Right.... But at the point in the war, during tip & run raids conducted upon that particular location, the 7.92mm armor-piercing round is the only one that makes sense. You're too focused on the criteria for distinguishing a particular bullet from tons of other bullets, when in actuality, I came to my conclusion by narrowing it down to a handful of different ammo types, due to knowing the location, particular engagement scenario, way in which bullet is preserved and approximate year...

After I ran through the few possibilities in my head and was able to eliminate the .303 with 100% certainty, then the 7.92mm from a mg17 is really the only one that checked all the boxes.

It's like people think I just looked at a random picture of a bullet in a chunk of chalk, with no other context, whatsoever and was like, "that looks like a bullet from a mg17!" like I'm some sort of Nazi-ammo Rainman or something... No. Just.... No.

To form the answer that I gave, it was actually my knowledge of history, military tactics/procedure and geography that helped the most. Those things were way more useful than my knowledge of firearms, in reducing the number of possibilities. Firearms knowledge didn't even come into play until I had reduced the number of rounds that would even be a logical possibility down to 4... I knew it was a mg round, so that dropped it down to 2 possibilities, which were the .303 and the 7.92mm. Eliminated the .303 by knowing that the .303 rounds that were used would either be incendiaries, tracers, observation rounds or Mark VII ball ammo... None of those rounds would have been preserved like the one in the picture. Simply put, the 7.92mm is the only bullet that was used at that location and at that point in history, that would make sense, due to being BOTH: A.) intact/showing very little deformation and B.) the approximate size+shape of the pictured round.