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!
No 11 Rifle Grenade
- Thread starter Millsman
- Start date
Interesting point Dave ! Your one appears to have a No 20 base piece where the rod screws in . Beautiful original paint on the body by the way . Mike .
Ditto what Mike said !
In the light of the earlier comments concerning tampering with Hale type rifle grenades, the attached might be of interest. These are just a few sample pages from ANZAC records.
The No.3 variants were notoriously unreliable due to the complexity of the wind vane arrangement, but such was the desperation to have supply that in February 1916 Woolwich agreed to accept grenades from manufacturers giving up to 30% blinds at proof*. Undoubtedly this led to the situation of the wind vane and releasing socket being slackened by the troops using the grenades.
Continued occurrence of blinds with the simplified No.20 and No.24 seems to have led to further tampering by the troops - pulling back of the releasing socket and removal of the needle pellet retaining bolts**, although poor assembly of grenades from the filling stations was also suggested as a possibility for grenades found in such a state.
*Chief Inspector Woolwich, Paper W17/23663, 28 Jan 1916.
** An extremely dangerous practice, especially if a grenade was not fired and then removed from the rifle barrel, as replacing the safety pin would have had no contribution to safety if the retaining bolts had been removed - the only thing physically separating the needle pellet from the detonator was a weak creep spring.
Tom.
The No.3 variants were notoriously unreliable due to the complexity of the wind vane arrangement, but such was the desperation to have supply that in February 1916 Woolwich agreed to accept grenades from manufacturers giving up to 30% blinds at proof*. Undoubtedly this led to the situation of the wind vane and releasing socket being slackened by the troops using the grenades.
Continued occurrence of blinds with the simplified No.20 and No.24 seems to have led to further tampering by the troops - pulling back of the releasing socket and removal of the needle pellet retaining bolts**, although poor assembly of grenades from the filling stations was also suggested as a possibility for grenades found in such a state.
*Chief Inspector Woolwich, Paper W17/23663, 28 Jan 1916.
** An extremely dangerous practice, especially if a grenade was not fired and then removed from the rifle barrel, as replacing the safety pin would have had no contribution to safety if the retaining bolts had been removed - the only thing physically separating the needle pellet from the detonator was a weak creep spring.
Tom.
Attachments
paul the grenade
Well-Known Member
It is a pity that Paul's Range Rod and Rubber Ring instruction was issued on or after August 1919, that being the print run date for the form used, shown at the bottom right.
The trial with the No 39 grenade did not happen until after WW1.
Is there any known earlier information about the use of ranging rods/rings, during the war?
The trial with the No 39 grenade did not happen until after WW1.
Is there any known earlier information about the use of ranging rods/rings, during the war?
I'd read the date on the leaflet as August 1918. That figures with TWD Proceeding No.1923, to which Norman had alluded in post #12. (Minute attached.) It is interesting that - as the minute states - "the proposal... is a very old one..." Exactly how old is another matter.
Tom.
Attachments
Will this shed any more light,,,,,,,, Dave
