Twin Cities headstamp error


#1

I had not seen an error on a military headstamp before, so I was quite surprised when I found this one on a Twin Cities 1954 blank. I’ve included the ‘correct’ headstamp on the left.


#2

Guy–I have looked at thousands of .30-06 over the years and have never seen anything like that before. Really interesting, especially considering it is even a completely different font for the “4”. Makes you wonder if it was a “Mistake” or does it have some special meaning. HWS-III, WHERE ARE YOU?


#3

Also found on ball loadings.


#4

I received the following e-mail from Frank Hackley, which answers my question, as well as addressing Ron Merchants lament regarding HWS Vol III.

Guy: For some reason I am having trouble trying to get back on the IAA Web so will try and answer your question on the TW headstamp error by direct E-mail.

First, M1909 blanks made during this period were authorized to me made from “Second Class” cases, which includes minor imperfections that do not reduce form, fit or function. This case was probably culled out of normal production during visual inspection and ear-marked for M1909 blank use.

During the Korean War production period, Twin Cities did not have an “in house” tooling capability and thus was forced to sub-contract all their perishable tooling needs - including case heading bunters. To save time and money some contractors used bunters with “embedded” letters and numbers and I assume it was one of these that produced the mis-placed 4 in a different font. There are other inconsistencies in TW headstamps during this period, including the placement, style and spacing of letters and numbers, which we assume to be caused by the different tooling makers not strictly following the contract specifications for bunters.

If this does not answer your question then get back to me–

Regarding HWS Vol. III, the final draft is completed and Gene Scranton is busy working on the remaining illustrations - as of now we have over 900 drawings, 400 photographs and 1300 typed pages of manuscript. Under the circumstances, it is possible that Vol. III will have to be published in two parts, because of its size.

                                                           Best, Frank Hackley

#5

Great news that so much has been accomplished!

Eagerly awaiting the opportunity to buy it in however many volumes it takes.

The contributions of Hackley, Woodin & Scranton to the collecting and historian community have already been immense with the first two volumes. The next volume(s) will surely continue to earn more praise for the contributions of these authors.

Just wish it did not take so long, although I understand the need to get things right.


#6

I have that same headstamp error on a ball round. Never saw one on a blank before.