aden ap projectile info

[harley]

I dont suppose anyone has any info on two different aden ap projectiles.One is stamped RG61 the other is unstamped and seems to have the same profile as the aden HE shell , any info would be appreciated

 

[Chris 42 RQ]

Two types ?

Interesting Harley, I see you have a second type of possibly AP.
How do the two compare weight wise ?

Could you take a sharper picture of them both please.

If the two part projectile is unstamped then it may well have been a "reps" model that was removed from the production line before stamping.

 

[harley]

hi chris ,both the projectiles are the same weight,and are identicle apart from the ballistic cap which are interchangable.the projectile that is stamped RG61 is the same as the one you have shown but the other has a ballistic cap similar to a HE round and is without any markings whatsoever,It is strange because i can only find info on the stamped RG61 projectile the same as in peter labetts book on adens.The other one i cant find any mention of another AP projectile anywhere.Maybe it was produced for export?

 

[Chris 42 RQ]

Machine shop reject possibly.

Hi Harley I think the answer may well be that your AP round with the nose that appears to be in two parts may well be a machine shop reject as the tool used to profile the shape could have slipped in its holder on the final surface finish cut therefore leaving what appears to be a "joint" between the two.

I have seen many rounds that were rejected and a whole batch of over 300 were rejected when someone forgot to put them through the core insertion machine and they all came out perfectly excepting the "roll over" present held nothing in place:tinysmile_angry2_t:
One final question, is the inside profile the same on both nose caps ?

 

[harley]

hi chris,the inside of both projectiles are to the eye identicle but i took a few measurments with a vernier guage and the wall thickness on the one you said is the machine shop reject is slightly thicker by about 0.5 mm.The trouble is the extra line that is machined is perfect in every respect you would have thought if it was an error the projectile would have been marked or damaged in some way.ive just measured the od of the base of both the caps , they are different slightly as is the od just above the driving band by about 0.5 mm.

 

[Chris 42 RQ]

Think it is the answer

hi chris,the inside of both projectiles are to the eye identicle but i took a few measurments with a vernier guage and the wall thickness on the one you said is the machine shop reject is slightly thicker by about 0.5 mm.The trouble is the extra line that is machined is perfect in every respect you would have thought if it was an error the projectile would have been marked or damaged in some way.ive just measured the od of the base of both the caps , they are different slightly as is the od just above the driving band by about 0.5 mm.

Hi Harley it looks like it may well have been a machine shop reject as once it has been parted off from the stock material it would not be economical to try to re-machine the contour-so it gets put in the "skip" or "reps samples" bin !
Interesting to note that the body above the drivng band is also "oversize" and that would also suggest that it may have been rejected for some reason too.
Thanks for showing all your items.

 

[harley]

thanks for your time and info chris much appreciated.but it does raise the question why fit the tungston carbide penetrator if it was scrap? regards mick