Old 7.92 Ammo

Ruckin69

February 23, 2012 03:51

My dad gave me an ammo can of this stuff. It is marked 7.92 (MM) 44?
Ive researched that it's South African or Canadian but before I go blasting away, is it worth anything to collectors? Is 1944 the Manufacturing date?
Thanks

0

• 

  jonk

  February 23, 2012 03:54

  The story goes that it was made post war with a false headstamp to confuse our enemies when we were clandestinely supplying it to 'our side.' Whether that's true or not, it is boxer primed- though I find the necks are a tad thick and require thinning to reload.
  
  More valuable than say Turk surplus but not of particular value otherwise; it's good shooting stuff.
  
  EDIT: Another member recently emailed me with a very terse reply stating: "Hello. It is time for you to stop posting misleading information about the 7.92 Montreal Munitions 1944 ammo! It is standard production for the BESA MG."
  
  I won't mention which member, but he did not reply to the topic; he's been around here since 2001 and has 400 some odd posts.
  
  My response to him:
  I wasn't trying to be misleading. I was trying to pass on what I had read from other very informed sources. See:
  
  http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?57682-8mm-headstamp-7-92-MM-42
  
  http://www.iaaforum.org/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=898
  
  The second link is interesting as it provides photographic evidence that it was made by Dominion in Canada, NOT by Montreal Munitions.
  
  http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?10550-Canadian-Ammo-for-the-8mm-Besa-British- tank-machinegun
  
  Very nice info from our own heavyiron: http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=509232
  
  If you have documentable information that contradicts any of this, I'd love to hear it.
  
  I post this for those interested in the history of this ammo, so that you might have more detailed info at the links I provide. If the guy who emailed me would care to refute any of this, I'd be the first one to admit I'm wrong, if presented with documented, published records proving it.

  0
• 

  Ruckin69

  February 23, 2012 03:55

  Sweet. I'm gonna fire away!
  Thanks[:D]

  0
• 

  MIKE WISKEY

  February 23, 2012 06:11

  i WAS TOLD A LONG TIME AGO THAT THIS IS CANADIAN, NON CORROSIVE AND BOXED PRIMED. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN VERY GOOD 'SHOOTING' AMMO. MOST MILITARY CHAMBERS ARE 'GENEROUS' SO THE 'THICK' NECKS ARE A PLUS IN MY BOOK.

  0
• 

  p3skyking

  February 23, 2012 09:31

  I first used it back in the sixties. It came from Canada and was really good shooting ammo made for the Besa LMG. I also reloaded the cases then with a Lee kit and a ball-peen hammer. No problems.

  0
• 

  heavyiron

  February 25, 2012 05:38

  +1 Jonk.
  
  These cartridges do have an uncertain origin. So much so, that it is impossible to state with any authority their real place in cartridge history at this time. The "MM" is thought to designate "millimeter" which would be the caliber dimensional unit (not the manufacturer) and the "44" would be the year of manufacture. The year could be real or not, since some believe the first "4" could be substituted by a "5".
  
  This ammunition would be no different than the CN 40 9 headstamped ammunition the CIA issued for the Bay of Pigs operation in the 1960's. Also, it is not unlike the 7.62x39 ammunition (no headstamp) made by Lake City Arsenal for Special Forces and Cambodian personnel and used in the Southeast Asia circa 1970's. The headstamp means nothing - except its purpose is known - "don't leave a trail of US ammunition behind an operation where the US is not supposed to be involved or responsible."
  
  The photos below are examples of headstamps of the type being discussed on this thread.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Best,
  
  Heavyiron

  0

Please sign in to leave a comment.