What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Imperial Russian 57mm naval case charge markings.

Tmine35

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Anybody here who can read Imperial Russian case side powder charge markings? I recently got a 57x422R Hotchkiss case that has been shortened and mouth crimped to a blanc cartridge.
Finland re-used these guns and cases until 1970's as blancs for salute on a fortress outside Helsinki. Later on a lot of spent cases were given as gifts by the army and they are not too scrace here. However Finnish charge markings are totally different. Thus I wonder if these markings are original for Imperial Russian blanc round charge? If I understand it correctly down right could be year 909r. The case headstamp is from 1907 and I don't see any reload markings on it - so, could it be original?
 

Attachments

  • H-3.jpg
    H-3.jpg
    95 KB · Views: 50
  • H-1.jpg
    H-1.jpg
    68.4 KB · Views: 31
  • H-2.jpg
    H-2.jpg
    66.8 KB · Views: 28
Correct, this is original Russian markings from 1909 - typical navy.
Some is the propellant type which is given here as black powder what makes me think this one was a blank already in Russian service.
Great find!

Was your case originally 523mm long?
 
Last edited:
Thanks EOD. Sorry about wrong length in my previous post - I just took the length from "Soviet Cannon" page 460 without thinking it, it says original length of longest Hotchkiss case version is 422mm. Actually the shortened case is 480mm long and most likely has originally been 523mm long as you say. Rim diameter is 87mm. Looks like the case has been cut just in middle of shoulder.
I wonder if the length in book is incorrect, when measuring and calculating from book photo I get the case is 523mm long.
 

Attachments

  • H-4.jpg
    H-4.jpg
    52.7 KB · Views: 37
Thanks for the overall view!

I do not know why there are other measurements given but probably it was meant to be 522. A typo maybe.
 
Top