United States MK 2 Practice

[Grenademan2005]

....and they have a garbage can filled with grenade bodies.....
If I do find one I will post the pics.

I think that I made wrong with my job :sad:

 

[Kilroy was Here]

Yes, that is an M21 and it is distinguished from the MK II practice by the frag pattern.

If you compare the M21 to the MK II you will see that the M21 has a slightly rounded frag pattern (which is exaggerated in the "novelty" bodies being seen in abundance online and at Army Navy stores).

You can expect to find M21 practice grenades with the M10A2, M10A3, M205A1 or M205A2 fuze.

>>>As for finding "RFX" on a grenade body. Yes, it is commonly found on M21 bodies but can also be found on MK II practice and yes, even MK II HE bodies as Richmond Foundry made all 3 at one time.

Please post some pictures of a WW2 era HE "RFX" with either a solid or threaded body. I have never seen one. I did not know they existed.

Regards, Steve

 

[Kilroy was Here]

The fuze isn't the determining factor in if it is a MK II or an M21, the body of the grenade is. I'd have to do some deep digging to find the reference but from my recollection, the M21 replaced the MK II due to the cost. if you look at the M21, the frag is not as defined. This is becuse they changed the way the grenade was being manufactured. The production of the M21 required less QA inspections and the cast iron used is of a lower quality.

While I've never seen it stated anywhere, I would suspect that the reason the hole in the bottom of the M21 is larger than the hole in the MK II practice is due to the fact that the M21 body is designed to be reusable. The MK II Practice body is nothing more than a MK II HE body that was pulled from the line before the bottom was threaded. When used as a practice grenade you had to poke around quite a bit to remove the remainder of the igniter shell that was left inside the body after functioning. By redesigning the casting on the M21, they were able to make the hole in the bottom bigger which allowed for greater ease in removing the remains of the igniter shell.




But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I was told flat out that Richmond foundry never made the MK II body and only made practice bodies. I have 2 MK II HE bodies with RFX clearly stamped in them. The gov't contract records for that period are not complete so it makes it difficult to say if anyone other than Richmond Foundry was contracted to manufacture the M21 body. They also manufactured the M30 body but again I haven't been able to dig up any info on that contract.

"I have 2 MK II HE bodies with RFX clearly stamped in them." Eodtek

Please post pics of these grenades. It will be interesting to see them.

No one has commented on my other observations and statements.

Particularly about how a lot of WW2 era "blue practice" grenades have a slightly off center hole, and a unevennchamer around the edge. The holes are not perfectly round either.

An experienced pineapple collector friend here in Florida has said that these off center hole blue trainers were threaded HE bodies, that were made into trainers. All the ones I have seen have different maker marks, and slightly different body-frag shapes.

On another note, I think the blue "M21" with the can dated August 1944 with a Lot # None is a perfectly a legitimate grenade. I think this because of the source where it came from. I do not think that any collectors, people , children for school projects etc has repainted this 1944 "M21".

It is interesting to note also that the body is exactly like the grenade dated 1939 that Frank showed.....A World War One body.

Does someone else have an original August 1944 M21 "can or pot" with the original contents to show? ......also one that has no Lot # ?

I could be wrong, but it would be very interesting to see other examples of late 1944 dated M21's and there "cans-pots"

Regards, Steve

 

[Eodtek]

"I have 2 MK II HE bodies with RFX clearly stamped in them." Eodtek

Please post pics of these grenades. It will be interesting to see them.

Hopefully you can see it on here. The body still needs to be de-rusted with my favorite new compound. You can see the neck still has some yellow paint on it.

I had a box of bodies shipped to me a few years ago and this was one of the gems amongst the novelty bodies that took up the majority of the shipment.

 

[Kilroy was Here]

Hi, interesting. Please post more pics, and also the bottom please. Does a M10 series fuze screw into it properly?

Regards, Steve

 

[Eodtek]

Hi, interesting. Please post more pics, and also the bottom please. Does a M10 series fuze screw into it properly?

Regards, Steve

It's in the de-rusting tank right now so I'll pull more photos tomorrow.

Yes it is threaded for the M10 series fuze.

 

[Kilroy was Here]

It's in the de-rusting tank right now so I'll pull more photos tomorrow.

Yes it is threaded for the M10 series fuze.

OK, I will watch for your new photos. Please show the bottom also.

Thanks, Steve

 

[Eodtek]

Here is the body fresh from rust removal and I highlighted the foundry mark. I also inserted an M10 fuze that I had sitting on the bench. If I remember correctly the grenade was not fuzed when I accquired it.

Also, the last photo is of a strange body that I had to examine. It looks like an early version of an M21 body before the casting was changed from the original MK II. Unfortunately someone attempted to modify it at some point and the neck was re-threaded to fit an M228 fuze.

 

[Kilroy was Here]

Here is the body fresh from rust removal and I highlighted the foundry mark. I also inserted an M10 fuze that I had sitting on the bench. If I remember correctly the grenade was not fuzed when I accquired it.

Also, the last photo is of a strange body that I had to examine. It looks like an early version of an M21 body before the casting was changed from the original MK II. Unfortunately someone attempted to modify it at some point and the neck was re-threaded to fit an M228 fuze.

Hi, thanks for pics, but this solid bottom RFX is not a WW2 pre 1945 grenade body.

The second odd shaped RFX, nobody "unfortunately attempted to modify it" It was made that way for post war size threads on M204 etc. I do not think, and feel confident that RFX never made grenade bodies before 1945, practice or HE.

The thread has transgressed to "post war" M21's. I am a WW2 collector, and post war grenades are really of no interest to me.

I showed at beginning of thread a VERY early WW2 1944 date "M21" that I feel is 100% original with the same WW1 body as Franks .."interordnance".

My grenade was dismissed as a fake, or "incorrect" and "only the pot" could possibly be original. End of comments.

I believe my "M21" grenade to be original, and also one of the earliest examples, and for sure an interesting one with a WW1 body and color. Except for the cork which I added for the picture, this is how I got the grenade. As I said already, cork did not come with grenade, but it is an original WW2 cork

Until I see another 1944 dated M21 can or "pot" with it's contents, I believe my M21 grenade is correct and original. I think this because of where it was obtained, but nobody ever believes these very old lady stories.

This thread was originally about Franks 1939 blue trainer..... of which I have never seen another blue this early, and have never seen a "plain" M10 series fuze, not A1, A2, or A3. Do others have one this early to show?

I believe Franks grenade is a fundamental key to knowing exactly when they changed from Red to Blue color, and also the original first M10 fuze. I have no books or manuals that say exact dates and times. Does some one have this information in definitive form?
I guess this is may not be interesting maybe. Not being rude, or nasty, just have no interest in post War US grenades.

Regards

 

[Grenademan2005]

The only thing that I have clear in this post is that there is a pot marked as it is marked with a Late WWI grenade inside with a M10A3 reused spoon, (black paint at the end of a spoon means reuse), I never said your grenade were fake or not right, BUT you have to think in the chance that an old stock practice grenades were fitted inside the new pots. Anyway my theory about the RFX are post war and M21 "real" Practice grenades is still on place reading all the posts here. :boxing:

 

[Eodtek]

Hi, thanks for pics, but this solid bottom RFX is not a WW2 pre 1945 grenade body.

And that determination is based on?

The second odd shaped RFX, nobody "unfortunately attempted to modify it" It was made that way for post war size threads on M204 etc. I do not think, and feel confident that RFX never made grenade bodies before 1945, practice or HE.

Knowing the history of the grenade I beg to differ. First off, someone plugged the bottom thereby modifying it. Second, the fuze well is not threaded for a M204 fuze as it does not fit. As it sits in the photograph it is threaded for an M228 fuze which is why I say "Unfortunately attempeted to modify it" since I have absolutely no way of knowing when it was re-threaded or who did so.

The thread has transgressed to "post war" M21's. I am a WW2 collector, and post war grenades are really of no interest to me.

To fully grasp pre-war vs post war one must first determine when things were actually made by specific companies no? How can we say when a specific company made something unless we know when they were awarded the contract to do the work? The only other way is to compare items and start to build a picture from it. That is what I'm trying to do.

I showed at beginning of thread a VERY early WW2 1944 date "M21" that I feel is 100% original with the same WW1 body as Franks .."interordnance".

My grenade was dismissed as a fake, or "incorrect" and "only the pot" could possibly be original. End of comments.

I believe my "M21" grenade to be original, and also one of the earliest examples, and for sure an interesting one with a WW1 body and color. Except for the cork which I added for the picture, this is how I got the grenade. As I said already, cork did not come with grenade, but it is an original WW2 cork

Until I see another 1944 dated M21 can or "pot" with it's contents, I believe my M21 grenade is correct and original. I think this because of where it was obtained, but nobody ever believes these very old lady stories.

I don't see any reason that the grenade you show should be considered a fake or incorrect. It is entirely plausible that any company that was contracted to produce the M21 practice grenade could have pulled from existing stockpiles of unthreaded MK II bodies or even pulled QA rejects to use. The blue color on yours seems strange but there again there are any number of plausable explainations for this.

Are there any casting marks on your grenade?

This thread was originally about Franks 1939 blue trainer..... of which I have never seen another blue this early, and have never seen a "plain" M10 series fuze, not A1, A2, or A3. Do others have one this early to show?

I believe Franks grenade is a fundamental key to knowing exactly when they changed from Red to Blue color, and also the original first M10 fuze. I have no books or manuals that say exact dates and times. Does some one have this information in definitive form?
I guess this is may not be interesting maybe. Not being rude, or nasty, just have no interest in post War US grenades.

Regards

The title of the thread is US MK 2 Practice and doesn't specify the time period covered which makes it kind of broad. I jumped in because the issue of the RFX bodies being ALL M21's came up and I have info to the contrary. Forgive me.

I have sitting right here in front of me an unthreaded MK I body with a cork in the bottom (partially broken off inside) and blue paint. I have no idea on the story behind it but the paint is original and it's the second one I have seen. The other was recovered on Fort AP Hill VA.

Not being rude, or nasty, just have no interest in post War US grenades.

Understood but as I said, to be able to understand where we came from it sometimes helps to work backwards from where we are now. There is most likely more info available on the late production of the grenades than there is on early production. Building a complete picture takes help from everyone.

V/R,
Mike

 

[Kilroy was Here]

The only thing that I have clear in this post is that there is a pot marked as it is marked with a Late WWI grenade inside with a M10A3 reused spoon, (black paint at the end of a spoon means reuse), I never said your grenade were fake or not right, BUT you have to think in the chance that an old stock practice grenades were fitted inside the new pots. Anyway my theory about the RFX are post war and M21 "real" Practice grenades is still on place reading all the posts here. :boxing:

Quote: "I believe my "M21" grenade to be original, and also one of the earliest examples, and for sure an interesting one with a WW1 body and color. Except for the cork which I added for the picture, this is how I got the grenade. As I said already, cork did not come with grenade, but it is an original WW2 cork

Until I see another 1944 dated M21 can or "pot" with it's contents, I believe my M21 grenade is correct and original. " End Quote

The only difference between as you call it "MkII practice" and a "M21" is what the US government designated them to be called in 1944.

To add more ammunition to my opinion of my "M21" ...............
There is no lot number on my can. Who is to say the earliest ones, or "some" of the practice grenades where shot with some different color spray paint? It was a time of war, and I feel comfortable saying that not all blue paint was the same.
In fact this blue is the color they "could" have originally intended "M21's" to be?
Maybe they only painted very few this color until the standard color could be delivered?

All I am saying is that there could be many reasons during wartime that this could be the original blue color.

As far as the "reused" spoon with black paint, Why would this fuze not be correct for a WW2 training grenade? The HE grenades used them also. Are you saying that ALL training grenades had NEW fuzes?

I have also heard this black paint "reused spoon" theory, and supplied this info for Lex's site, BUT now I have also read and seen in a US manual that this black paint at the bottom of spoons is from when the something in the delay-ignitor-detonator train, in the actual fuze, was revised. I'm fairly positive this manual was late war, or early post war dated. I have a photo saved of they way they painted the black paint on spoons in a jig.



Regards, Steve

 

[Kilroy was Here]

And that determination is based on?

****This is based on the knowledge told to me from a 40 year grenade collector who "specialized" in US pineapple grenades.
I do not think he will mind me using his photo of collection below, it is a world class collection he is very proud of. He lives 20 or so miles from me, and I have examined them in person. He has also been nice enough to pass on much info from his research and years collecting pineapples.



QUOTE=Eodtek;147081]Knowing the history of the grenade I beg to differ. First off, someone plugged the bottom thereby modifying it. Second, the fuze well is not threaded for a M204 fuze as it does not fit. As it sits in the photograph it is threaded for an M228 fuze which is why I say "Unfortunately attempeted to modify it" since I have absolutely no way of knowing when it was re-threaded or who did so.

****You did not show the top or bottom of the strange shaped RFX. This second RFX is very strange shaped and I think it might be one of the "fake" offshore RFX grenade bodies. They all had / have 5/8" inch threads, so this is why I say it was made that way. If it has been welded/filled on the bottom, a collector or someone other than the Military did it. The Military did not weld or "plug" grenade bodies. Please post good pics of all angles of this grenade...top threads, and bottom.
***Very sorry, see... not too good with post war....., I forgot, the M204 fuzes have the 9/16" threads like the M10-M6 series. I meant the larger 5/8" threads like M213-M228. This is what I meant, the second is threaded for the later larger fuzes.



QUOTE=Eodtek;147081]To fully grasp pre-war vs post war one must first determine when things were actually made by specific companies no? How can we say when a specific company made something unless we know when they were awarded the contract to do the work? The only other way is to compare items and start to build a picture from it. That is what I'm trying to do.

****Yes, this would be ideal, but with WW2 items like grenades there is limited info on the MANY contractors for the grenade castings. I know of a few I can remember now..."G" marked body is "The Big G" the Grabler Co. "AF" is American Fireworks, "L" in diamond is Littlestown Foundry........ [FONT=Arial,Geneva]most of the production was for the war effort:
1,200,000 Hand Grenades
3,000,000 Rifle Grenades
3,000,000 Bomb Plugs
Thousands of Anti-Personnel Mines

[/FONT] ***There is a collector on the West coast I think and he has been working (for a long time) on a book that will attempt to have the companies from the the MANY maker markings found on US pineapples. I do not think it will ever be finished, and it will never have complete list, the info is not available 65+ years later I do not think.
I have sent Lex (lexpev.nl) dozens of pics of maker marks for his site (of my grenades, ones I have had, and also on the web) He has started a page with US pineapple maker marks. It will be more than one page though! :wink: I told him maybe to make a page like this a long time ago, but it just got added recent. (he is a very busy man) It will be great to have many grenade bodies shown on one site.



QUOTE=Eodtek;147081] I don't see any reason that the grenade you show should be considered a fake or incorrect. It is entirely plausible that any company that was contracted to produce the M21 practice grenade could have pulled from existing stockpiles of unthreaded MK II bodies or even pulled QA rejects to use. The blue color on yours seems strange but there again there are any number of plausable explainations for this.

****Agreed. Any, and all grenade bodies were used for practice grenades in WW2. It did not matter early or late. I said earlier that the WW2 training grenades with just a hole on bottom, no threads, were originally threaded bodies that were drilled to remove threads. The holes are off center slightly, and have chamfer around edge. Have you noticed this?

QUOTE=Eodtek;147081] Are there any casting marks on your grenade?

****Yes, is you look at the pic, you can see what looks like an upside down T. My other WW1 body is marked N.

QUOTE=Eodtek;147081] The title of the thread is US MK 2 Practice and doesn't specify the time period covered which makes it kind of broad. I jumped in because the issue of the RFX bodies being ALL M21's came up and I have info to the contrary. Forgive me.

****No reason to forgive you, you did nothing wrong, and I do not think I said anything that you did? I jumped in also to correct Miguels statement about M21's.


QUOTE=Eodtek;147081]I have sitting right here in front of me an unthreaded MK I body with a cork in the bottom (partially broken off inside) and blue paint. I have no idea on the story behind it but the paint is original and it's the second one I have seen. The other was recovered on Fort AP Hill VA.

****A cork broken off.... is a cork broken off. No way to tell who did it, and when. If the grenade has the "lacquer" sealant over the bottom area, than it is not WW2 era. They did not use this sealant during the war.


QUOTE=Eodtek;147081]Understood but as I said, to be able to understand where we came from it sometimes helps to work backwards from where we are now. There is most likely more info available on the late production of the grenades than there is on early production. Building a complete picture takes help from everyone.

****Yes, help from everyone, that is what this site is supposed to be and for. You are correct, and working backwards can be useful tool in research... But can also start at the beginning, and work your way forward too.


V/R,
Mike

*****Hello Mike, did you use the "multi -quote" feature" when you replied? I could not figure how to do this, nothing happened when I clicked the small icon at bottom?

How did you do this multi quote? It is a good feature to keep on track with subjects.

I had to copy paste all the.......... QUOTE=Eodtek;147081]


Regards, Steve

 

[Eodtek]

Old forum trick from another place I admin on that ends up with long posts.

Quote the entire post then copy and paste the quote tags at the beginning and end of each set of paragraphs that you are responding to. It helps to keep your thoughts grouped together and makes it easier to follow (for me anyways).

 

[Kilroy was Here]

"Old forum trick from another place I admin on that ends up with long posts"

"Quote the entire post then copy and paste the quote tags at the beginning and end of each set of paragraphs that you are responding to. It helps to keep your thoughts grouped together and makes it easier to follow (for me anyways)."


Ahhhhh, OK Mike, this is what I was going to do, but tried the this...******* trick.
I agree this method keeps things on track, and easier to follow. You follow me?

 

[Grenademan2005]

How is the old Jim?

 

[Kilroy was Here]

How is the old Jim?

I think he is doing fine. I have not spoke recently to him, but will soon.

Do you want me to say hello?

Steve

 

[Eodtek]

Here is as good a place as any to post this:

MINUTES OF THE ORDNANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
HELD ON FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 1923
AT 10:30 A.M.

Hand Grenade. Practice Type
Mr. Adelman read the following report of the Sub-Committee on Grenades:
“1, A sub-committee on grenades has considered memorandum from the Ammunition Division dated March 21, 1923 on the subject of test of practice hand grenades. These grenades are made from regular grenade bodies. The filling is of sand with a small amount of Soapstone to give greater visibility; the bottom is closed with a cork instead of a metal plug the purpose being to have the plug blown out and the dust scattered without necessarily breaking up the body. The standard fuze assembly (Bouchon assembly) with a No.6 detonator is used, Three hundred and forty (340) of these grenades have been made up, of which 240 have been sent to the Aberdeen Proving Ground. The sub-committee recommends that these grenades be given preliminary test at the Aberdeen Proving Ground to determine their suitability for use as practice grenades and that the remainder be sent to Fort Benning for test by the Infantry Board should the test at the Aberdeen Proving Ground prove satisfactory.

That is the first instance I find from 1921 on (the start of the OCM reports) about the development of a practice grenade. It's there is another section talking about the expected failure rate due to the storage of the fuzes but I haven't been able to convert that over to full text yet.

I also have the report from the following month that I haven't converted yet but they recommended passing the 100 grenades on to the Infantry board due to a successful test (all but 8 were visible with 17 failing to function). It also talks about a new shipping box for the grenades where the fuzes are now separate.

 

[Kilroy was Here]

Great info Mike, thanks for posting. Does anything you are reading mention the color of these 1921 practice grenades?

Regards, Steve

 

[Eodtek]

Great info Mike, thanks for posting. Does anything you are reading mention the color of these 1921 practice grenades?

Regards, Steve

Unfortunately no and since there is a big gap from 1923 to 1941 in the OCM reports that I have I'm probably missing that info. However I did find that TGP was removed from service as an explosive filler in grenades in 1923.