Lcaap lot numbers


Does anyone know anything about LCAAP lot numbers?

LC was assigned several blocks of 5-digit lot numbers during WWII, such as LC 12125.

In January 1970 the numbering system was revised by using a prefix number followed by a lot number, such as LC 20-26 .

Sometime around 1978 or 1979 they began using much longer lot numbers, such as LC 79K130-007.

Anybody out there know how to decipher the latest numbers???



The two or three letter designator on the left is the manufacturer, of course. Most are 3 letter codes anymore.

Working to the right, the next two numeric digits are the year

The next digit over is a letter, indicates month, except they do not use the letter “I” to prevent confusion with the # “1.” A=January, B=February, etc.

The next 3 digits are numbers and indicate the lot #.

The next position is either a hyphen “-” to indicate a homogenous lot, the letter “S” indicates special lot, the letter “L” indicates Functional Lot (i.e. “mix” of lots, i.e. Ball/Tracer), etc.

The last 3 digits are numbers and indicate the SUBlot. Your example would be sublot # 7 of the main lot 130

There’s an EXTENSIVE protocol on the actual lot numbers (6 digits), so I won’t go into all the “if’s” there.



Many thanks for that great info. I had figured out some of it. The letter designation for the month threw me off. And I could not figure out what the “-”, “S”, and “L” meant.

Are the six digit lot numbers a continuation of the system adopted on 1970?

Update - I just got a copy of the Mil-Std. Forty-two pages describing lot numbers. Things sure have changed.



Can anyone please post a list of the codes for U.S. manufacturers?



I think that’s MIL-STD-1461.±+1499/MIL_HDBK_1461A_1984/




No, the numeric portion of the lot number sequence isn’t related at all to the previous lot numbers. As was mentioned, some of the earlier lot numbers were assigned, range-numerically, to the various mfgrs. Now the lot number is driven by the mfgr, based on a complex series of protocols.

They start off with a set of components all from ID’d lot numbers themselves, that drives the cartridge lot number being 001-001. They increment the -xxx numbers as they run out of a component specific lot #, till they work their way completely thru all the original component lot numbers, then they start over with 002-001, or some other “trigger” rolls the main lot number over.

But if you take a bunch of xxx-xxx ball rounds and link them with yyy-yyy tracer rounds, you end up with zzzLzzz functional lot number on the can. If the mfgr looks up the zzzLzzz lot number they can ID the original lot numbers of the ball and the tracer. Those lot numbers ID the lot numbers of the original components.

Kinda complex for a mfgr to maintain.


[quote=“RayMeketa”]I think that’s MIL-STD-1461.±+1499/MIL_HDBK_1461A_1984/[/quote]
Thanks, Ray. That helps.

I have a related question. I searched on that site, but couldn’t find an answer. Is there a standard marking protocol for ammo cans?

Although the general format is similar for the labeling on almost every ammo can I’ve seen, regardless of manufacturer, there are slight differences even from the same producer.

For example, this can has “CARTRIDGES” spelled out, and has symbols for BALL, TRACER, etc.

However, this can (also from Lake City) has the “CRTG” abbreviation, and the words “BALL,” “TRACER” and “LINK.”


Stanc–The first thing I noticed is that the first can is packaged according to NATO standards using NATO standardized symbols while the second can is packaged according to U.S. Army specifications. So, you are not really comparing apples to apples, so to speak.


Thanks, Ron. That explains the difference in markings of those two examples, but unfortunately doesn’t address my question: Is there a standard format the U.S. military has for marking ammo cans? If so, what is it? Or are ammo manufacturers free to devise their own markings?



Stan–I can’t name the TM, but I guarantee there is a regulation that spells out exactly how it is to be done. The military doesn’t do ANYTHING without a written regulation.


Re. Marking:
The NATO document is STANAG 2316, but for the life of me I can’t find a copy on the net. As to what the equivalent US Army TM would be, I don’t know.


Found the british version.


[quote=“mausernut”]Found the british version.

Flipping through that DefStan I spotted what appears to be a mistake on page 24, the symbol for clips/chargers is shown in the box labelled for the symbol for Bandolier.



Ron, that’s what I expected to be the case. My reason for asking is because of the sale of “military surplus” 6.8 SPC ammo advertised by Silver State Armory.

When I noted that the markings on the cans are quite different from those on every other military ammo can I’ve seen, the head of SSA dismissed it with the comment that “there is a Mil- Spec for the 5.56 which covers everything but there is no Mil- Specs for the … stcount=18

I figured that the military would have a standard format for marking ammo cans, regardless of caliber.