Can anyone ID or confirm this German 7.92x57 clip?
The surface looks painted or phosphated and laquered. It is very hard to tell just by looking at it. No markings at all.
It was found in a usual 15 rd box of S.m.E. from “hrn” 1944. The box was opened and about 50% of the content was missing. The label did not say that the it was with clips (no “i.L.” stamp) so it might be that the clip is not from this box. Or was it usual to have clips in boxes which were not marked to contain clips?


What is the width of this charger? Has it a maker’s mark?

If it is 13.2mm wide it will fit Kar 98-type guides and would hold 7.9x57 cartridges; if it is 14.5mm wide it will be a Mauser M.93-type charger or one of its derivatives, originally for 7x57 but later for a number of other rounds.

Whichever, it certainly looks as if it doesn’t belong in your packet, as 7.9x57 chargers with two lugs weren’t used by the Germans in WW2. 2-lug 7.9x57 chargers have been used mainly by Portugal and Czechoslovakia, and also by Japan and possibly China.

JJE, thanks for your reply. It is 14.5mm wide. There are no markings at all. So it might be a 7x57 clip? Who made it?


If the charger has no markings there is no certain way to tell who made it, as this M.93 type and its derivatives have been made by dozens of manufacturers all over the world and many of them are unmarked. I haven’t seen many this dark in colour, but one such is the UK NATO Mk.2 charger (see below) which has a black phosphated finish. If it has no mark visible on the base, slip the spring out and see if it is marked “MB 1957” on the inside of the channel. MB stands for Millard Bros.

For interest, here is a list (almost certainly incomplete) of cartridges and rifles that have used a charger with the same or closely similar dimensions and two sidewall lugs on each side:

  1. 7x57 Mauser

JJE, thanks again. So there is basically almost no way to tell what it is if I understand right?




During re-pack operations where chargers were either added or removed, sometimes only the 900 or 1500 round cases received the i.L., O.L., F

Phil, thank you for that detail, good to know!


Simple question, have you removed the spring and checked to see if there are any stampings under it?

Being 14.5mm it could be a British Mk. 2 Charger, if it is and you don’t want it I would be interested in it. :-)

NZ, I checked it, no markings but from inside it is clearly visible that it got phosphated first and then laquered, the spring also. Any thoughts?

You guys may recall that I mentioned a Springfield steel clip that was made without the end clips, and was much better than the early ones. It was very much like a U.S. 7.62 x 51 NATO clip for the M14, but had two space side bumps instead of just one center one. I also mentioned that I recalled they were quite black in color, or words to that effect.

Whether or not the clip shown was originally made for the Springfield, a fact that I really would not have known at the time I was using them since I had no interest in any rifle chargers except to use in shooting, this clip looks exactly like I remember those clips. It has been a long time, and we have found out more than once on this Forum that my memory is far from perfect, but it is interesting, in light of what I said on the other thread, that this clip is really black, not grey, at least in the photo, and the side bumps appear to spaced about the same as a Springfield clip. It would be interesting to see if this clip would work in an O3.

John, are the Springfield clips 14.5mm wide?

EOD - I just measured a bunch of them, brass and steel but all the type with the end clips, and they ran from 14.47 m/m to 14.54 m/m. I measured some U.S. 7.62 NATO clips, which are closer to the construction of the clip pictured in this thread, and the ran about 1.34 to .14.36, but one I think is foreign ran 14.54.

Bear in mind, I am not saying that the clip pictured is U.S. made or a Springfield clip. I am only saying that the clips that I remembered using in my Springfield because of their superiority over the well-known version of Springfield clips with end tabs, looked very much like the clip in the picture, especially as to the very black color of them. It may be they were always Mauser clips and I just didn’t know it. They worked great.

Too bad someone there doesn’t have an 03 and some '06 dummy rounds to see how that clip would work.

In checking the Springfield clips, I noticed one has a little round hole in the spring just about center of the clip. Anyone know why? It is obviously not just something someone did, but rather a production feature.


Is the one with the small round hole in the centre of the spring otherwise identical to the others in your hand or does it have the typical Mauser wavy spring?


The Mauser mod 93 clip and the '03 Springfield clip are dimensionally very similar and are usually interchangeable in service. This shouldn’t be surprising since the '03 is basically a copy of the '93 Mauser clip. The little hole seen in the early '03 clip was evidently an aspect of the fixturing for the manufacture of the spring; a similar hole is seen in Mauser clips of various models down to perhaps 1905 or so. JG

The cartridge-retaining flanges on EOD’s charger seem to be the simple bent-over type (rather than the earlier “recurved” type where the sidewall was first bent inward through 180

I checked it with 30-06 and it worked fine - as it did with 7.92x57…


The head, rim and base measurements of the 7x57, 7.92x57, .30-06 and 7.62x51 NATO are close enough for a “tolerent” charger to take all four comfortably.

So I’m very much afraid that we’re probably not going to be able to pin yours down further than saying that it’s a “M.93 type”, although if I was forced to guess I would say it’s more likely to be either 7x57 Mauser, .30.06 or 7.62 NATO (several FAL mag loaders took the 2-lug charger). But then again, and not for the first time, I could be completely wrong!

This is the sort of problem that makes the study of clips and chargers so fascinating – and so frustrating.

Gravelbelly - my friend will be posting my answer to your question about the 03 charger spring with the hole, along with both sides of one with and one without (scans).

General comment. It is becoming clear to me that the chargers I used in target shooting - which at the time were scarce which is why when I quit I turned them over to friends still competing who liked them - were probably “two bump” 7.62 NATO chargers. We didn’t know the difference then. To me, if it had three bumps, it was a K98k charger, two bumps, a Springfield charger (unless obviously European. I had, and still do, 7 x 57 and 6.5 x 55 Mausers), one bump a NATO charger and no bumps, in my parameters of the time, a 7.65 Argentine Mauser clip. I think I have that right. If not, forgive me. I may have mixed up the 7 x 57 and the 7.65 Argentine. Have not shot either of my rifles in those calibers for years and years. A shame, actually, as they both shot great. Ignorance was bliss, in a way!

Sorry that I muddied the waters on the M1903 Springfield Charger story.

Gravelbelly - Not sure I understand what you mean, so a picture is worth a thousand words. I had not noticed how different the two clips were. Both are brass (I converted the picture to black and white to look at it because I was not happy with the resolution of detail in the color photo. As occurs in some cases, the black and white photo is superior by far in this instance). The one with the hole in the spring has a spring that is much flatter - that is, it is not shaped so much like a very flat “V” with a flat bottom instead of a pointed one. I don’t know which is earlier. I couldn’t find the thread, but there was a nice pictures of many different 1903 Springfield clips on another thread, but I don’t recall if this one was in there or not. Probably.

Collection of John Moss