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!

black-painted Mills grens

batonroundcollector

batonroundcollector

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
were Mills ever painted black in British service (think more WW1), or is this just something seen on restored grens/replicas?
 
This chart shows that pre 1945 all No36 Gren HE were a varnished natural metal finish. I am sure that some of the grenade experts may have more information.colour chart.jpg
 
batonroundcollector said:
were Mills ever painted black in British service (think more WW1), or is this just something seen on restored grens/replicas?
Click to expand...

That's a very difficult question ! I think the consensus is that they were only lacquered BUT I've had plenty of WW1 examples that were totally original & black . My personal opinion is that the black colour is , in fact , caused by the lacquer ageing over the best part of 100 years . I've tested some & the finish is definitely never cellulose but more like a hard lacquer & would appear to chip in places . This would be consistent . If you ever find one that has been painted with cellulose , it's not original ! Mike.
 
exat808 said:
...pre 1945 all No36 Gren HE were a varnished natural metal finish.
Click to expand...

I was thinking primarily of earlier Mills - No.5 and No.23...

Mike, that sounds probable. As most WW2-era Mills I've seen appear brown, is this because the laquer had a brownish-tint - when applied or over time - or is this the colour of the bare metal under the laquer?

I guess laquer was only applied once grens were filled to seal them (this is what gives the 36M the 'M' designation as being sealed for tropical - initially Mesopotamia - use, right)? I had read that this coating was Shellac?

My first Mills was a Drill 36M that came to me in bronze-green paint (single coat, worn away in places, not a thick laquer)... looked like original paint to me. I know that most Drills were painted a glossy white.
 
No , they were lacquered first in Shellac by the body maker . There's a name for the process but I can't remember it . Tom posted some pictures of an original WW1 factory doing the lacquering & it was a very messy job ! . Shellac comes in a huge variety of colours from almost black to almost clear . It was standardised in WW2 so they are nearly all a similar shade of brown . The filling bands & marks were put on at the filling factory & this was seldom the plant that made the bodies etc. except if it was RL , so if you find one that's lacquered over the top of bands , it's been refinished .Mike.
 
Shellac is still used in the maintainance and repair of ammunition.
This is an adaptation of what a current manual says -


LACQUER SHELLAC RED
Lacquer Shellac Red (Cat No. H1/8010-99-225-3924, DEF STAN 80-44) is a lead free 20% concentration solution of Lacquer Shellac and Solvent Red 49 (Colour Index No 45170B). It is issued in 5 litre cans.
The laquer is used to coat:
Copper and brass components.
Filled detonators in fuzes and gaines.
It is NOT to be used to coat surfaces in proximity to Picrite based propellants
 
No . I should have made that much clearer in my somewhat garbled reply ! The early WW1 Mills were heat treated & dipped [Fermangan] . It was only some of them that were lacquered as Norman states & these can turn black with age . This also applies to other British WW1 grenades that were similarly treated except for all those that were painted like the R/G's etc . The pink filling bands on No5's can also fade to almost white over time . Mike.
 
Thanks Mike.

Btw, I know the 36 was introduced in 1917, and am guessing the 'M' came about a few years later (when British troops were in Mesopotamia)?? Did the 36M become standard at that point with no.5, no.23 and previous 36s obsoleted?

Also was there any change in filler for tropical use with the 36M?
 
The first "M" qualified Mills grenade was the No.23 M MkI, which was sealed for tropical use by applying a waterproofing composition around the striker head where it goes into the body, and on the threads of the centre piece and the base plug. M variants of 23II, 23III and 36I then followed.

The waterproofing composition was initially a mix of Chinese wax, vulcanised rubber, and lanoline. With the later grenades, 23 M III and 36 M, Madagascar wax was substituted for the Chinese wax, while shellac was approved for sealing the centre piece threads.

The most important change was the move away from amatol as a bursting charge to grade I trotyl or baratol . Typically TW amatol used grade II or even grade III trotyl (trinitrotoluene), which had a lower setting point (melting/freezing pt) than pure grade I. In tropical temperatures this could cause the amatol to froth and exude from the munition.

Furthermore the high ammonium nitrate content of amatol meant it was hygroscopic, so any poor mechanical sealing could result in absorption of moisture from high humidity (again tropical) environments. The performance of damp amatol was variable to the point of not detonating. Barium nitrate, in contrast to ammonium nitrate, is not hygroscopic - barium nitrate of course gives baratol its name.

M and non-M variants ran in parallel, the former being initially reserved for Iraq and Salonica. Non-M grenades, because they were appropriate for the conditions and were far more economical in the use of trotyl, were still produced in huge quantities till the end of the war for Flanders and France.




Tom.
 
I think both were introduced at about the same time at the start of 1918 although they were certainly manufactured before that time . I would n't get to attached to that Mespot designation as it was more of a general term to identify grenades that had better sealing & Mespot is as far away from a tropical climate as you can get , it being 90% desert . It was also used on several obscure grenade models like the No39 in both standard & "M" variants & the chances of that going to Mespot [now Iraq] is remote in the extreme . Norman or Tom can probably give you a much more definitive answer suffice it to say the VAST majority of WW1 Mills No36M's were used in Europe . There were many different explosives used in all the models but I don't think I should go into details as I'm not sure what the BOCN rules are on discussing fillings . Mike.
 
Thanks both, very interesting :)

So was the waterproofing composition applied at manufacture, along with the lacquer, or upon filling to seal filled gren?

When did the 36M completely replace all preceding Mills grens?
 
Regarding the colour of No 5's have a look at my recent thread about a No23. I'm pretty sure that one has a large percentage of the original shellac type coating which is a dark brown over dark grey iron. In my collection I have a number that over the years have shed all exterior coatings and are a dark 'natural brown' as though the shellac / fermangan coating has stained the original grey iron.

I do have some WW2 No 36's that are Black coated in their original finish.

Where's that time travel machine?

John
 
Last edited:
There is not a Makers mark or casting number any where on this No36 it has a soldered brass center tube and brass filler screw slight traces of red paint on the top and gray round the center but its also black,,,,,,,, Dave

HPIM7778.jpg HPIM7777.jpg
 
Hello,
Shellac is relatively easily soluble in alcohol, so if the black lacquer does not dissolve (test needed), it is not Shellac.
 
Paul & Dave,
Was the black paint just any black paint that was available?
Would a FLAT black, GLOSS black or SEMI-GLOSS black be more appropriate?

I have a 36M Mk 1 casting that I'd like to refinish and would like to get it as accurate as possible.

Many Thanks!

Cheers,
Brad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top