WW2 bullet???

[reddirt]

I found this bullet shell (I think its a bullet) a few days ago. I'm curious exactly what it could be. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Here it is in hand:


Its the large one on the left. The smaller bullet is a 0.50 cal. (for size comparison).


Bottom view:


Only markings I can see. Looks to be (S 5/18).

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[TheCannonballGuy]

We need super-precise measurement of the INSIDE diameter of the casing's "neck" for certainty in identifying the ammunition's caliber. Meanwhile... in your photos, the "neck" opening seems to be a bit under 1-inch, and if that is correct, it is probably a 20-millimeter cannon shell's casing. The marking saying 5/18 is most likely the casing's date of manufacture, May 1918.

 

[jewelerguy]

way too big to be a 20mm shell. I'm thinking more along the lines of 30mm x 170

 

[mirage83]

37mm cannon, WW1? Maybe a Model 1916?

 

[Pointman]

This is redundant to what was already said:

That is bigger then a 20 mm but smaller then a 40 mm. I've had both sizes of shell casings in the past. The 40 mm is a typical M203 grenade diameter. Measure the diameter of the neck and convert it to metric. It looks like either 30 or 37 mm, which would make it old.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Three full days ago, I asked the finder to measure the top of the casing's neck. Since 76 hours have passed with no response at all, he seems to have lost interest in identifying the casing within a few hours after posting it. Thus, so have I. Adios.

 

[Pointman]

I understand. I feel the same way about similar posts. Feels like you are given a little bait and then the hook is pulled out of the water when you start to nibble. That was an interesting find.

 

[GpSnoopy]

As an aside, I used a digital screen "caliper", a program I have that basically measures objects on the screen with an arbritary "pixel" number. So, I measured a 1" section of the tape measure, and 1" (25.4mm) = 42 on my screen calipers. I then measured the neck of the cartridge, and came up with the same number, 42 = 25.4mm. Allowing for the wall thickness of the cartridge, that correlates to approx. 25mm for the actual round. Not as precise as doing it physically, but it's pretty close as long as the image perspective isn't too bad.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

GpSnoopy, no offense intended, but despite my saying "Adios" to the Original Poster, I must add a caution-note about that method of size estimation. I've tried to do the same thing you did. But there can be a problem with it... which might be called "lens-distance perspective." Actual size is difficult to accurately estimate when two objects are at different distances from the camera's lens. In this case, the tape-measure (which is laying flat on the table) is an inch or so further away from the camera's lens than the casing's mouth (which is "in the air" above the table's surface. If you raised the tape-measure up off the table to the casing's mouth, the tape-measure would become a bit "larger" in the photo.

A clearer example:
That "perspective" problem is more obvious when somebody posts a photo made with a camera looking straight-down on a metal ball with a tape-measure laying flat on the table beside the ball. Even though I know for certain that the ball's diameter is 2.9-inches, the tape-measure laying flat on the table "below" the ball makes the ball appear to be 3.5-inches wide.

Please don't misinterpret those statements as me complaining about your post. I appreciate the effort you obviously put into it. You've proved that the casing is not a 30mm or 37mm casing. Unfortunately, the only way to know the true size is for the Original Poster to stretch a tape-measure directly across the center of the casing's mouth. But at present, it seems he has no interest in doing that for us relic-ID helpers.

 

[GpSnoopy]

Thanks, TCG. Absolutely no offense taken. As I mentioned at the end of my post, I am aware of the issues with image perspective.....

Not as precise as doing it physically, but it's pretty close as long as the image perspective isn't too bad.

I normally use this method for measuring unknown coins laying flat and right next to another "known" coin used for scale. I believed that the measurement, in this case, would be close enough to eliminate the 30mm-37mm possibilities. This one could be 25mm, 23mm or even smaller, if the perspective is throwing the scale out by that much.......

Again thanks for clarifying the issues with using this type of measurement.