First Mills Munition side cast production dates ?

[king ratgre]

Seasons greetings to you all. After partially reading Mr Bailey's excellent new book, where it suggests William Mills submitted 2 production designs for the No5 grenade,with his preferred option being the centre cast design, my question is when did Mills munitions commence production of side cast version,or did they exist concurrently? Does anyone have an early [bona fide] MML sidecast images or an early non centre cast from other makers?

 

[Millsman]

It's a great question.

The problem is that documentation for such preferences may not exist. The Army just wanted grenades in 1915 and the casting type was not as important as the numbers delivered. The other issue is that over 105 years so many base plugs have been swapped around so hand on heart can any collector really guarantee the base plug fitted in 2020 is the same one as in 1915. It got easier in 1917 with the introduction of the No 23 Mk III. In my experience the number of No 5 grenades with a known original base plug is few, and they would have had to have been with one family from 1915 (and known to three generations).

Although Mills started with the transverse casting (Centre cast) it was apparent to some other makers immediately knew that you could make the longitudinal (Side cast) faster. There was no machining of the horizontal grooves. I suspect that some makers such as Westinghouse Brake, CAV, T Adshead may have gone for the side cast immediately, I say that as I've not seen a centre cast from these makers with a 'original base plug'.

The two types of casting persisted in the manufacturers drawings for a while but as I say in the book the CIW said the alternate wasn't needed in 1915, but did he mean the centre cast or the side cast? There may be something hidden in the National Archives.

 

[king ratgre]

Thank you for your comprehensive reply. Having not got a genuine Mills in my collection,I was/am hoping to see a genuine item to know what to look for {when the World reopens}.......ps I have a relic centre cast with a T Adshead plug 8/15, but as you say this could easilly a swap over....thank you again for the info

 

[Millsman]

Although two designs were given to the manufacturers, I would have thought it logical for them to have tried making both types in those early months of production. At least as an experiment rather than volume production.

The Transverse casting solved to issue of getting the join across the shoulders sorted but it came with the issue of the extra machining.

The Longitudinal casting was quicker but probably had a higher rejection rate. A lot would be down to the skills of the pattern makers.

Mills probably promoted the Transverse casting at first but I expect throughout 1915 makers progressively migrated to the Longitudinal even if they started with the Transverse.

Certainly the majority of the relics I've found on the Somme have been Longitudinal even those that had long rotted aluminium base plugs. The one body I have from the Loos Battle (first major usage) is a Transverse casting but it had no plug, which had rotted away.

 

[king ratgre]

You are probably right, but I suspect someone somewhere will have an early longitudinal mills tucked away.Transverse casting images are easily found on internet searches,but not so for early(mills)side casts

 

[gothica7]

Hi John, I suspect that this grenade of mine along with its plug can be confirmed as made by Mills Munitions Ltd in May of 1915.Not many will be able to say that. Happy Christmas.


QUOTE=Millsman;315869]It's a great question.

The problem is that documentation for such preferences may not exist. The Army just wanted grenades in 1915 and the casting type was not as important as the numbers delivered. The other issue is that over 105 years so many base plugs have been swapped around so hand on heart can any collector really guarantee the base plug fitted in 2020 is the same one as in 1915. It got easier in 1917 with the introduction of the No 23 Mk III. In my experience the number of No 5 grenades with a known original base plug is few, and they would have had to have been with one family from 1915 (and known to three generations).

Although Mills started with the transverse casting (Centre cast) it was apparent to some other makers immediately knew that you could make the longitudinal (Side cast) faster. There was no machining of the horizontal grooves. I suspect that some makers such as Westinghouse Brake, CAV, T Adshead may have gone for the side cast immediately, I say that as I've not seen a centre cast from these makers with a 'original base plug'.

The two types of casting persisted in the manufacturers drawings for a while but as I say in the book the CIW said the alternate wasn't needed in 1915, but did he mean the centre cast or the side cast? There may be something hidden in the National Archives.[/QUOTE]

 

[king ratgre]

Yes its a marvelous example of a very early centre cast , but not side cast...this reinforces my point of scarcity of early sidecasts

 

[gothica7]

Thank you, how do you prove that a side cast gren is an early one? Most foundries will ime sure have started their production of the grenade in the centre cast format, some may not so how do you tell? Wont be able to tell from fragments except that they are side cast,

John said in his book that they had all gone over to this better production method by December 1915. I have seen another side cast gren in gold leaf in someone's collection but not seen the base plug, asked for a picture but got no reply, that may have answered your question but otherwise good luck to you. Maybe the time that the Dunkirk grens were produced is the answer as they were produced in the side cast method but based in design on the centre cast, you will see this if you look at the pictures of one.

Andy.

 

[king ratgre]

Hi Andy, I agree that without provenance, proving authenticity will always be subjective. However a dated plug,paired with early style lever & striker,will point to period authenticity(if not total proof). If then further examples appear with similar body castings/foundry marks the balance of probability stacks up in favour of originality. Apply this logic to a single manufacturer such as Mills Munitions & ask the question often enough, i'm sure the answer will prevail.

 

[Millsman]

Here's three of my 1915 side casts.

Left to right

Burman 11/15 - Calthorpe 12/15 and T&AS 10/15

I consider the TA&S No 5 to be the most 'right' though the Burman I bought in France and am pretty sure the base plug is original to the body. I can't vouch for the Calthorpe.

All have the first type lever. The TA&S has an aluminium filler screw. However, this alone does not make it a very early No 5 as the specification allowed for various metals to be used for filler screws though the first makers did tend to follow Mills' example with aluminium screws.

 

[EnfieldMills]

My Oct 1915 No5 Mills made by C Ltd.

I do also have a low order mills that is a transverse casting. It has a plug made by Mills Munitions stamped July 1915 but I cannot be sure its the original plug.