Some CCI Blazer Dummy Cartidges and Associated Boxes


#1

At the recent KCCA Cartridge Show I received some CCI Blazer dummy rounds and was given the opportunity to take some photos of the boxes they came in. While not exactly up my ally these make for an interesting area for collecting. I was told these were probably made to be distributed at the annual SHOT SHOW, can anyone confirm this? Note the “INERT” or “INERT NOT FOR SALE” rubber stamped on some of the boxes. All primers are pierced to indicate dummy loading. All cases are non-reloading (N R in headstamp).

.45 ACP JHP, box end designation has been changed to read 200gr(?), aluminum case, nickel primer.


.357 JHP, nickeled case, brass primer, cartridge head attracts a magnet. 158gr & 125gr boxes shown.


.380 Auto 88gr JHP & 96gr FMJ, aluminum case, nickel primer.


.38 Spl 158gr Lead round nose, brass primer, aluminum case. Cartridge head attracts a magnet.


.38 Spl +P 125gr JHP, nickel case, brass primer. Cartridge head attracts a magnet.


.25 ACP HP, aluminum case, nickel primer. Note: box end says FMJ but the rounds were actually HP.


9 x19mm 115gr JHP, aluminum case, nickel primer.


Any additional information is appreciated.

Brian


#2

Brian
I can’t confirm these dummies you show were for a shot show, but the colored aluminum cased variations were tested by viewers at one of the shot shows to test ‘likability’, that sort of thing.

These could very well have been made for the same reasons all dummies are made.

Dave Andrews who like was the source of all these has passed as has Dick Rainbolt who would have been another who might know. Let me ask another former CCI employee about these.

As to interesting, I find them really neat & very interesting.


#3

Pete, is that aluminum cased .22 l.r. in one of the drawers ???


#4

yes Alex, in three colors: black, aluminum and light green

Also some .30 W,C.F.'s & some other odd case types. .380 MK II, .40 Taurus, .shortened 38 Spl. French non-toxic training loads, propellant unit for a 40mm grenade. They did all kinds of stuff. Plus some of the other retirees (Dave Andrews was the first & it’s a .45 M-1911 in three colors) had custom headstamps, so it seems to never end.


#5

From the former CCI employee’s phone call:

Dummies were made for shows like the NRA, Shot & others because of the no live ammunition in the public exhibits rule. They were only handed out to selected prospects / dealers, not to everyone.

The primers were the 195 B [Berdan} which predate the Boxer primer use & where the N R [Non Reloadable] designation comes from.

There was a brass cup line of 195 B’s.

These dummies & live were originally were loaded on an old military line and so were expensive to manufacture. First shipping was in Dec. 1981.

The .25 ACP’s were all loaded with Boxer primers & never with Berdan.

The plating on the colored examples is a conversion Oxide not an actual anodizing so it;s just on the surface.

The magnetic head on the .357 is a flash-coated steel primer cup.


#6

[quote=“PetedeCoux”]yes Alex, in three colors: black, aluminum and light green

Also some .30 W,C.F.'s & some other odd case types. .380 MK II, .40 Taurus, .shortened 38 Spl. French non-toxic training loads, propellant unit for a 40mm grenade. They did all kinds of stuff. Plus some of the other retirees (Dave Andrews was the first & it’s a .45 M-1911 in three colors) had custom headstamps, so it seems to never end.[/quote]

Pete, very interesting! Were these jsut tests or did they make it to the market?


#7

hello
for petedecoux ,nice collection of alu case rounds
these are all from CCI ?
do exist 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 CCI alu case but with real bullet (not blank or plastic bullet) ?
what the headstamp of the 30 wcf alu case ?


#8

Alex
The 22’s were just tests, as far as I know. The .380’s were a contract, Singapore I think. The 30-30’s were to be marketed but it was decided by the lawyers not to market it, from what I understand due to worry about shooting in older weapons. (I know I don’t understand it either} No idea about the success of the 40mm grenade propelling charge & I think the Taurus was a limited run for the company fitting one of their pistols, which it seems was not very successful, at least here in the US & the cartridges are quite hard to find here in the US. I’d guess Fede very likely has the resources to answer the .40 Taurus pistol success question.
Also the 7.62x51 NATO blanks were made, but not marketed. And as you likely know the 5.56x45 Short Range Training and blanks were developed but I’m not sure if a contract was filled. However the 9mm’s for the 84mm were contracts, think there is a past post dealing with these.

ammogun,
thank you
yes all by CCI
5,56 & 7.62 NATO just as blanks or short range training, see the above for which
30-30’s have no headstamp


#9

Pete, great info! Thanks a lot, you answered all I wanted to know.


#10

Brian and Pete, excellent discussion, thank you very much for sharing these pictures and information.

Pete, if by “propellant unit for a 40mm grenade” you are describing a 13.5 mm long blank based on the .44 Magnum case, then this is a propellant charge for the factory loaded British Arwen 37 mm round, and also offered as a separated “preloaded charge insert” to be used with the reloading equipment for the Arwen 37 mm AR-1 baton round, that also includes a shell holder made by RCBS (Omark). In the States these charges were available from Sage Control Ordnance, Inc. in several powder levels, some unmarked and others identified by means of color stripes across the case head. There are also specimens with brass cases made by other manufacturers.

Excerpt from a RSAF Enfield Arwen 37 catalog published in 1983:

Regarding the .40 Taurus, I posted pictures and information in the previous version of this forum: [.40 Taurus variations). First and third posts are mine, while John Moss also added more information in the last one.

Regards,

Fede


#11

Hi Fede
Thanks for the reply. That earlier post answers the pistol numbers & rounds made question.

The 40mm grenade propellant charge was apparently not the one you noted, as this a basically a .38 S&W case., so I would assume it’s for the US type 40mm fitting under an AR rifle or the earlier version used in Viet Nam, sorry without looking it up I don’t know the M number(s) of those. But M-212 is a practice type.

The non-original plastic tube these came in is hand dated 1988. It has a 2-vent hole Berdan primer & a NPE case (not shown) has the aluminum bar across the inside of the case which was used to control web thickness & pocket depth during manufacture.

Measurements are: .4355" / 11.07mm rim, .382" / 9.72mm head, .381" mouth, & 7745" / 19.68mm case length

Photos follow head, mouth & loaded OA with inner components.

Also a correction to an earlier post: the drawer with the 5.56x45’s has two 9mm Para’s in it & those are not by CCI but Federal brand aluminum cased rounds. Which I would bet are produced in Lewiston by CCI, but I don’t know for sure.
38%20spl%20grenade%20CCIheadmouth


#12

ammogun,

There was some very limited testing of 7.62x51 with sabotted 5.56mm projectiles.

Paul


#13

hello
nice 7.62x51 but apparently they made from 45 auto “unfinished” casing


#14

ammogun
No not unfinished cases, but just a 45 bumter was applied/used. An unfinished case is perhaps only a slight bit longer than a finished case by the time it has been headstamped.

Paul
NICE !! May I ask, do you know who did the tests, Picatinny Arsenal?


#15

Hi Pete - yes, it was at Picatinny.

You sure have an amazing collection of these rounds. Thanks for posting your pictures.

Paul


#16

Pete, Fede and Paul,

Fantastic information and pictures. I was not aware of the extensive research and development program conducted by CCI and the wide array of cartridges/loadings and case coatings developed/produced by them.

Brian


#17

I strongly suspect that most large ammo companies in the US, and probably other countries have pretty active experimental programs. The difference at CCI is there was someone who was interested in preserving it and eventually sharing it. The real difference with CCI is that us outsiders have much better insight into what CCI did over the years than we have in the other companies.

The diversity in the posters collection of CCI material is an illustration of just how little we really know about what was created. The Olin EO (experimental order) numbers which are things that were developed and produced and sent out to customers, is probably well over 6000 by now, and I’ll bet we couldn’t list over a few hundred of these. I know on 9mmP I probably know of less than than a dozen. These are not the experimentals that let to these items, nor is it the inhouse experimentals.

Cheers,
Lew


#18

[quote=“PaulSmith”]Hi Pete - yes, it was at Picatinny.

You sure have an amazing collection of these rounds. Thanks for posting your pictures.

Paul[/quote]

Thanks Paul, been chasing them for awhile.

The CCI engineer who was the head of the 7.62 NATO blank project stated CCI never made anything other than blanks, so I figured it wasn’t CCI that loaded them with projs. & why I said no, only blanks were known to ammoguns question.


#19

It may be worth mentioning that in an earlier thread here on the Forum ( dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a434633.pdf. Authored by personnel from ATK Ordnance and Ground Systems LLC & Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC), Armaments Engineering and Technology Center, Picatinny, New Jersey.

The report focuses on the development of a 5.56 x 45mm aluminum cartridge case. It is noted in the report that engineers at ATK CCI/Speer in Lewiston, Idaho and ATK Ammunition Company in Arden Hills, Minnesota were consulted on the issue of aluminum cartridge case burn-through.

A 2011 presentation, on aluminum and steel cartridge case development, by ATK: dtic.mil/ndia/2011smallarms/ … Miller.pdf

In a separate note DTIC lists a publication by Remington Arms entitled SMALL ARMS ALUMINIUM CARTRIDGE CASES, VOLUME 2 (WHIPPLE, J H; 1958) ( dtic.mil/docs/citations/AD0150875 ), unfortunately a PDF is not available.

Brian


#20

Nice Brian, thanks.

As a side, I have a CCI / Omark board for the 5.56x45 SRTA & on it is no note of the spray-in liner to prevent burn through. Perhaps the charge and bullet weight was such it was not needed?
I know that was used on 7.62 cases and was a problem in the development of 5.56 aluminum by Frankford with ball loads.