What's new
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!

Unknown 37mm projectile

Buster

Well-Known Member
Ordnance approved
Premium Member
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

37mm3.jpg



37mm4.jpg
 
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:
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
 
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
 
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~:tinysmile_kiss_t4:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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".
 

Attachments

  • registration.jpg
    registration.jpg
    29.3 KB · Views: 63
Last edited:
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
 
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:
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.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0002.jpg
    IMG_0002.jpg
    176.5 KB · Views: 51
  • IMG_0001 (5).jpg
    IMG_0001 (5).jpg
    178.2 KB · Views: 54
  • IMG_0001 (4).jpg
    IMG_0001 (4).jpg
    55.5 KB · Views: 53
Last edited:
This is all very interesting. I have now had a good look at the bases of my two "match holders", and it is just possible to see the remains of the Maxim "M" on both of them. This has been mostly obliterated by later lathing, which suggests that your theory of modified rounds is correct. It is difficult to say whether the loss of the "M" occurred as part of the modification process (the adding of the ribs and the removal of the fuze threading), or whether it was done deliberately to get rid of any manufacturers marks. As Pinchbeck seems to have been trying to pass these off as his own design, the latter explanation seems likely. By the way, the painting looks contemporary to me - both in style and in the way it has aged.


Pompom_match_holder_05.jpg Pompom_match_holder_06.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hope this helps,at least with cap.
below where cap fits the cavity opens out and extends full length to base of projectile.
as seen in photo the cap is a friction fit with three stalks,cap made of thin metal,steal I think though have not tested with
a magnet.Note number stamped on driveband.It came as complete round in an early British case,no headstamp.
Have never got to the bottom of what it was used for.I would say as it has a cap,not for matches,as because of
shape it is very difficult to remove by hand,I have drilled a very small hole in the base to insert a wire in order to
push it out.When I acquired it,the cap had been pushed to the bottom of projectile,and was impossible to remove
even by kinetic effect.
my guess is that it was some sort of practice round filled with chalk or powder as some kind of marker as to point
of impact,but that's just my guessing.
I do like this round as it is if nothing else unusual.
At least we know their are a few in existence.
Tim
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    325.9 KB · Views: 45
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    298.8 KB · Views: 44
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    222.6 KB · Views: 49
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    286.1 KB · Views: 42
I have heard that there was a spring to hold the cap in place. A full length hole
would be better for matches if not too deep?. Mine has a plaster fill. The only purpose I can think
of for these if the configuration is original pre souvenir is to weight the projectiles
with lead inserts for testing the guns in development. This would matter as the weight of the projectile
would affect the operation. The ribbing could have been added later perhaps if the match
holder use is correct, though with the brass top this can be questioned too. We may never know.
I found the M under a thick layer of varnish, but not on this type, it was a candle holder without the
ribs. Both types have the rounded early band how ever, not seen on the marked Maxim/Nordenfelt, PA
& VSM examples.
We may never know for sure what was original and what was altered for the souvenir trade.
 
Could the machined ribs have been added when converted for use with cap?For change of use.
As the one with brass fuze has no ribs,and the other one with smooth fuze pocket and ribbed just has cap missing.
Tim.
 
Here are two more projectiles that were made/modified for the souvenir trade. The first example has impressed lettering on the brass plinth: "A FACSIMILE 1 POUNDER POM-POM EXPLOSIVE SHELL" "REGD NO 355754" (dating it to the second half of 1900). As with the examples above, I am unable to differentiate this from a genuine round, once again suggesting the use of surplussed stock. I also have one of these with a cut-away, revealing a facsimile explosive charge. The cigar-cutter, on the other hand, is unlike any other 1-pounder I have come across. The drive bands do not look very aerodynamic to me! However, my field is exclusively Anglo-Boer War, so I know little about the form of these pieces before 1899 and after 1902.

Regarding the Marriott examples above, does anyone know whether the registered design records at Kew have written descriptions as well as drawings? If so, this might be the only way of finding out the purpose of William Ernest Capner Pinchbeck's design(s). I still find it very odd that these were being modified by a bicycle manufacturer.

Also, is it relevant that the example with the cap lacks the plaster infill? In other words, could it have had a different use to the examples with the shallower 7/8 inch deep cavities?

Pompom_facsimile_b_01.jpg Pompom_cigar_cutter_promotional_01.jpg
 
Last edited:
...does anyone know whether the registered design records at Kew have written descriptions as well as drawings?

The registered designs are pasted into what amount to very large scrap books, and it is fairly rare to find even a one-line description. I took the photos of the two Registered Designs (355754 and 357391) for Gordon on a visit to Kew, and also an image of a whole page for sake of showing the limitations - see below.

The point of the Registered Designs is that they cover a general idea, rather than the details of a patent, and as such the owner of the RD is free to develop all sorts of variations. For example, the RD No.654142 of 1915 - see attached - for a hand grenade paperweight (using bought-in reject castings) saw a range of versions, including the commonly found Mills grenade inkwells. In this case there is a one-line note regarding the novelty of the shape.



Tom.
 

Attachments

  • DSC07079.jpg
    DSC07079.jpg
    229.3 KB · Views: 27
  • DSC07077.jpg
    DSC07077.jpg
    288.8 KB · Views: 34
  • 651542_1.jpg
    651542_1.jpg
    38.1 KB · Views: 27
  • 651542_2.JPG
    651542_2.JPG
    32.8 KB · Views: 22
Last edited:
Tim, the images of the cap are extremely interesting, and have got me thinking ..... How sharp is the lower edge of the main body of the cap? I am wondering whether the cap originally stood proud of the nose of the projectile, with some form of spring mechanism that allowed the cap to be depressed, returning to the upper position once released. This would then function as a cigar cutter. In the upper position there would be three gaps, into which the end of a cigar could be placed. Then, with a sharp depression of the cap, the end of the cigar would be cut off, falling into the cavity below.

This would sit well with the match-holder/striker theory. Perhaps these were sold in pairs (match-holder + cigar cutter). I have a number of 1-pounder projectiles that have been made into smoking accessories. Cigar lighters, cigar cutters, match holders, inkwells, candlesticks .... these were some of the favourite modifications of bring-home souvenirs from the Anglo-Boer War. Just an idea.
 
Last edited:
Tim, the images of the cap are extremely interesting, and have got me thinking ..... How sharp is the lower edge of the main body of the cap? I am wondering whether the cap originally stood proud of the nose of the projectile, with some form of spring mechanism that allowed the cap to be depressed, returning to the upper position once released. This would then function as a cigar cutter. In the upper position there would be three gaps, into which the end of a cigar could be placed. Then, with a sharp depression of the cap, the end of the cigar would be cut off, falling into the cavity below.

This would sit well with the match-holder/striker theory. Perhaps these were sold in pairs (match-holder + cigar cutter). I have a number of 1-pounder projectiles that have been made into smoking accessories. Cigar lighters, cigar cutters, match holders, inkwells, candlesticks .... these were some of the favourite modifications of bring-home souvenirs from the Anglo-Boer War. Just an idea.

Hi Neville,
I can see your thoughts on this one,but the cap is not that sharp,just thin,and I don't think strong enough for repeated use.
Also it would have to be a thin cigar.Also the stalks will easily bend so would have to be a weak Spring.
Tim
 
I am repeating the image of the cigar trimmer. I had a similar
example years back, but with an older style lower band. The projectile
was 35mm, so too narrow for a proper 1pr. Also on careful examination
the copper bands were a thin metal cover pressed over the corresponding
shape on the body. It was in fact a very early, maybe the first of the type (mine had the Gruson style bands, yours the Maxim)
cigar cutter and it was a made up facsimile not a converted projectile. This one looks very much the same
over all. I believe these are German in origin. Once real surplus projectiles
became available there was no need for these facsimiles to be made up.
 

Attachments

  • CigarCuttr.jpg
    CigarCuttr.jpg
    222 KB · Views: 13
  • CigaR372.JPG
    CigaR372.JPG
    224.8 KB · Views: 15
  • CC.png
    CC.png
    165.8 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
Top