they are deep . .and its been filled to . is there any way to tell who made the bodys by shape ?.did any makers mark any centercast bodys. cheers Darrol:hmmmm2:
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!
another no 5 centercast question.
- Thread starter Darrol
- Start date
paul the grenade
Well-Known Member
Hi Darrol,
the gren on the left of my piccy has the letter 'R' on each shoulder close to the lugs but apart from that has no other identifying marks. I dont think its possible to otherwise identify a maker. It wasnt until the advent of the No 23/111 and the no 36 that there was any requirement for a maker mark or date on the body. However, some makers such as Vandervell's did this on the No 5.
I reccon John's small No 5 could have been one of the French made ones but unless it finds a way to talk we will never know.:tinysmile_hmm_t:
Just enjoy the fact and the gren for what it is.
Andy
the gren on the left of my piccy has the letter 'R' on each shoulder close to the lugs but apart from that has no other identifying marks. I dont think its possible to otherwise identify a maker. It wasnt until the advent of the No 23/111 and the no 36 that there was any requirement for a maker mark or date on the body. However, some makers such as Vandervell's did this on the No 5.
I reccon John's small No 5 could have been one of the French made ones but unless it finds a way to talk we will never know.:tinysmile_hmm_t:
Just enjoy the fact and the gren for what it is.
Andy
paul the grenade
Well-Known Member
if you get time john, can you post some detailed pics of your little mills?
Cheers, Paul.
Cheers, Paul.
Same as mine Paul but with the letter 'R'.
Wonder if they were made by the same manufacturer but a different mold?
Andy
Yes, happy to Paul. As Andy says, it could well be a Dunkirk, all of which were centre casts. Either way it's a rare one and I do enjoy it for the mystery that surrounds it.
I bought it at a French 'Bourse aux Armes' on the Somme a few years ago.
John
Here we go Paul.
This grenade is about 3-4mm narrower than a normal Mills No5 and you can actually feel the difference in the hand. The size difference cannot be linked to rusting or pitting as the grooves are all pretty well standard depth. Note the vertical grooves on the rear face of the grenade (left of lever especially). They look more cut than moulded.
It came with the original lever, pin / ring and striker all fuzed together. When I separated the lever and striker the tip of the striker fell apart.
A mystery.
John
Attachments
paul the grenade
Well-Known Member
Yes, i see what you mean. That is a strange one.
Thanks for the great pics.
Cheers, Paul.
Thanks for the great pics.
Cheers, Paul.
i was wondering that as like the 36 the bodys are all and sometimes slightly different shape to other 36s due to the manufacturer . . is there a source of info regarding no5 centercast body shapes ?the quality and finish can variy greatly .was there a set dimention to be kept too and was the bodys originaly sculpted by the individual makers? if so would it be possable to determine the makers through comparison .:tinysmile_hmm_t2: cheers darrol
Hi Darrol,
there is no way of knowing who made a gren body unless they made all the parts. As i said before there was no requirement to mark Mills bodies with makers details until the No 23/3/36. However some did such as Vandervels. It just guesswork bud. Be pleased to have a nice gren.
Andy
there is no way of knowing who made a gren body unless they made all the parts. As i said before there was no requirement to mark Mills bodies with makers details until the No 23/3/36. However some did such as Vandervels. It just guesswork bud. Be pleased to have a nice gren.
Andy
hi andy .im very happy with my gren :tinysmile_grin_t: i was looking at it from a sculpters perspective.there had to be an individual responsible for making the one to make the mould from.would have like to have got some info on that but as you said theres no info:tinysmile_angry_t:.thanks Darrol.
Manufacturing variations
Two standard Mills castings shown, the one on the left a guaranteed July 1917 No.23 MkII made by REVO, the one on the right a late 1916 No.5 or No.23 MkI/II (base plug not original to the body). The difference in diameter measured across identical sections is a very noticeable 3.5mm, and the REVO body is much more bulky.
This is purely down to manufacturing variation, and although the dimensions of the casing were specified, they were non-critical. The size could and did vary appreciably from the mean. If it was happening in late 1916 to mid 1917 on the the well established 23MkII, there is more than a slight probability that it was happening on the early transverse castings.
In July 1915 (and throughout the rest of his days) Mills complained bitterly that he was having to show competing contractors how to make and tool-up to produce the bomb. Part of that show-and-tell was helping competitors' pattern makers to produce their mould patterns. The pattern makers were skilled people, but whether for the early transverse castings, or for the later common longitudinal castings, every hand-carved wooden pattern would be slightly different - in size and shape. Hence we see today a small sample of the boundless variety that was produced in the 56 million or so of the No.5 family produced.
Mills' first style of body - the labour intensive transverse casting with machined horizontal grooves - was introduced to the first batch of 20 or so contractors in May-June 1915. However, on inspection drawings dated July 1915 the common longitudinal type casting is shown as an acceptable alternative. Though we will never know for certain, it is quite probable all these contractors had a go at the transverse casting, before adopting the less labour intensive alternative. Unfortunately it's very rare to find any No.5, yet alone transverse cast ones, with a named base plug that is proven to belong to it.
Tom.
Two standard Mills castings shown, the one on the left a guaranteed July 1917 No.23 MkII made by REVO, the one on the right a late 1916 No.5 or No.23 MkI/II (base plug not original to the body). The difference in diameter measured across identical sections is a very noticeable 3.5mm, and the REVO body is much more bulky.
This is purely down to manufacturing variation, and although the dimensions of the casing were specified, they were non-critical. The size could and did vary appreciably from the mean. If it was happening in late 1916 to mid 1917 on the the well established 23MkII, there is more than a slight probability that it was happening on the early transverse castings.
In July 1915 (and throughout the rest of his days) Mills complained bitterly that he was having to show competing contractors how to make and tool-up to produce the bomb. Part of that show-and-tell was helping competitors' pattern makers to produce their mould patterns. The pattern makers were skilled people, but whether for the early transverse castings, or for the later common longitudinal castings, every hand-carved wooden pattern would be slightly different - in size and shape. Hence we see today a small sample of the boundless variety that was produced in the 56 million or so of the No.5 family produced.
Mills' first style of body - the labour intensive transverse casting with machined horizontal grooves - was introduced to the first batch of 20 or so contractors in May-June 1915. However, on inspection drawings dated July 1915 the common longitudinal type casting is shown as an acceptable alternative. Though we will never know for certain, it is quite probable all these contractors had a go at the transverse casting, before adopting the less labour intensive alternative. Unfortunately it's very rare to find any No.5, yet alone transverse cast ones, with a named base plug that is proven to belong to it.
Tom.
Attachments
Tom
I fully agree with all of your post. The point I'm making about my odd centecast is that it is smaller in diameter than any of the standard moulds including my other centrecasts. I've not measured the wall thickness but in diameter it is a one off compared to all the rest.
John
I fully agree with all of your post. The point I'm making about my odd centecast is that it is smaller in diameter than any of the standard moulds including my other centrecasts. I've not measured the wall thickness but in diameter it is a one off compared to all the rest.
John
John,
I should have said that the body on the right in the photo is an "average" size casting. The REVO body is on the large end of the Gaussian distribution - so the opposite to your small transverse casting, which is on the smaller end of the distribution. It's purely down to manufacturing variance, and it's rather nice that we have examples of the statistical extremes.
Tom.
I should have said that the body on the right in the photo is an "average" size casting. The REVO body is on the large end of the Gaussian distribution - so the opposite to your small transverse casting, which is on the smaller end of the distribution. It's purely down to manufacturing variance, and it's rather nice that we have examples of the statistical extremes.
Tom.
hi tom .the 23 ive got has no sharp edges and looks like a bad casting but had most of its original finish so i know it hasnt been polished back too far so there must be countless shapes even sometimes very subtle ones.does anyone have any pics of the carved originals.also i know there not centercast but i had to put these pics up of early mills production .thanks Darrol:tinysmile_grin_t:
Attachments
paul the grenade
Well-Known Member
Great pictures Darrol. I love to see these old pics of grens being manufactured.
cheers, paul.
cheers, paul.
any chance of a side view . .? cheers Darrol
hi paul.ive another old pic somewere with loads of no5 bodys.will put it on here soon.nothing like old photos to give you a better understanding of an age than just a number. Cheers Darrol.
See Post 27 for photos Darrol - John
wow john . i see what you mean .reminds me of how they used to draw them in old pamflets and books .looks great though .a propper piece of history.thanks Darrol:tinysmile_fatgrin_t and heres another old no 5 production photo . it makes me sick .:xd:
