I am looking for pictures of the British NO. 21 MK I (L) grenade for the Spring-Gun. Does anyone have any of this grenade?
Joe
Joe
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 21 MK I (L)
- Thread starter jvollenberg
- Start date
Hello,
Maybe a mistake, this grenade looks like a No33, or something like this.
Regards
If you look in the download section the grenade subject area has a piece that I wrote on the 'alphabetical' series of grenades:-
BRITISH GRENADES - ALPHABETICAL SERIES Being a brief introduction, and collection of data sheets, covering a largely unrecorded series of grenades.
I am not sure if the Type R grenade is in the version that is available (for some reason I cannot download the file to my iPad).
I am not sure if the Type R grenade is in the version that is available (for some reason I cannot download the file to my iPad).
Yes Tom. It is the same grenade. You will know the association of Allen West , who invented the West Spring Gun , and the Reason Manufacturing Co who made it. I have a note saying that the Reason Manufacturing Co made the grenades (and a heavy fragmentation pattern). The note also says that the grenade was called Type R because of its connection with Reason. I am not sure if I have any evidence that supports the notes. I will have a look in the Munitions Design Committee minutes.
Thanks everyone ... and on another note ... this has started a really interesting conversation. How different countries labeled (nomenclature) their ordnance is a very interesting topic.
Joe
Joe
Norman, I was aware that Allen West took over Reason Co. and used the Lewes Road premises for making grenades and Stokes bombs. I have no idea as to whether West kept the Reason name. I wasn't aware at all that the Type R nomenclature was down to the Reason connection, and simply thought the whole alphabetic series was just that... new grenade takes next available letter*.
If West/Reason made the spherical steel HE-filled Type R, is it fair to think they also made the oval cast-iron HE grenade for the spring gun (both used the same .22rimfire ignition arrangement)? And I don't know what the nomenclature of the oval was. Do you have that?
* With the exception of the P bomb of course.
Tom.
If West/Reason made the spherical steel HE-filled Type R, is it fair to think they also made the oval cast-iron HE grenade for the spring gun (both used the same .22rimfire ignition arrangement)? And I don't know what the nomenclature of the oval was. Do you have that?
* With the exception of the P bomb of course.
Tom.
Last edited:
Just to add to this thread here's a photo of some West Spring Gun grenades from my own collection with a No5 on the left for comparison . I don't know what the production numbers were but I suspect quite a few . Perhaps Tom has some figures & as he states , they all appear to have the modified .22 igniter as with the normal No21 .
Tom,
Thanks. I cannot be sure about the use of "R". I made the note many years ago, possibly from a TWD file in the National Archives. The reference to RMC making the grenades is in the OB Annual Report for 1915 (page 385):
"Grenade, Type “R”, T.W.D., for West Spring Gun.
D.T.W., 8.11.15, informed C.I.W. that a supply of W.S.G. Type " R " grenades was urgently required, and asked if he could arrange for inspection.
Specification No. 17, and drawings 205, 206, and 211 were forwarded.
These empty grenades were being made solely by the Reason Manufacturing Company. The filling was being arranged for at Decimals."
Safety trials were called for and essentially the grenade was declared satisfactory but the trials also showed their inadequacy due to the small fragments produced. This is referred to in the 1916 OB Annual Report. I suspect that RMC produced the heavy fragmentation oval grenade in response to this criticism but evidence is not forthcoming. CSOF also produced a bomb 'with langridge' to design RL24059 containing steel scrap (as 'Shrapnel'). Trials took place firing this pattern of grenade against dummies but I cannot find any results. I had hoped they would be in MDC minutes (MDC took over grenade matters from the OB early in 1916) but I cannot locate anything useful on the subject.
Last edited:
Thanks for that, Norman. Henceforth I'll associate the Type R with Reason Manufacturing Company, and the cast iron oval as likely to be from the same stable, but with nomenclature not defined (other than being oval).
As for Mike's comment regarding figures, I have requirements to the end of year 1915 as 500,000 each of the spherical steel plate HE (the Type R) and the oval cast iron HE. How many were actually made is another matter; I've not found any production figures.
Tom.
As for Mike's comment regarding figures, I have requirements to the end of year 1915 as 500,000 each of the spherical steel plate HE (the Type R) and the oval cast iron HE. How many were actually made is another matter; I've not found any production figures.
Tom.
I expect the production window was tight since the WSG and the Leach Catapult were both dropped in March 1916. I dare say that Mike's examples are amongst a small handful of survivors. I have only seen three of the No 21, and three of the Oval defensive pattern (plus the odd other pattern and dummies) in my years of being interested in the subject.
As for nomenclature I think if I had been part of FW3/EMB/TWD I would have been inclined to call the oval a Grenade, Spring Gun, Type R2 TWD
As for nomenclature I think if I had been part of FW3/EMB/TWD I would have been inclined to call the oval a Grenade, Spring Gun, Type R2 TWD
That would seem very plausible. Having now browsed the TWSD weekly reports there does appear to be some other evidence that supports the R terminology as being reserved for the grenades produced by Reason/West:
Report week ending 12 February 1916: "Grenades for West Spring Gun - A further 200 samples have been sent to the Superintendent of Experiments, Shoeburyness, and it is hoped that the report from O.B. will be received very soon. There is still very serious congestion at the manufacturers’ works and special arrangements have had to be made for the temporary storage of a large number of detonating sets, as the number in stock was such as to constitute some danger."
And from 26 February: "Type "R" Grenades for West Spring Gun - We understand that these have been approved; pending official confirmation, preliminary arrangements are being made for filling."
That was all happening exactly one year on from the List of Changes entry, 25 February 1915, for the introduction of the Grenade, spring gun, No.21 Mark I (Spherical "R" type).
So it would appear that over the course of a year, several variants (well at least two) of Type R grenade emerged.
Tom.
Norman,
Thank you for digging out the OB and OC excerpts; my interpretation of the February 1916 trials (for a new variant) was amiss. It would appear that it was simply the case that more of the original Type R Spherical grenade were required, although it was a device that had slipped through CIW's net when first designed and approved.
All the documentary evidence (OB, OC and TWSD) does tend to support the Reason Manufacturing Company as being the sole supplier, with corresponding use of the Type R nomenclature.
Tom.
Thank you for digging out the OB and OC excerpts; my interpretation of the February 1916 trials (for a new variant) was amiss. It would appear that it was simply the case that more of the original Type R Spherical grenade were required, although it was a device that had slipped through CIW's net when first designed and approved.
All the documentary evidence (OB, OC and TWSD) does tend to support the Reason Manufacturing Company as being the sole supplier, with corresponding use of the Type R nomenclature.
Tom.
No21 3d print version in xmas panto dress as the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.
[FONT="]After a giggle and some sober reflection (over a pint) and after examining the size of this object.. one ponders if this is a re-purpose of an early cistern float valve... same shape, 3.75in dia, and in two pressed hemispheres soldered together? To far for us colonials to research, needs some one interested closer to Woolwich.[/FONT]
[FONT="]After a giggle and some sober reflection (over a pint) and after examining the size of this object.. one ponders if this is a re-purpose of an early cistern float valve... same shape, 3.75in dia, and in two pressed hemispheres soldered together? To far for us colonials to research, needs some one interested closer to Woolwich.[/FONT]
