No 3 Hale Grenade Pic

[orcutteod]

The rod I have measures 17 inches and after taking a closer look at it I believe it's not original. Also included is a top view of my rifle grenade.

 

[Bonnex]

The rod I have measures 17 inches and after taking a closer look at it I believe it's not original. Also included is a top view of my rifle grenade.

In the UK (it might be different in the US) it is not impossible to get the correct diameter stock to make rods but it is not easy either consequently most of the 'replica' rods that I have seen have been too thin or too thick.

 

[Bonnex]

Norman

I think the No 10 an No 11 were given their place in the numbered series because it was probably thought that production would continue for some time. However by the time they were issued very few front line units were using the Magazine Lee Enfield and I suspect manufacture was for small orders at best and they probably died out in early 1917. Also we had the situation where vane-less grenades were emerging fast, the No 20 and the No 24 alongside the in-service No 22. So why continue making a complex and expensive rifle grenade when there were cheaper alternatives (22 and 24) around?

John

I suppose the health warning with this reply should read "don't get me started on the No 10". Another phantom grenade perhaps? I think not but nevertheless a difficult grenade to find documentation on. The piece I did for Rick Landers outlines the development of the No 4 for the RNAS. Hidden away in the drawing of the 'No 4' fitted with a tail to convert the grenade into an aerial bomb is a "Land Service Rifle Base Plug" which, apart from the rod, is the only component that differentiates the No 10 from the No 4. The base plug is fitted with a muzzle clutch (or collett) and I would not be surprised if this component is from the pre-war 'J Pattern' shrapnel grenade.