Early British Experemental / Trials grenade

[wichitaslumlord]

This is a REALLY neat grenade. It shares distinct similarities with both the British No1 Mark II and the British No2 grenades. I have pictured it next to a No1 Mark II for size comparison.

The only markings on it is: 5 4 A stamped on the head of the mushroom striker.

The quality of construction is outstanding. The fuze is also very interesting. Once the safety pin is removed, the mushroom striker is still in a "safe" position as it is threaded into the fuze body. It must be rotated 5 1/2 turns clockwise (inward) for the threads to disengage. Then the only thing holding the firing pin back from the detonator is the external spring under the mushroom striker. There is no "shear wire" as is found on other fuzes. It would be very sensitive in this condition.

The sensitivity of the armed fuze and the need to remember to rotate the mushroom striker by hand before throwing would have been ample reason for non-acceptance for trials or use in my opinion.

Any information or thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Pat

 

[Millsman]

Some observations :-

The No.1 had problems with exploding on soft ground and sand. This looks like an attempt to cure that problem. The handle looks to be developed from a No.2 or a No.19. Perhaps this was a last ditch RL attempt to continue with the No.1 - a No.1 Mk IV perhaps? Odd that is does not bear the RL mark.

The cast iron ring looks more like a No.2 that a No.1. Wild thought - could it be Cotton Powder Co development to improve the No.1??

Another thought was - is it a later development of the 1913 Bangalore 'universal' hand grenade??

A gem, whatever to answer is.

 

[wichitaslumlord]

Some observations :-

The No.1 had problems with exploding on soft ground and sand. This looks like an attempt to cure that problem. The handle looks to be developed from a No.2 or a No.19. Perhaps this was a last ditch RL attempt to continue with the No.1 - a No.1 Mk IV perhaps? Odd that is does not bear the RL mark.

The cast iron ring looks more like a No.2 that a No.1. Wild thought - could it be Cotton Powder Co development to improve the No.1??

Another thought was - is it a later development of the 1913 Bangalore 'universal' hand grenade??

A gem, whatever to answer is.

Thank you for your thoughts. It would be great to identify it's origin.

It's fuze is sensitive enough that it would have overcome any problems with functioning upon impact, but at increased risk to the thrower!

Upon closer examination, the fragmentation ring is hand finished. All of the grooves were created (or made deeper and more uniform) by grinding, most likely by hand as slight variations can be found. A few faint file marks can also be seen in the grooves.
The outer surface of the ring is very smooth and shows no signs of casting or tool marks from turning. I believe it was carefully polished smooth to enhance it's appearance. This detailed finishing was also applied to the grooves as the marks I see are faint with no rough edges.
The ring was applied in 2 pieces by soldering and the longitudinal parting lines were carefully filled with solder. One is directly under the belt clip and the other is 180 degrees across.

An interesting note: The fragmentation ring is ground in such a manner that a duplicate could be cast in one piece with the mold parting lines running in a longitudinal direction as is found on a normal Mills body. This was probably done in preparation for the possibility of mass production.

Pat