Log In
December 21, 2006
Offline
These have to be more scarce than the gun they are for; notice they’re “unopened”
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
November 1, 2013
Offline
Henry Mero said
These have to be more scarce than the gun they are for; notice they’re “unopened”
Unopened they certainly are, but a lot of this ammo must have made by US companies when DCM began (almost) giving them away after the US govt bought up all the Moisins built for the Czarist govt, but undelivered.
“Self-cleaning”? They’d have to be made after about 1930 to have non-corrosive primers, & these look older than that.
March 31, 2009
Offline
The fact that they say smokeless leads me to believe they are older but maybe not? I don’t collect the US Cartridge Co. ammo and don’t know how long the early smokeless cartridges were identified as not being black powder.
November 1, 2013
Offline
Chuck said
The fact that they say smokeless leads me to believe they are older but maybe not?
It’s the 2-pc box that makes me think they’re too old to have non-corrosive primers; in fact, all the early non-corrosive ammo was identified as such on the box. Anybody who shot smokeless with corrosive primers thinking they’re “self-cleaning” was in for a very nasty shock.
March 31, 2009
Offline
We know now that the primers were probably as bad or worse than the black powder.
November 1, 2013
Offline
Chuck said
We know now that the primers were probably as bad or worse than the black powder.
Chlorate primers were far worse! But BP shooters cleaned with water, which washed out the salts. Early smokeless shooters were led to believe by the makers of nitro-solvents like Hoppe’s that water was no longer needed, & countless barrels were ruined before that was disproved.
1 Guest(s)
