Good questions. I should have specified that the allegation is that the cartridge case was filed, not the projectile. It’s not clear whether the jacket was steel or brass. No spent rounds were recovered at the scene, furthering the hypothesis that the gun used was a revolver.
This is interesting. I had no idea that the altering of bullets was as common as it appears to be. What’s the source for this diagram?
Fede - it is hard to tell from the drawing, but the number 6 item, headstamp “9x19 Geco 43-60,” may be a defect in actual manufacture. I have a couple of rounds that are obvious defects that have a pronounced rim slightly higher than the rest of the head, making it look almost like an “A-Base” cartridge head. I assume that is what the two circles in the drawing are illustrating. I actually have three rounds like that - F N 55 (this one came out of a full box, all the others normal); X * 1 50 (Czech); and FIOCCHI 1916 (Truncated bullet so almost certainly a Glisenti loading of the 9 x 19 mm cartridge). I am sure none of these are alterations, but rather an uncaught defect in manufacture of the case. I have a couple of other rounds with case-head defects, but not the same. One basically has no rim at all - the extractor groove and bevel were cut too low on the case.
In auto pistol calibers, I have found far more defects (not a lot in total, but more) in 9 mm than any other. Of course, that could be due to the volume of production of this caliber above other case-types.
Hi, all. I’ve been contacted by a member of this forum upset that I have attached my question to an existing thread. I’m new to this forum and came here with a very specific interest. It was never my intention to offend, so please accept my apologies.
An article published in 1990 in the Deutsche Waffen Journal about British .380 Mk. II cal. revolvers and the use of modified 9 mm Para. cartridges.
John, the Geco example is described as “pressed rim” and it looks like a rimmed case.
Without seeing the actual head, it is hard to tell anything about that round. The double Circle in the drawing, used to denote the outline of the head, tells me that there is likely a slightly raised are on the head itself, as denoted by the inner circle on the drawing. If that is the case, even though the rim in the round you pictured is slightly larger in diameter than on my three examples, I would still say it is not an alteration for revolvers, but rather a manufacturing defect. Of course I could be wrong. Some unusual cartridge features are very difficult to quantify, even holding the round in your hand. I am only going by the highl similarity of three separate rounds, all with the same “feature” where I know for sure that one of them, the FN, is a factory defect, and the other two are close enough to it to represent the same sort of factory error in production of that particular cartridge case.
The picture you posted (and I know this is not your doing) is very low resolution, so it cannot be seen how regular the extended rim is, but in the picture, it does not appear to be pressed out (most of these rims are altered by individuals or “guerrilla” type groups who lack sophisticated machinery to make a really regular alteration with a truly “finished look.”
John, here is a scan of the headstamp picture (sorry, forgot to add it to my previous post):
Fede - that’s exactly what my three defective rounds look like on the head - almost like a little Mauser A-Base. That includes the FN, which was found in a box with the other 24 rounds quite normal 9 x 19 mm.
In this case, for better or for worse, I will stand with my opinion that it is a manufacturer’s error and not an instance of improvised ammunition. Without seeing the exact round in question, which is impossible, I have to believe that the author simply came across it, especially in the context that is it German ammo evidently in the possession of a German collector, and did not realize that there is some type of machine error that produces this effect on cartridge heads.
Thanks for posting the picture, by the way.
When I get a chance I will try to manually relocate these responses which don’t have much to do with the original topic of the thread. When in doubt, it is always better to start a new thread, and just include a link to the thread wanting to be referenced.