Jap 7.7 Ammo...Safe to Shoot?

[browningautorifle]

No head stamp usually means it's not milsurp. ALL military's are and were identification crazy.

Wrong as usual, I have an original clip of 7.7 and 6.5 also and neither have headstamps on any of them...nor markings on the clip.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[beachdog77]

Mmmm Kay...there is no head stamp.... see for yourself.
Rimmed, semi rimmed and rimless was supposed to be relatively self explanatory of what ammo it is and what it goes to. The manufacturing info is on that little paper ticket on the side of the box. The caliber, lot, date of manufacture and some times the location of arsenal. This is what they did, it's easier to print paper than it is to stamp something.

[browningautorifle]

This is what they did, it's easier to print paper than it is to stamp something.

Besides, the guys knew what it was for by looking at it.

[vintage hunter]

Mmmm Kay...there is no head stamp.... see for yourself.
Rimmed, semi rimmed and rimless was supposed to be relatively self explanatory of what ammo it is and what it goes to. The manufacturing info is on that little paper ticket on the side of the box. The caliber, lot, date of manufacture and some times the location of arsenal. This is what they did, it's easier to print paper than it is to stamp something.

That's all well and good but it totally misses the point of posts 9 and 10, which is the correction of false information in post 8 that claims no headstamp usually means the ammo is not military surplus. It's a well known and documented fact that most all IJA type 89 type 92 and type 99 7.7 cartridges lacked headstamps, as did the IJN's rimmed version after late 1943.
And I still dont see any actual headstamp on the cartridges in you're photos.
Labels on boxes arent the same thing. Once the ammunition is removed and the box tossed all info about that particular lot is lost making it practically impossible to ID an out of spec batch should problems arise.

[beachdog77]

Perhaps read my post again. I was corroborating posts 9 and 10, not debating them.Then look at the pictures I uploaded. You said you cant see head stamps in the photos, the reason being for this is because none are there The point of posting those pictures is to show a Japanese military ammunition box, containing ammunition, that has no head stamps. Contrary to the incorrect information in post 8. My point was, and remains there is no head stamp on type 92 ammunition < see i made the important point in bold so no one misses it.

The paper ticket reads: Type 92 cartridges. Live, ammunition, ball. Then lot number, factory code and date of manufacture which was Feb of 1940.

Have a great day

[beachdog77]

Simple question Jeremy: Is the chamber of a type 99 designed to take a rimmed cartridge or a rimless? I'm not asking if it can, I'm asking which it was designed for? Pick apart what i said all you like. It doesn't change the fact that rimmed goes in the MG, and rimless goes in the type 99, as per the Japanese doctrine. The Japanese did not use them interchangeably and i would agree with them and not a youtuber.
Also I hope this gent doesn't bend his extractor. Currently that's a $30.00 part to replace, $30 that he does not have to spend if he uses the correct ammo.
Here again, Just because you can, doesnt mean you should.

[Jeremy]

Simple question Jeremy: Is the chamber of a type 99 designed to take a rimmed cartridge or a rimless? I'm not asking if it can, I'm asking which it was designed for? Pick apart what i said all you like. It doesn't change the fact that rimmed goes in the MG, and rimless goes in the type 99, as per the Japanese doctrine. The Japanese did not use them interchangeably and i would agree with them and not a youtuber.
Also I hope this gent doesn't bend his extractor. Currently that's a $30.00 part to replace, $30 that he does not have to spend if he uses the correct ammo.
Here again, Just because you can, doesnt mean you should.

Not sure your concern...but yes the T92 heavies did shoot T99 rifle ammo just fine.

But it isn't about trying to put semirim T92 brass into a T99 chamber...it's about putting the T92 powder and projectile INTO the T99 brass and then shooting it.

[MGMike]

The Type 92 Hotchkiss MG is said to shoot rimless 7.7 passably well (can't confirm; never tried it), but there is no question at all that it was designed for semi-rimmed cartridges, not rimless. The Type 99 rifle, on the other hand, was intended to be fired only with rimless cartridges, not semi-rimmed MG ammo.

Years ago, a friend who should have known better mailed me some fired cases that he'd shot in a T99 Arisaka rifle, complaining that they were "hard to close the bolt on". Well, of course they were semi-rimmed T92 HMG and were binding on the extractor every time he chambered one. Not only that, but the heads of the cases were swollen and mashed flat from excessive pressure, so badly that if there had been any headstamp there it would have been pressed out. I got on the phone and told him not to shoot any more of that ammo in anything, as the case heads seemed on the verge of bursting. Turned out that he'd removed them from 30-shot Hotchkiss strips, and had not noticed the difference in the rims.

M

,

[Jeremy]

The Type 92 Hotchkiss MG is said to shoot rimless 7.7 passably well (can't confirm; never tried it), but there is no question at all that it was designed for semi-rimmed cartridges, not rimless. The Type 99 rifle, on the other hand, was intended to be fired only with rimless cartridges, not semi-rimmed MG ammo.

Years ago, a friend who should have known better mailed me some fired cases that he'd shot in a T99 Arisaka rifle, complaining that they were "hard to close the bolt on". Well, of course they were semi-rimmed T92 HMG and were binding on the extractor every time he chambered one. Not only that, but the heads of the cases were swollen and mashed flat from excessive pressure, so badly that if there had been any headstamp there it would have been pressed out. I got on the phone and told him not to shoot any more of that ammo in anything, as the case heads seemed on the verge of bursting. Turned out that he'd removed them from 30-shot Hotchkiss strips, and had not noticed the difference in the rims.

M

,

And yet its perfectly safe to put the T92 powder/projectiles in to new brass and use it in T99 rifles.

[beachdog77]

T99 7.7 rimless type 99: 202 gr (13 g) (Ball) 2,200 ft/s (670 m/s) 2,350 ft⋅lbf (3,190 J)
T92 7.7 semi rimmed type 92: 175 gr (11 g) (Ball) 2,440 ft/s (740 m/s) 2,313 ft⋅lbf (3,136 J)

Youtubers results reloading T92 projectile and powder into 7.7 rimless: 2625 ft/s

If its 225 Ft/s faster than what the Japanese intended it to be, perhaps something has happened to that ammo over the last 70 years. Such as the powder breaking down, burning at a faster rate causing higher pressure and higher velocity. Much like that turk 8mm from the same era. When it was made, it produced a specific pressure and velocity. Now 70 years later, the turk 8mm is around 3,000 ft/s and can crack the stocks or worse. Can you put that Turkish 1940s stuff in a Mauser and use it, sure you can. It might go off, is it safe? The issue of storage conditions and time is not native to the Turkish junk 8mm. French, English, German and Japanese surplus ammo is subject to the same issues.
The point is: If some one is going to take the time to reload, then buy modern powder and primers and do it correctly. The components are reliable and not made 70 years ago. Is that t92 stuff safe? It could be, probably, may be but it might not be. Why take a chance on it? Plus in the process destroy an antique relic of ww2.

I'm tapping out. Y'all have a good one, cheers.