Some Less Common Grenades

[wombocombo]

Hi Gents,

I believe it's inert as the cap has been drilled, I assume to remove the nasty stuff inside!

I have included another picture which hopefully someone can confirm is the correct assumption - or I am heading home right now!!

[calibre792x57.y]

The explosive content of these grenades was in the body, not in the cap. Rotate the cap clockwise until it engages the stops then pull upwards and the cap should come off to reveal the the housing for the detonator assembly. Once you get the cap off and show me the top I can possibly suggest how to proceed. - P.s. - Cap looks as if it has had a strike by a splinter, so it was quite likely a souvenir. - SW

[Ogilwy]

Wombocombo,

Never take anything for granted! People drill items of ammunition all the time and call items 'Inert' when they are anything but! It's a bit like the oil on a percussion cap renders it inert tail. Military percussion caps especially are in many cases sealed with a waterproof layer, this is also oil proof!

As per the good advice previously given, if you don't know then treat as live and report to the authorities. If you report an item then there is no problem, but if you deliberately retain an item containing explosives then it is a different matter.

I do not nor cannot condone the dissassembly of any ammunition item by untrained individuals, if in any doubt, call the people who know!

Rod

[calibre792x57.y]

Ah, Rod - I thought we would hear from you soon! I shall have to disagree with you on the subject of oiling primers ( I take it that is what you are referring to as 'caps'.) Once needing a display item for a GPMG I acquired a 200 round belt of 7.62 mm (Radway Green). I pulled all the bullets, emptied the cases, stood them up vertically and put a squirt of 3-in-1 in each. After ten days none of the primers fired when struck. I checked a couple of years later and they remained inert. - You say that there is no problem with the military, but I find their first action is to take it away and destroy it ; given that it is a quite valuable and rare piece, owner's aren't very happy when it transpires that it was free from explosive content and the destruction was unnecessary. - On the basis you are applying I don't know how you manage to go through a Militaria Fair w/out having a fit. -While one can never say an item is completely safe without examining it I would say that the odds on the grenade posted by wombocombo having any explosive content are very long - it hasn't been just dug up or found in a barn or attic in France and appears to have been in circulation previously during it's century or so in existence, so certainly worth a look given its rarity. - SW

[calibre792x57.y]

Wombocombo,

Never take anything for granted! People drill items of ammunition all the time and call items 'Inert' when they are anything but! It's a bit like the oil on a percussion cap renders it inert tail. Military percussion caps especially are in many cases sealed with a waterproof layer, this is also oil proof!

As per the good advice previously given, if you don't know then treat as live and report to the authorities. If you report an item then there is no problem, but if you deliberately retain an item containing explosives then it is a different matter.

I do not nor cannot condone the dissassembly of any ammunition item by untrained individuals, if in any doubt, call the people who know!

Rod

Rod, reviewing the information we have, I strongly suspect that not only is wombocombos grenade as empty as yesterdays tin of beans, but that he knows it and is pulling our legs! - SW

[Gunner Bailey]

How less common is this one?

An order was placed for 1000 of these but it is thought it was not completed. Most were scrapped.

John

[calibre792x57.y]

Well ..... the question is, what do you think it is John? - SW

[calibre792x57.y]

A No. 25 Mk 1. (Sangster) The striker set is common to both marks, and the body shapes are virtually identical , its just that the Mk II is smooth cast iron. The rods were 15-inch. The page shown is from Rick Landers book, 'Grenade.' - SW

[Gunner Bailey]

SW

Well, I would have thought it being a No 25 Mk II was pretty straightforward. If the body is not identical in shape to the one in Landers' book, it could be a factory trials version.

No?

John

[calibre792x57.y]

And the striker set? - If you can lay your hands on a copy of 'Weapons of the Trench Warfare 1914 - 1918' by Anthony Saunders, turn to P.103 and look at the patent drawings for the Sangster. The production items are identical. to the drawings. - SW

[Gunner Bailey]

I have that book, but like many it just re uses the drawings that are available mainly from the patent office. The Sangster did not progress beyond the patent / trial stage so later drawings are not always available (but may exist somewhere in Kew). I don't think I've seen drawings for the Mk II but the grenades certainly do exist.

There was no production of the No 25 only trials grenades. So I would expect the ingiter set to go through changes in the trials as did the body, which had fragmentation issues. The one I have may be a trials igniter. It is certainly a little simpler that that used in the Mk I. But that was the reason for the Mk II, to reduce production costs before production started. The No 25 Mk Is produced are like the No 3, uneconomic for mass production.

In the same way there are variants of the Mills parts that are not covered by certain drawings I would not exclude anything "odd" being produced in wartime.

John

[calibre792x57.y]

John - the reason for the Mk 2 was solely to overcome the problem of the poor fragmentation pattern of the turned steel body. The same problem showed up on the Hales No.24 Mk 1 which also had a turned steel body. The problem was solved in the same way on both patterns - using a cast iron body. As for production a demand was placed for 10,000 grenades but we don't know how many were actually produced, but the size of the order would indicate satisfaction with the grenade. Surely the whole point of Sangster's design was the igniter set which allowed the grenade to be launched and to fly a distance in a safe condition before it armed itself. Otherwise it would simply be a impact fuzed grenade like the No.22. The 'simplified' igniter which appears on your grenade does not show any elements of his patent, so whatever it may be it is not a Sangster. That is all I'm saying and that is why I asked you what you thought it was. - I will do another post showing my grenade in more detail later. - SW

P.S. In your grenade what supports the airscrew/striker other than the safety pin which is presumably intended to be removed before discharge?

[auchonvillerssomme]

Did the spinner mechanism rotate to expose the striker to the detonator or did it do something more complicated?

[calibre792x57.y]

Auchonvillers - I'll come back to that when I do another post on the bomb if I may, -trying to catch a bus!! - SW

[auchonvillerssomme]

Hope you have a big net, they can be elusive creatures.

No problem, it looks a bit more complicated than other types of spinner is all.

[Gunner Bailey]

SW. If not a Sangster then what?

Yes, there was a demand for 10,000 Mk I's but it's doubtful if more than a fraction of them got past the initial test stage. The concern over the cost of producting Sangster's igniter design meant that despite it being a good design it could not compete on cost with the No 22 , 24 or the 35. That's why there was only an order for 1000 Mk IIs and this was probably only partly completed.

What I can say is that this grenade comes from an impeccable source, was identified as a Sangster and I can state the collection included a number of prototypes covering decades. I'm more than happy this is the real thing unless you can produce drawings of the Mk II and to prove the opposite. Saying it's not a Sangster by comparison to the MK I does fit my logic.

John

[calibre792x57.y]

Well, you could look at the photo of the Mk2 in Landers book, which is identical to the Mk2 in Norman Bonnay's collection. Do you have an answer to my question? - SW

[calibre792x57.y]

Auchonvillersomme. - Apologies for the delay. Referring back to the pictures shown in Post 33 the key to Sangster's patent is the design of the striker set - the remainder of the grenade components are unremarkable for the period. The item which draws attention is the arming vane which has six blades @ 44 mm diameter and a pointed boss. This is fitted to a 9 mm spindle which terminates in a striker head suitable for the centre-fire primer of the detonating set. About half-way down the spindle is a short length of L.H. male screw thread. The other main piece is a cylindrical brass holder which has an external male RH screw thread which screws into the steel body, and a short internal female thread which matches the LH thread on the spindle. The arming vane spindle is screwed into the brass holder and when the threads are engaged along their length, holes drilled in the spindle and holder coincide and accept the brass safety pin. This is a much safer arrangement than on other percussion grenades such as the No19 where dropping it on it's head from enough height will shear the safety pin and fire the grenade. On Sangster's the striker is held by the screw threads and the safety pin merely prevents it rotating. The grenade body has a brass centre piece which accepts a centre-fire primed detonator which is fitted using a wooden dowel before use. The striker set is then screwed down firmly into the body securing the detonator. The safety pin is removed and the grenade launched in the normal way. The vane begins to rotate anti-clockwise screwing the striker spindle into the grenade, the spindle thread clears the holder threads and is free to move except for the resistance of an anti-creep spring beneath the head. When the grenade strikes the force of the impact overcomes the spring and the striker explodes the grenade. Simple and reliable. On trials the grenade outperformed its competitors except in the fragmentation pattern which was deemed unsatisfactory. This was overcome by changing the body material to cast-iron when the nomenclature became the Mark 2. Long ranged, accurate in flight, safe and reliable and popular with it's users, it was the cost which killed it. SW

[auchonvillerssomme]

Thanks for that informative reply, I've got it. I can see why the cost must have knocked it on the head.

I was comparing it my head, because I can't now find the information, to an Italian design.

Mick

[Gunner Bailey]

SW see my e-mail to you.

John

[calibre792x57.y]

I can say that a couple of those prototypes in the collection of which you speak actually came from me years ago, and in exchange, I received several scarce pieces,one of which was the Sangster in my posts. I do not accept that your grenade is a Sangster, but as Auchonvillers mentioned it does strongly remind me of an Italian rifle grenade, but unfortunately I do not have access to the book I saw it in. - SW

[Gunner Bailey]

I think you must mean one of these (without the tail).

Again I ask, if not a Sangster then what? If you can't suggest an alternative to it being a development Mk II then you are in a cul de sac.

John

[calibre792x57.y]

I don't have to find out what your grenade is, that is for you. I have merely pointed out that the striker set up on it is not in accord with Sangster's patents. I have said all I wish to on this subject. - SW

[calibre792x57.y]

Here is one which while not rare isn't very common either. Might please Gunner Bailey. An early No.5 with a centre cast body. No trace of paint so it was probably never filled, but it retains much of it's original shellac finish. 'U' section safety lever, brass pin, brass filling plug, solid head striker, aluminium centre piece, and aluminium base plug. This is marked G. D. P. - G.D. Peters & Co., Moorgate Works, London, E.C. and Gotha Works, Slough, Bucks, it's designation and date, 8 1915. This firm pre- War supplied fittings for railway carriages (remember those graceful aluminium braced luggage racks??) and during WW2 made components for the De-Haviland Mosquitoes. - SW

[Gunner Bailey]

Always pleased to see a centrecast. I have a few of them. As you say probably taken from the production line as a souvenir. 8/15 was when production really started for the Mills. Before that the failure rate was huge and the makers were trying to learn the complexities of two part casting and more.

John