Oddball 7.62 x 54R


#1

I have a cartridge with no headstamp that is basically a 7.62 x 54R in every dimension but the neck length. Overall & cartridge length match but the shoulder appears pushed back about .07-.08". It has a copper coloured steel core .308 bullet that matches other WWII era 7.62 x 54R’s I have. Any ideas on the origin? I was wondering if it was a middle-east/third world knock off of the round.
Thanks,


#2

Does it appear like the 7,62 x 54R ammo made before the russian revolution?
They have a “rounded” shoulder and a longer neck than the other ones


#3

A pic would be helpful. Some .30-40 Krag rounds look quickly like 7.62x54Rs.


#4

I don’t have it handy because I’m at work now (but working VERY hard), but I’ll check it when I get home. I don’t have an older shell for reference but it is similar to a 1948 Plant “17” shell and a Winchester commercial shell (same bullet shape) but the bullet is longer than a 1957 Plant “188” shell. I emailed the owner of 7.62x54R.com and it didn’t sound familiar to him either. It looks to me like the same profile only with the shoulder moved back.


#5

I’ll post a picture tonight showing it and some other 54R’s for reference. I’ll dig out a Krag too. Thanks.


#6

Is it like the first case on the left ( headstamped T 16)?


#7

Yes I do believe it does look like that, although the neck seems a little longer than mine, but I am working from memory without the shell in hand. I’ll know better when I get home tonight. Is that the pre-revolution shell you mentioned? If it is, did they consider it the same calibre or was it a previous type or mark? Also, there is still the issue of no head stamp - was that common?


#8

Yes,it was made in 1916.I am not an expert but there are several type of 7,62 x 54R cartridges due to the case shape and to the bullet used (model 1891,1908 etc.).
Sorry,I don’t know if unheadstamped 7,62 x 54R cases were common or not


#9

Yes I’d say the shell is an early 7.62 x 54R. It does have the rounded shoulder and longer neck like you mentioned. It is the shell on the left in the picture. To it’s right are: a 1957 headstamped “188”; a Winchester commercial; a 1948 headstamped “17”. I’m still curious about the lack of headstamp. Thanks for the help.


[/img]


#10

[quote=“pdrice”]Yes I’d say the shell is an early 7.62 x 54R. It does have the rounded shoulder and longer neck like you mentioned. It is the shell on the left in the picture. To it’s right are: a 1957 headstamped “188”; a Winchester commercial; a 1948 headstamped “17”. I’m still curious about the lack of headstamp. Thanks for the help.
[/quote]

Hi, pdrice!

The left cartridge on your picture is a nice speciment of 7,62x54R made by Polte in time of WWI for use with captured Russian weapons. The Ball bullet must be with GMCS envelope. Powder - Nz.Gew.Bl.P (looks like Russian powder PL of the same period). The main differencies from Russian cartridges is longer case neck, different angles of shoulders, smaller diameter of the primer and, of course, steel envelope of the bullet.

In general, the long case neck is a standard feature of the 7,62x54R Russian and German made cartridges in time of WWI. Because the fixation in chamber of this cartridge was made by rim, in war time the critical dimensional features of the case neck and shoulders was simplified. That is why we can find a lot of different variants of geometry of 7,62x54R cases made in WWI.


#11

I also have a copper washed steel case made by “17” in 1941 that has the same primer cannelure as the second one in your picture.
Since it is also headstamped with the cyrillic E (for machine gun only) is this cannelure another sign to tell standard rifle loads from machine gun loads?


#12

[quote=“Pivi”]I also have a copper washed steel case made by “17” in 1941 that has the same primer cannelure as the second one in your picture.
Since it is also headstamped with the cyrillic E (for machine gun only) is this cannelure another sign to tell standard rifle loads from machine gun loads?[/quote]

Additional letter III (looks like reverted E) reads like “SH” in English. This mean that this is a SHKAS-MG cartridge. Such cartridges had the same load and bullet as standard rifle or army MG cartridges, but was loaded in special strengtened cases, with thicker walls and strong Bullet fixing. This was made to avoid breaking of the case and bullet falling out in conditions of high rate of firing and, accordingly, heavy mechanical duty for cartridges, in aircraft MG. For the period of 1930th the SHKAS MG had the most rate of fire in the world - 1650 rate per minute for sinchronized SHKAS, 1800 rate per minute for turret or wing SHKAS and 2800 rpm for Ultra SHKAS.


#13

Thanks,what about the primer cannelure?


#14

The primer is shorter than usual primers for 7.62x54R (about 0.2mm) and is seated about 0.2 mm deeper to allow the heavy ring crimp. The primer composition is located more to the edges of the primer cup and coated with laquer. The primer annulus or the whole primer is red for id purposes and hermetization. Sometimes primers are not all red but have only a red annulus.


#15

I have no additions to this irrefragable answer


#16

Treshkin, my dear friend - you embarrassed me! You used an English word that I had to look up in Webster. I had never heard it before and did not have any idea what it meant! Just joking about being embarrassed, my friend - but not joking about not having a clue about the word “irrefragable.” Great word. You continue to astound me!


#17

Hi, John!

Thanks, this word will be my know-how. May be I patented it one day. But, please, don’t think that this word means that I became real English-speaking (not to mention writing) person. This is not the case. This word appeared in this topic, because I forgot more simple synonyms - comprehensive or exhaustive, and had to open my electronical dictionary. Of course, the autors of dictionary was Russians and they give me only one variant - “irrefragable answer”, which they found may be also in Webster. You see, our forum little by little became not only Ammo university, but also an English school.


#18

Tershkin - Whatever the circumstances of your use, it is a good English word and I was glad to learn it from your posting. By the way, you are a “real English writing person.” Your ability to communicate your thoughts in English is excellent.


#19

John! Thanks, our communications help me to constantly improve my English, but nevertheless it’s far from perfection. I think, with your help and with help of another guys from this forum, one day my English became perfect.


#20

Treshkin–Your English is already better than many of us who speak and write English as our first language, especially many of our younger people. Especially the writing. I receive email that I can barely understand sometimes because of poor spelling, bad grammar and punctuation. Much of this is due to wide-spread use of abbreviations in text messaging.