corrosive primers would not have caused so much of a cleaning problem. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crist%C3%B3bal_Carbine I am thinking the Dominican ammo had Berdan primers, but I really do not remember. Otherwise I probably would have cleaned and reloaded the fired cases, which I did not. I still have the empty box somewhere.


#4

In Missingsomething"s inquiry, he mentions that one of the cartridges in his lot had only four grains. That kind of defect is TYPICAL, not atypical, of this ammunition. We had one that blew the front-right locking lug off the bolt of a customer’s carbine, from an overload, or a defective case. Since we immediately scrapped all that we had, I don’t recall we ever even pursued the exact cause. It was the worst, but still only one of many complaints from our customers. Thank the Lord he was not injured, and only wanted the value of carbine replaced to him. The ammo is junk - I would not shoot one single round of it in any gun I own, especially with the prices that M1 carbines bring these days.


#5

Thanks for the info.

Here are the variations that I have in the 700+ rounds I have…
I was mistaken… 1962 is the oldest. Some of the headstamps are very poor and in my haste to sort them, I thought that they were '80’s dated.



1 - 1954

2 - 1955 ( Copper primer, brass primer)

1 - 1958

2 - 1959 ( With “R” and “D” and without)

1 - 1960

1 - 1961

1 - 1962

Hope this helps.

Craig


#6

Very nice group, Missingsomething. Darn, your “handle” doesn’t go well with the meaning of that sentence.

None of my comments about this ammunition, of course, have anything to do with the collecting aspects of it. Even after finding out of its ghastly quality, I will personally thrilled to be able to add not only some cartridges but also a couple of samples of packaging from the Domincan Republic to my .30 Carbine and 9 mm Para collections. I don’t save dates, but Missingsomething’s collection makes me almost wish I did!

Thanks for posting those nice pictures.


#7

Does anyone know details of the Dominican Republic’s ammunition manufacturing industry (military only, I would guess) during this period that they would care to share?


#8

So I thought I would do some testing. It appears that none of the years (that I have) are corrosive. I did a common nail test on the primers and none are rusty. I also did some known Czech ammo tests on 7.62x39 and 7.62 TT ammo as a control as it is known to be corrosive. So it appears that some of the rumors are false.

just some fyi…