ZeppRaider Posted 3 July , 2016 Share Posted 3 July , 2016 I have been given a German cartridge to identify, which may have been collected from the crash site of the SL11 airship at Cuffley in September 1916. I'm a little out of my comfort-zone here and would appreciate help from this area of the forum! I am hoping (from a little googling around to identify the headstamp markings) that it could be a 7.92 calibre cartridge, manufactured by Patronen in 1913 and made from brass. SL11 would have carried the air-cooled Parabellum MG.14. Any comments gratefully received. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 3 July , 2016 Share Posted 3 July , 2016 David, Here's a photo of the entry in Cartridge Headstamp Guide by White/Munhall. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 4 July , 2016 Share Posted 4 July , 2016 Spot on Michael! With a follow up question - weren't the 'P' codes an attempt by the Germans to disguise who was making these 'patronen'? Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 4 July , 2016 Share Posted 4 July , 2016 Presumably it cooked off in the blaze? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 4 July , 2016 Share Posted 4 July , 2016 56 minutes ago, MikB said: Presumably it cooked off in the blaze? Er, a 1935 bullet cooking off in a blaze that happened in September 1916???? Well stranger things have perhaps been heard of...!!! I suspect that if the 'origin' as Cuffley is accurate, it is from one of the Luftwaffe 'plane crashes in that general area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 4 July , 2016 Share Posted 4 July , 2016 52 minutes ago, trajan said: Er, a 1935 bullet cooking off in a blaze that happened in September 1916???? Well stranger things have perhaps been heard of...!!! I suspect that if the 'origin' as Cuffley is accurate, it is from one of the Luftwaffe 'plane crashes in that general area. OK, I'd taken the cartridge date as 1913, and that doesn't now look right from MH's post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 4 July , 2016 Share Posted 4 July , 2016 19 minutes ago, MikB said: OK, I'd taken the cartridge date as 1913, and that doesn't now look right from MH's post. You are not alone... So did I until I looked more closely after reading MH's post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeppRaider Posted 4 July , 2016 Author Share Posted 4 July , 2016 Thank you all for your prompt replies to my enquiry - it just goes to show you that you can't take these stories at face value. Unlike SL11, I'll have to gently put to rest the hopes of a chap in Cuffley (as opposed to shooting him down in flames!). David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 4 July , 2016 Share Posted 4 July , 2016 Dear All, On reflection, I'm sorry if my post caused some confusion as far as the year of manufacture is concerned. I have little knowledge of ammunition markings after the Great War. However, I can say that between the wars the system of German ammunition marking changed in order to gain a greater margin of quality control. Instead of a number being used to indicate the month of production a lot number was used, a lot comprising of at least 180,000 cases. Julian, As far as manufacturer's codes are concerned, yes, anonymity of manufacturers was sought particularly in the period of the Spanish Civil War. I can't say if David's cartridge fits into this category and I repeat I am no expert but to quote from "German 7.9mm Military Ammunition" by Kent page 41: "To avoid political implications, these manufacturers, perhaps many of them well known establishments, resorted to complete omission of normal trade-marks or employed seemingly meaningless codes best suited to their purposes and desire for anonymity". By the way, I saw CH and PL on Saturday. They both remembered you very well - you seem to have made a lasting impression - and send their best wishes. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 4 July , 2016 Share Posted 4 July , 2016 3 hours ago, Michael Haselgrove said: ... I have little knowledge of ammunition markings after the Great War. However, I can say that between the wars the system of German ammunition marking changed in order to gain a greater margin of quality control. Instead of a number being used to indicate the month of production a lot number was used, a lot comprising of at least 180,000 cases. ... anonymity of manufacturers was sought particularly in the period of the Spanish Civil War. ... to quote from "German 7.9mm Military Ammunition" by Kent page 41: "To avoid political implications, these manufacturers, perhaps many of them well known establishments, resorted to complete omission of normal trade-marks or employed seemingly meaningless codes best suited to their purposes and desire for anonymity". By the way, I saw CH and PL on Saturday. ... Thanks for giving the reference though Michael - that is appreciated! At times like this we certainly do remember the contributions that TonyE made... Well, bayonets were being made in the inter-war period with 'S' (= I assume Seitengewehr) codes to disguise the maker, and so I can see it would be the case also with bullets and so 'P' codes (Patronenen?) - apparently, according to 'Wiki' at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_headstamps from 1926-1941. Naturally, I then did a quick bit of (re)search on Google de., and this brought up what seems to be a very useful guide to markings on 'Die Patrone 7.92 (8.57)' from WW1 onward - obviously I have no idea as to its accuracy but a quick check with what Storz says on WW1 Gew.98 cartridges suggests it is ok. Anyway, for those interested, have a look at and then download: http://www.waffen-welt.de/bilder/DiePatrone7.92x57.pdf and note that it states the P marks re 1925-1940 Julian PS: Brgards back to CH and PL - hope this was not a meeting called by a sombre event? Bet they were surprised by the shared interest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 4 July , 2016 Share Posted 4 July , 2016 Julian, Thanks very much for the interesting reference. I have checked one of the lists of manufacturers given in your reference and it pretty much matches the reference I gave above. Michael. P.S. Occasion was niece's wedding so very happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now