Welcome to the Inert Ordnance Collectors.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. #1
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire
    Posts
    100
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 66 Times in 22 Posts

    Unknown 37mm projectile

    Can anyone provide any information about the 37mm shown in the pictures? The fuze well (if thats what it is) has no threads and the white powder in the bottom of the hole in the front of the projectile is inert. Any information welcome.

    Buster




    Any live or dug ordnance shown in my posts has been dealt with accordingly by eod personnel

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Buster For This Useful Post:

    doppz92 (21st November 2018)

  3. #2
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ontario / Canada
    Posts
    2,417
    Images
    43
    Thanks
    394
    Thanked 960 Times in 475 Posts

    What does the bottom look like?

    I don't imagine there are any visible marks, though I don't think there are going to be any. It may have had a push in plug at some time, could have been made of anything.

    Another like it was posted previously, it had European script on it and was also heavily over painted.
    Last edited by Gspragge; 23rd August 2010 at 11:51 AM.

  4. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    north east uk
    Posts
    71
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Hi The drive band is the same profile as the standard british one.
    as for the rest its got me. there is a dealer/ colector Steve Mcgregor he has one of the best pompom colections i have ever seen if you knoe him give him a call he will know what it is. he is old school though and dont do the tinternet as they say.
    he will be at the next birmingham arms fair if you are in the uk
    Andy

  5. #4
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,808
    Thanks
    529
    Thanked 1,143 Times in 643 Posts
    Buster,

    A guess and not a particularly educated one. Some form of target practice projectile incorporating a 'spotter' element. On impact the inert white powder forms a visible cloud and some remains on the target to indicate point of impact. Similar to the coloured chalk filled Energas. The photo' of the pocket is a bit deceptive, how deep does it go? If it extends as far as the driving band, I would hazard a guess that the row of rings might be a vain attempt to cause the projectile to collapse on impact or failing that visual and tactile indication of the nature of the round.

    Regards

    TimG

  6. #5
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ontario / Canada
    Posts
    2,417
    Images
    43
    Thanks
    394
    Thanked 960 Times in 475 Posts

    What this is, is ~

    A standard Hotchkiss PD projectile with the thin wide brass band removed. This exposes the underlying ribs. 'Then the British pattern of centering and rotating 1 Pr. band has been pressed on to bring it up to a "Modern" standard. I think this is a Norwegian practice projectile, though I stand to be corrected on that by greater minds. The filling is possibly for weight and there was most likely a press fit nose plug at one time.

    Of course I don't have one and would be happy to make a very worth while trade for same~
    Last edited by Gspragge; 27th August 2010 at 12:04 AM.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Gspragge For This Useful Post:

    doppz92 (21st November 2018)

  8. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 20 Times in 9 Posts
    These were facsimiles of 1-pounder pompom rounds, manufactured to be used as match-holders. The lower drive band should have the impressed British registered design number "357391", dating the design to 1900. These were therefore made as souvenirs during the Anglo-Boer War. The ribbing was for striking the matches.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Neville_C For This Useful Post:

    doppz92 (21st November 2018), highlandotter (18th November 2018), TimG (18th November 2018)

  10. #7
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ontario / Canada
    Posts
    2,417
    Images
    43
    Thanks
    394
    Thanked 960 Times in 475 Posts
    I can't see the expense of making them for that, but I can see modifying existing projectiles.
    This purpose does make sense. The rounded shape of the lower band would
    indicate very early production projectiles, which perhaps were surplussed.
    There exist press in brass noses for these as well.
    Here is the actual registration of this item, unfortunately the purpose is
    not stated, or at least I don't think it is, I can't quite make it all out.

    I note that these have a plaster filling part way up the interior.
    This makes it rather shallow to hold matches unless they are very short.
    Depth of hole, 7/8".
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Gspragge; 18th November 2018 at 04:16 AM.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Gspragge For This Useful Post:

    doppz92 (21st November 2018)

  12. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 20 Times in 9 Posts
    I agree the expense would seem prohibitive. Interestingly I have also seen this design number on candlesticks incorporating 1-pounder projectiles (facsimile or real?). In addition, I have a couple of projectiles on plinths which have the impressed lettering: "A FACSIMILE 1 POUNDER POM-POM EXPLOSIVE SHELL". These have the registered design number 355754, and also look and feel like the real thing. But, then, why specifically state that they are facsimiles. Indeed, is it even legal to add a registered design number to something that has been manufactured by another company?

    Pompom_match_holder_01.jpg

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Neville_C For This Useful Post:

    doppz92 (21st November 2018), pysall (18th November 2018)

  14. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 20 Times in 9 Posts
    I have now managed to decipher the writing at the bottom of the Registered Design. It reads "Marriotts Ltd., W.E.C. Pinchbeck, Director". Marriotts were bicycle manufacturers, based at 71 Queen Street, London, and Hay Mills, Birmingham. According to the London Gazette, Marriotts were wound up in May 1901. Pinchbeck also had an interest in the Birmingham Rolling Mills and Metal Company Ltd. This company was founded in 1891 to "carry on the business of (amongst other things) manufacturers of and dealers in arms, projectiles, and ammunition of all kinds". Pinchbeck therefore had access to a ready supply of projectiles. However, one has to wonder why he registered this particular design under his bicycle manufacturing business.

    Pompom_match_holder_02.jpg Pompom_match_holder_04.JPG Pompom_match_holder_03.jpg
    Last edited by Neville_C; 18th November 2018 at 12:50 PM.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Neville_C For This Useful Post:

    doppz92 (21st November 2018), pysall (18th November 2018)

  16. #10
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ontario / Canada
    Posts
    2,417
    Images
    43
    Thanks
    394
    Thanked 960 Times in 475 Posts
    That is interesting, I have heard that the painting on some of these is of a recent vintage ? Here is
    my candle stick, it is on a regular projectile now on a decorated case. It came in a projectile with
    the registration mark as shown which I keep in the 37mm British collection. The reason for this
    is that it turned out to be the oldest British 1pr I know of, Marked M on the base and with a rounded
    lower band (same rounding on the "Match holder" type) M = Maxim (Gun Co.) before Maxim-Nordenfelt.
    When encountering one of these candle stick projectiles, examine it carefully it could be one
    of these first projectiles which I have yet to hear of another.

    " Indeed, is it even legal to add a registered design number to something that has been manufactured by another company?"
    I wondered about this, does seem a bit shady indeed and doesn't seem to have been repeated later, all around 1900.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Gspragge; 18th November 2018 at 03:46 PM.

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Gspragge For This Useful Post:

    doppz92 (21st November 2018), Neville_C (19th November 2018), pysall (18th November 2018)

 

 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top