nellerhorner11
Active Member
Is this some sort of Hales rifle grenade please , thanks . 
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!
Help with the ID of this rifle grenade
- Thread starter nellerhorner11
- Start date
It's a No 11 Mk I - quite a rare grenade. Similar to a No 3 Mk II but without the muzzle clip. The base, where the rod joins the body has not been drilled to take the clip.
designed for use with the Long Lee Enfield rifle rather than the standard SMLE.
It is missing the ring around the wind vane but it may be possible to find one a fit it.
Very good find.
designed for use with the Long Lee Enfield rifle rather than the standard SMLE.
It is missing the ring around the wind vane but it may be possible to find one a fit it.
Very good find.
Last edited:
nellerhorner11
Active Member
thank you very much , how interesting , I did not know that Long Lees were ever used to project grenades . Would this still be WW1 era ? Also I am used to seeing lots of markings on rifle grenades but this only has the 3 letters of what I assume is the manufacturer.
Looks more like a No.3 MkIII, i.e. a new build MkII* instead of converting by having the spring steel muzzle clip removed. New build simply implying not drilling the holes for the screws to take the muzzle clip.
See the book "Grenade" by Rick Landers et al.
Possible Tom but I'm not sure anyone has ever seen one. The crucial difference would be the absence of the pin hole on the Mk III. Not visible in the photos posted.
Novice question here, is it the pictures or is the rod a bit short?
The No.3 MkIII does have a safety pin in the usual place, but the base plug on the item shown in post #1 is that of a No.20 - so there ought to be a pin hole there. The No.3 style of releasing collar looks to be on upside down, so maybe it is simply a No.3 MkII onto which has been screwed a No.20 base plug. So many No.3 grenades were rejected through doubts about the wind vane/collar and then reworked, that any hybrid was possible...
Last edited:
It looks like a standard 10" rod, just the perspective of the photo perhaps distorting things.
nellerhorner11
Active Member
Yes the rod is 10 inches long
nellerhorner11
Active Member
thank you all for this help .... do you require any other photos to help with the ID ?
The No 11 I have is a hybrid with a No 20 top cap. I know it's original as it's a semi relic and has never been taken apart. As the 'spec' in Landers says some were modified but I also think that in the latter days with the No 3 fading out and the No 20 coming on stream they were lots that were made of mixed parts. I expect orders were placed for No 11s and the makers just used what they had to hand. Last year I saw a No 11 where the two holes in the base plug appeared to have been expertly filled with solder or white metal. It didn't look like an amateur job.
There's also the question why have a designation No 3 Mk III when the identical spec at No 11 Mk I existed? Maybe someone in TW or Design got confused?
nellerhorner11
Active Member
Crumbs there is a lot more to this than I thought , thank you .
I think that sum it up well!
The Great War was a 'hothouse' of design. The British Army went into the war with just the No 1 grenade and a box of No 3 grenades still awaiting trial at Hythe. Almost a standing start. During the four years of the war there were over 40 grenades accepted for service and many many more that got to trials stage or just to prototype stage. WW1 British grenades are a fascinating subject.
Here's the official drawing of the No 11.
I don't think the internals of the No 3 / No 11 changed at all. It was only when the No 20 came along that the wind vane was removed and the changes happened.
The mythical No.11 was tackled some while back:
http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/93067-No-11-Rifle-Grenade?highlight=hale
Post #20 links to a photo from Millsbomber of a No.3 MkII grenade with a No.20 base plug, similar to that shown at the start of this thread. Post #30 includes extra images of the base plug.
The determining feature of the No.11 seems to have been that - if it had ever seen service - it would have been issued with a 15" rod (see "Grenade" by Landers). The question is whether it was ever issued or even manufactured. The contract records are interesting - there is not a single record of a contract being placed for even one No.11 grenade.
The No.3 series of grenades performed atrociously. Precision manufacture of the releasing collar, wind vane, and needle bolts and their holes proved beyond the capabilities of some firms - Marten Hale's company had one of the worst rejection rates with 58% failures, so he gave up making them and withdrew from any further rifle grenade contracts. The supply figures as of February 1916 show over 25% of No.3 grenades from all manufacturers were rejected at inspection. Rejected grenades were returned for rectification, and with the No.20 being made from February 1916, authorisation for some No.20 parts to be used for rectification of No.3 seems plausible.
So coming back to the original question of identification, the grenade shown in post #1 is a No.3 MkII coupled with a No.20 base plug and 10" rod. Whether that was a reworked No.3 MkII that had failed previous inspection or whether it was a new build No.3 MkIII using a No.20 base plug is debatable.
Inspection drawings for the No.3 MkII* and No.3 MkIII did exist, although showing the old No.3 style base plug.
So coming back to the original question of identification, the grenade shown in post #1 is a No.3 MkII coupled with a No.20 base plug and 10" rod. Whether that was a reworked No.3 MkII that had failed previous inspection or whether it was a new build No.3 MkIII using a No.20 base plug is debatable.
Inspection drawings for the No.3 MkII* and No.3 MkIII did exist, although showing the old No.3 style base plug.
Attachments
Last edited:
Tom
With all due respect, how can the word mythical be appropriate when official drawings exist for the No 10 and No 11?
They existed in some form, although it's possible orders for the No 11, were satisfied by modifying No 3 grenades.
The MLE was in use in France and the middle east during the first two years of the war at least so there must have been some pressure to supply these grenades to the field.
With all due respect, how can the word mythical be appropriate when official drawings exist for the No 10 and No 11?
They existed in some form, although it's possible orders for the No 11, were satisfied by modifying No 3 grenades.
The MLE was in use in France and the middle east during the first two years of the war at least so there must have been some pressure to supply these grenades to the field.
John,
Mythical simply because there are no recorded orders having been placed for No.11, and also to date it seems no one has produced a physical example with genuine markings on the body plug denoting No.11. That does not preclude a combination of No.3 body and 15-inch rod being used somewhere, but there are not even any orders for 15-inch rods for use with No.3 grenades. For example, the last mention of a long rod in the contract listings is January 1915:
"Hale Rifle Grenades, Design J, Military complete with rods and firing cartridges. 1500 to be fitted with long rods (contract dated 1.12.14)"
All that to say the grenade shown in post #1 - with its 10-inch rod - is not a No.11.
It was not an identical spec. There was the small matter of five inches difference between the rods - 10" for the former, 15" for the latter. Where is the confusion?
Last edited: