Experimental British Number 1 Grenade

[SG500]

I seem to have developed an interest in British number 1 grenades. During my search for information I was provided with information regarding the development of the number 1.

A drawing that was of particular interest is reproduced below. It is taken from The Annual Report of the President Ordnance Committee for the year 1906. Plate XLIX Page 860. Reproduced with kind permission from Norman Bonney. What is striking is the variations when compared to the service version which went into production soon afterwards.


I asked around but nobody seemed to think that any of this experimental version had survived so……….I decided to make one, or at least something close to represent the key differences. Clearly I’m not attempting to make a fake, simply a model to show the correct overall dimensions.

The plate below, taken from page 10 of “Grenade” British and Commonwealth Hand and Rifle Grenades and reproduced here with kind permission from Norman Bonney, shows the service grenade for comparison purposes.


There are only 2 original components to the one I have made. The frag ring and the cap.

The frag ring was a recovered relic in crumbling condition. I filled it and cut the grooves using a hacksaw and 5mm triangular file. Note the number of grooves. 16 not 8. Also the frag ring is 2.55 inches in diameter (external measurement) on the experimental version, compared to 2.7 inches in diameter for the service grenade.

The body was made from brass tubing. The key difference being, on the service version it is 5.75 inches long compared to 7.75 inches for the experimental.

The handle for both types is 16 inches long, 1.75 of which is inside the wooden block so the exposed handle is 14.25 inches long, but due to the increased brass body length of the experimental version, the overall length of the service grenade is 21.75 inches long compared to 23.75 inches for the experimental. Another feature of the experimental grenade is the handle is smooth with no ridges, unlike the service one. Page 860, reproduced below makes reference to the grip requiring roughing or whip cord to provide a better grip.

Both have the same length tail at 36 inches, fixed 6 inches from the end of the handle.

The experimental grenade has a 7 inch piece of twine fixed to the end of the belt hook. Does anyone know what that would be for?

Raw materials – 40mm and 14mm dowel, brass tubing, frag ring (filled), 3mm brass bar bent to make belt hook, tape (for streamer).


Frag ring filled and marked.

Frag ring cut

Comparison photographs

 

[Millsman]

I was interested by the very first drawing. What is the context in the document? I thought it might be a first try at a training version or a sketch brought back by an observer in the Russian / Japanese war.

 

[SG500]

I was interested by the very first drawing. What is the context in the document? I thought it might be a first try at a training version or a sketch brought back by an observer in the Russian / Japanese war.

All I know is what is on page 860, see below. The last but 1 paragraph about 12 lines up from the end of the page.

Dave.

 

[Bonnex]

I was interested by the very first drawing. What is the context in the document? I thought it might be a first try at a training version or a sketch brought back by an observer in the Russian / Japanese war.

John and Dave,
I believe that RL14751 was an RL/CSOF design although, as you say, it drew heavily on the examples brought back as a result of the tech int activities of British Army personnel attached to the Japanese Forces in the Russo-Japanese War. Looking at the 'work performed in the Royal Laboratory' for 1906 a quantity of 62 RL14751 grenades were manufactured for the Ordnance Committee (OC) incorporating a wood block instead of guncotton. Five of the modified design (RL14751A) were manufactured for the OC, the filling of which is not stated.

An interesting entry in the 1906 annual accounts reads:
"Manufacture of hand grenades, detonators, &c.,with dummies and instructions, for AG, Natal" (cost £96 13/6). It does not say how many or what model but, given the spherical Land Service grenade was obsolete, perhaps type RL14751 was sent (£96 would buy you about 100). So Dave, to find one of these, maybe you should be looking in Natal!

 

[Millsman]

John and Dave,
I believe that RL14751 was an RL/CSOF design although, as you say, it drew heavily on the examples brought back as a result of the tech int activities of British Army personnel attached to the Japanese Forces in the Russo-Japanese War. Looking at the 'work performed in the Royal Laboratory' for 1906 a quantity of 62 RL14751 grenades were manufactured for the Ordnance Committee (OC) incorporating a wood block instead of guncotton. Five of the modified design (RL14751A) were manufactured for the OC, the filling of which is not stated.

Thanks Norman

That's exactly the context I thought would be there. The wooden block examples may even have been made to test the throwing ability of the British soldier, prior to undertaking the manufacture of test examples. It may have influenced the materials used in the production long handle types.

John

 

[Gspragge]

From Part two, Priced vocabulary of stores 1915. This huge book which is on this site
is a vast resource of information.

 

[Millsman]

I'm not well up on No1s but have seen the cane 'wippy' long handle and the normal short handle. Was there a 'non 'wippy' long handle? Or am I getting confused with the long handled No 2? :tinysmile_cry_t3:

 

[SG500]

I'm not well up on No1s but have seen the cane 'wippy' long handle and the normal short handle. Was there a 'non 'wippy' long handle? Or am I getting confused with the long handled No 2? :tinysmile_cry_t3:

I've only ever seen 2 x number 1's with genuine handles and they were both cane. Don't know if there was a "non wippy" long handle.

Dave.