interesting 1920 Raufoss 11.25 box top
interesting 1920 Raufoss 11.25 box top
Nice early date! I haven’t seen many from the
earlier years. Thanks for posting it.
Can someone explain the bullet weight to me?
Dan, there is no bullet weight given.
The first projectiles (m/14) were nickel clad iron and had poor precision. In 1928 it changed to nickel clad copper (m/28).
I assume the M/14 was the US M1911 right?
What was the M/28 then? The M1 (M1928) Thompson?
m/14 and m/28 are 45 ACP but the Norwegians detested the accuracy of the m/14 round so a new bullet with copper jacket and a slightly different design (mowing the center of gravity forwards) was approved as the m/28.
Pure Norwegian design and nothing to do with the typewriter.
Kongsberg produced some 32700 1911’s as their m/14 Colt.
The first ammo was from Winchester and Raufoss started production initially with US parts. In 1916 they went full production with their own componens. In 1922 the switch from iron to copper occured and in 1928 a design change was made on the 200grain bullet to better accuracy (longer and with a hollow base).
That is great info! Thanks a lot!
The significant difference between the Norwegian 1914 and the Colt 1911 is that on the Norwegian pistol the thumbpiece of the slide stop has been moved slightly lower on the left side of the pistol. Jack
One more stupid question of this. I thought the Ball would be about 200 to 230 grains for a bullet. I did the metric math and nothing came out close. EOD pointed out that it’s the powder. So my next stupid question is, is it Ball powder, or ballistit powder?
Now I am a little confused.
I see on Chickenthief box 11,25 m/m autom. Pistol m/28
On my box I read; 11,25 m/m autom. Pistol m/14. Projektil the same m/28
My box is loaded on 10/11/1941
Were there two different kinds of pistols or was the name of the pistol changed after WW2
I think the m/28 refers to the cartridge, not the pistol. Or it could just be a typo. The pistol was m/14 and so remained as far as I know. Jack
Willem, scroll up 4 postings, Chieckenthief aswered the very same question to me already.
Alex, if I translate the Label from @Chickenthief correctly is on the label written;
28 ball rounds for 11,25 m/m auto pistol model M28
This has nothing to do with the M28 bullet (Projektil)
Willem, it depends much on how it is read. Sure it can be missunderstood.
So far I think Chickenthief explained to us how it is to be interpreted.
Initially I also got confused and that was what had sparked my question.
The way it is written does definitely say “28 ball cartridges for 11,25 mm automatic pistol m/28”. It’s either a very awkward way to write it or they reused stamping equipment. There is no pistol m/28. There is an m/12, which was the first versions of the m/14, but it was an extremely limited run.
I will try to clear up the confusion over the designation "m/28"
on the early Norwegian 11.25 mm cartridge, along with some
other points. Some years ago, I wrote an article on “The .45 A.C.P.
Cartridge in Norway.” I should say I compiled the article. Information
supplied by Morten Stoen, Vidar Andresen and Karl Egil Hanevik was
provided to me, much in such good English that I did not bother to
rewrite it at all, but simply put it into the article verbatim, so credited,
Firstly, let me state that all known ball cartridges of 11.25 mm (.45 A.C.P.)
made in Norway were loaded with 200 grain bullets. From 1916 until about
1921, cupronickel-clad steel jackets (CNCS) were used. It is not impossible
to find cartridges dated before 1921 with only CN bullet jackets (non-magnetic)
but these probably represent the use of stored cases, loaded later than the
dates on the headstamps. From about 1922 thru 1952 the jackets were simply
cupronickel. Starting in 1952 until final production in 1958, they were Tombak
(Gilding Metal). Cartridges dated 1922 and 1923 with GM bullets are from a
test done in 1923 with GM bullets. No information about the results of this test
were found by us. They certainly did not, however, result in a change from CN
to GM bullet jackets.
Now, to the confusion over the designation m/28. Firstly, in the English language,
the box labels in question would need only a comma after the word pistol to clarify
that the m/28 designation referred to the cartridge/bullet and not to the pistol. Boxes
before 1928 show the designation “28 skarpe patroner til 11,25 m/m pistol m/14.“
In 1928, Raufoss compared their production ammunition to that of Winchester Repeating
Arms and found the American cartridges to be more accurate. As a result, the
bullet produced at Raufoss was redesigned. The bullet was lengthened from approximately
0.585” (14.86 mm) to 0.621” (15.78 mm) giving it a longer bearing surface, and the lead
base of the bullet was dished to preserve the nominal 200 grain weight of the original
projectile. The new bullet was designated Model 1928, and box labels from that time reflect
its use. It was found that the m/28 on the box labels, as originally written, was confused to be
referring to the pistol rather than the ammunition. After this “discovery” labels were changed
to clarify the meaning. A 1942 box label in my own collection bears the designation “skarpa
patroner til 11.25 m/m autom. pistol m/14.” Then, under the powder information, is the line
A 1923-dated box for “lose patroner til 11.25 autom. pistol m/14” (blank cartridges) contains
no model designation for the projectile itself.
Post WWII labels describe the contents as “14 stk. 11.25 mm skarpe Colt pistol patroner.”
I hope this clarifies the issue, and gives some background to the change in bullet design.
Here’s a later type label to show the pistol and bullet designation:
If of any interest, I can also post pictures of some 14 round box labels
Please do post any Norwegian .45 box labels you have!
The two boxes on the left are interesting. I have not seen
them before this thread. I didn’t notice that on the first picture
here. They not only have the "clarification line"
underneath the powder information, “Projectil m/28” but
still retain the confusion in pistol designation. Why they
did that so late is beyond me.