ID ON 7.92x57 HEAD STAMP WANTED


#1

Can anyone help with this head stamp below? The crimped projectile is magnetic nickel plated and pointed.


#2

EOD - this is a product of the Mukden Arsenal, in Machuria. They made Mauser rifles there as well - interesting rifles with a Japanese Arisaka-type sliding steel action cover. I used to have a beauty years ago. Wish I had kept it.

NOTE: THIS IDENTIFICATION IS PROBABLY WRONG. SEE MY LATER POSTING. The Mukden Arsenal usually used the initials “M.A.” on their headstamps, not just an “M” and with very plain letters, with serifs or other embellishment.

Sorry. I should have engaged my brain while reading a very old note I had in my Chinese 7.9 file, now thrown in the garbage.


#3

John, thanks a lot, so this one is from 1923?


#4

That’s a good question. Would a factory in Manchuria use the standard Western date or the “+11” Nationalist dating? That would answer whether it is 1923 or 1934.


#5

EOD and Jon - I am not sure if Manchuria used the Chinese Republic calender or not.

However, more important, my initial identification of this round is probably wrong. It was from a note in my file that I should have thrown away, I think, initially identifying this as from Mukden. Some pretty good sources say that it is actually a Manurhin, France, contract for Czechoslovakia from 1923. The date fits for that, since they officially adopted the 7.9 x 57m/m Mauser rifle in 1924 as the Vz. 24. My earliest Czech-made military 7.9 Mauser is from Sellier & Bellot and dated September 1923. If the Czechs bought the machinery from Manurhin (were they in that part of the business that early?), then this round probably predates that Sellier & Bellot cartridge. They may have been a test run for the machinery, but my impression is that there are too many of them around today to have been made in a small quantity. I suspect that they were, instead, simply an initial full contract run.


#6

When I first saw this post, my very first thought was "French’, but I am way down the list of experts in 7.92 headstamps.


#7

So am I.


#8

John and Jon, so we agree on Manurhin? The details may be filled in by the 7.9 specialists?


#9

I agree. It immediately reminded me of the “MR 7,9” headstamp. Not scientific, I know, but it hit me that way.


#10

Once more thank you for pointing the right direction.