WW-II weapon info – really is coin related.
RWB
Posts: 8,082 ✭
The first 100,000 lbs of WW-II shell cases used for coinage in 1944 were described as “…being approximately 20 mm wide and 102 mm long, outside dimensions.”
Does anyone know what 1943 or earlier weapon would have fired this size cartridge?
Does anyone know what 1943 or earlier weapon would have fired this size cartridge?
0
Comments
TC
<< <i>Agree........50 Caliber Browning case sounds most likely. It is close to 20mm at base and while standard length is 99mm that extra few mm would be streching of brass with firing. >>
The info I found for this cartridge shows the base at 20.42MM for this case and 99MM long. Sure sounds close.
<< <i>The first 100,000 lbs of WW-II shell cases used for coinage in 1944 were described as “…being approximately 20 mm wide and 102 mm long, outside dimensions.”
Does anyone know what 1943 or earlier weapon would have fired this size cartridge? >>
Does the reference say anything about if, and if so how, the residue from the primer was removed?
Just curious.
TD
As to your question about removal of the residue, wouldn't it be taken care of as the molten brass cooked?
Steve
In memory of the USAF Security Forces lost: A1C Elizabeth N. Jacobson, 9/28/05; SSgt Brian McElroy, 1/22/06; TSgt Jason Norton, 1/22/06; A1C Lee Chavis, 10/14/06; SSgt John Self, 5/14/07; A1C Jason Nathan, 6/23/07; SSgt Travis Griffin, 4/3/08; 1Lt Joseph Helton, 9/8/09; SrA Nicholas J. Alden, 3/3/2011. God Bless them and all those who have lost loved ones in this war. I will never forget their loss.
<< <i>I like my M82 A1, work fine for me. >>
Roger that. Went to Barrett School in Ratone, NM two years ago after purchasing my M107. Great gun! (this answer IS coin related as my M107 cost me A LOT of coin!).
<< <i>Been to Ratone several times myself for some EOD and HE training. >>
Great facility but of course NOTHING to do in Ratone during the free time. Going back next year for the Barrett Tactical Long Range School.
BTW, I've been to a bunch of Blackwater Schools as well. Knew Gary Jackson since back when he was answering the phones himself. Now BW is REALLY a great facility, albiet also in the middle of nowhere.
Stay safe!
We might just run into each other
<< <i> We might just run into each other
Would be great! You're probably the only one on this forum that would recognize the origin of my handle :-)
If so, why aren't there different 1962 cents listed - pale ones after the tin was removed Sept. 5, 1962? Are they pale because of no tin or was it because people were assuming 30% Zinc?
It used to be common knowledge that they used the shell cases without processing. Hence 70% Cu 30% Zn is often quoted including the 1976 Coin World Almanac (but for 1944-1945 only). (Tom, I thought you were checking that?)
The 1950 Domestic Coin pamphlet and the 1963 Mint Report both report 95 % Cu, 5 % Zn for 1944 - 1946. Evidently pure copper was added to the mix to meet specs. How much of the production was due to the shell casings? Or was it mainly a publicity stunt?
Fun with .50
If so, why aren't there different 1962 cents listed - pale ones after the tin was removed Sept. 5, 1962? Are they pale because of no tin or was it because people were assuming 30% Zinc?
It used to be common knowledge that they used the shell cases without processing. Hence 70% Cu 30% Zn is often quoted including the 1976 Coin World Almanac (but for 1944-1945 only). (Tom, I thought you were checking that?)
The 1950 Domestic Coin pamphlet and the 1963 Mint Report both report 95 % Cu, 5 % Zn for 1944 - 1946. Evidently pure copper was added to the mix to meet specs. How much of the production was due to the shell casings? Or was it mainly a publicity stunt?
The original internal mint and War Production Board documents state that the shell cases were 70% Cu, 30% Zn on average. The mint did some tests and found that 70-30 shell cases gave off zinc fumes when melted and that they didn’t have equipment to properly ventilate the furnaces. (They has used similar alloys in the past, but they were made from new metal which did not cause the same problem.) After a lot of arguing and complains from Congress and the President about the steel cents, the mint was given enough copper to add to 70-30 to bring it up to 95-5. The copper was added early in the melt and apparently prevented excess zinc fumes.
The standard alloy at the beginning of 1942 was 95% Cu, 4% Zn and 1% Sn. This was changed early in the year to 95% Cu, 5% Zn with a trace (0.01%) of Sn. They went back to this in 1944 and stayed with it through at least 1947. They added old cents containing tin to the melts so they could truthfully say the law requiring tin was being followed.
The alloy differences are so slight, that I really doubt there was any color change due to alloy – differences in planchet finishing and storage would likely have been much more significant contributors to color.
The cases cost 9-cents per pound with primer removed.
<< <i>Are these WW II cents 1944-1945, 1946 identifiable by color as the Red Book still (2007 edition) states although in a toned down manner from the 1956 edition? (The 1956 edition did not include specs.)
If so, why aren't there different 1962 cents listed - pale ones after the tin was removed Sept. 5, 1962? Are they pale because of no tin or was it because people were assuming 30% Zinc?
It used to be common knowledge that they used the shell cases without processing. Hence 70% Cu 30% Zn is often quoted including the 1976 Coin World Almanac (but for 1944-1945 only). (Tom, I thought you were checking that?)
The 1950 Domestic Coin pamphlet and the 1963 Mint Report both report 95 % Cu, 5 % Zn for 1944 - 1946. Evidently pure copper was added to the mix to meet specs. How much of the production was due to the shell casings? Or was it mainly a publicity stunt? >>
Hey, at least we fixed it in the 1977 edition........
I think that the "different color" of the shell case coins was just a popular myth. You certainly don't see any change pre vs. post 1962.
TD
The cases cost 9-cents per pound with primer removed. >>
Thank you for clarifying that.
TD
WWII era .50 caliber ammunition
The brass (shell casing) dimentions are as follows.
.804 inches = 20.42 mm (Diameter)
3.945 inches = 100.203 mm (lenght)
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
The simplest answer is probably the correct one.
I used to have a mental picture of solidiers on the battlefield salvaging big shell casings from the big artillery pieces and shipping them to the mint. In hindsight, that does not sound too practical, but I think I once saw an illustration showing just that.
My mint reports from 1950 and 1963 makes no mention of any tin for these coins - just says 95 % Cu, 5 % Zn. If there were a supply of junk cents containing tin, it would probably make sense to toss them into the mix rather than making an effort to remove the tin. I suppose if they had a batch that was short of 95 % copper, it would make sense to throw some good copper cents in to bring the per centage of copper up.
Thanks everybody for answering my questions.
TD
<< <i>Go to profile tab, next to customize, scroll down and click on allow private messages. Talk to you soon. >>
Done. Been away from the computer for a bit. Look forward to talking. BTW, where do the private messages show up? Thanks.
BTW, munitions manufacturers did not want the shell cases. 70-30 brass became brittle on remelting and was difficult to recycle into new shells. They were the largest users of virgin copper and zinc.
There is a clue for you collectors if you want to collect instruments of brass!
During the Vietnam Conflict, the F-105 Thunder Chief’s 20mm Vulcan Cannon recycled the spent casing back into the ammo drum. When the drum was reloaded with live ammo, the spent rounds (shell casings) were cycled out and loaded into a huge basket on the rear of the ammo dispenser.
The daily collection of brass was dumped into huge holding bins, then the weekly accumulation (about 75,000 rds) was loaded onto a ship and summarily dumped into the depths of the South China Sea.
Nice to know these little tid bits of history.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen