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!

Is this a legit US M33 grenade.

J

jrpett

Member
It's my understanding that the M33 was the same as the M67 except the M33 didn't have the safety clip. It's obvious that the wrong fuze is on there but the grenade itself doesn't look right. I don't see any dimples that you usually see on the M67, The body looks more like the latest generation of M69 practice grenades, although there is no hole (or it's been filled up) as the M69 has. Also, the "U.S." looks like the same stamp as that used on US ammo pouches and web gear and there is no other nomenclature markings on it. Seeing as the price started at $55 and only sold for $55, I suspect that it is probably a fake and the seller is just blowing smoke with his description. Does anybody here agree with my observations, or could this be legit?


http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=300584500

Here is a picture of a current M69. Note the body shape.
Mk2001.jpg
 
What you have there is the "Practice" version. Both holes in it should of came without any substance inside or else. This actual grenade itself should way close to the original thereby not having anything in in it. I have both styles of practice grenades. The other one is more circular in shape just like an M67. Both practice grenades should be void of dimples. To me at least, others will chime in I'm sure, it is the old version vs the more rounded type which is more recently.

As far an M33 and a M67 go, the latter, at least in Vietnam, did not come with a safety clip just as you say. An M67 did. Anyhow, in actual use, especially in Vietnam, both of these grenades were much more powerful than the M26 series (NOTE: This comes from a friend of mine who used allot and I MEAN ALLOT of these back then.) which was dropped back then. I also believe that the writing on these are kinda poor in quality. Mine has the same also. One other thing. It is not a fake either. Hope this helps you out as I am going by memory.
 
jrpett said:
It's my understanding that the M33 was the same as the M67 except the M33 didn't have the safety clip. It's obvious that the wrong fuze is on there but the grenade itself doesn't look right. I don't see any dimples that you usually see on the M67, The body looks more like the latest generation of M69 practice grenades, although there is no hole (or it's been filled up) as the M69 has. Also, the "U.S." looks like the same stamp as that used on US ammo pouches and web gear and there is no other nomenclature markings on it. Seeing as the price started at $55 and only sold for $55, I suspect that it is probably a fake and the seller is just blowing smoke with his description. Does anybody here agree with my observations, or could this be legit?


http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=300584500

Here is a picture of a current M69. Note the body shape.
View attachment 69842
Click to expand...




John,

Bravo Sierra on the auction grenade being a US M33 circa Vietnam. The body style (Size, Shape, Seam) indicates a M69 Practice Grenade Body Manufactured Circa 1990's or later. Also Note The Nomenclature on the Auction Grenade's M213 Fuze Lever (MEI05J) indicates loading / manufacture by Martin Electronics Circa September, 2005, a far cry from the sellers claim of Ft. Brag 1973 :tinysmile_hmm_t:.

As you noted the main difference between The M33 and M67 is the absence or presence of a "jungle clip" Fuze Safety.

Stay Safe.
 

Attachments

  • US M33 VS. M67.jpg
    US M33 VS. M67.jpg
    91.2 KB · Views: 82
Spoons can be changed anytime. Doesn't matter who made what and you are positive? How do you explain the more larger one with a baseball shape? I call BS.
 
Not only the matter of the incorrect era fuze spoon present on the auction grenade, also an incorrect type fuze assembly for a US M33 and completely incorrect body for a M33. Three major wrong's can never make it right!

Stay Safe!
 
That's fine.

Main thing here and always is not to see any Fellow BOCN Members duped by questionable pieces when they come along and fortunately no one got burned bad, considering only one bid and the final sale price was only $55 US. It is actually unfortunate that it was not a genuine US M33, as I know of at least a half dozen collectors (Including Myself) that would have been bidding to obtain an original example and the price may have broke three figures.

Stay safe!
 
Not the first "shady" piece to come out of that seller's basement.
fkr.gif
 
Whilst this is an early M67, it has the right look to be an M33. Cheers
 

Attachments

  • 33.jpg
    33.jpg
    35.2 KB · Views: 50
If you are saying that you have never seen that type of "practice" version before, I am amazed. I have both and both were used as practice grenades. I also agree about what you stated above concerning other members here.
 
It appears that the seller in the auction has confused the "M33" with the "M50" which was an M30 practice body filled with TNT for stateside use as the "Live throw qualification" grenade on the range. From what I understand, this was done due to the shortages of M26 grenades in theater.

The M33 is the the round, coin rolled fragmentation body that replaced the M26. The fuze was modified to include the secondary safety clip and renamed the M67 (the M26 was re-designated as the M61).

There are 2 different practice bodies designated as the M69. Both are fuzed for the M228 igniter. One has a more round shape as opposed to the other that has a more flattened top half.

The grenade shown in the auction has many problems as stated by others.
 

Attachments

  • FlattenedM69.JPG
    FlattenedM69.JPG
    17.1 KB · Views: 18
  • Round69.jpg
    Round69.jpg
    23 KB · Views: 16
Maybe there were two manufactures with both grenades. Also, I am looking at Daryl Lynn's book an on page 6 in the "American Grenade Guide", if I am correctly seeing this he shows your right picture which I have as an early M69 "Practice".

Now, I am looking at "FM 23-30" and on page 15 (Forgot that it is dated December 1969) they show an M33 in an oblate (flattened at the poles) spheriod shape. Fragmentation Hand grenade. It also has no "clip" around the bottom of the fuse.

-Body: Steel with an oblate sheriod shape.
-Filler: 6.5 ounces
-weight: 13.9 ounces

It's capabilities are the same as the M26A1 grenade, except that the M33 grenade cannot be rifle projected.

Color and Markings are the same as the M26A1 grenade.


So I am wondering if someone actually did make a "practice" version of the M33, possible? This is what I was going on with when I made that statement concerning the M33 being an actual "Practice" grenade.
 
Last edited:
One other item. I looked at Lex's site (followed your link Ord) and the very top diagram shows the bottom flat but no distinct seem/oblate sheriod. Now I am getting confused here. Could I be possibly right with this?
 
Last edited:
EOD said:
Life throw qualification? Should that not involve life grenades then?
Click to expand...

Yes as a part of the qualification course, a trainee is required to throw 2 live grenades. The M50 grenade was a modified M30 practice body, plugged on the bottom, filled with TNT and fitted with an M204 series fuze. It was classified for use in the US only and to my understanding only used on bases that were designated for training initial entry troops.
 
Eodtek said:
Yes as a part of the qualification course, a trainee is required to throw 2 live grenades. The M50 grenade was a modified M30 practice body, plugged on the bottom, filled with TNT and fitted with an M204 series fuze. It was classified for use in the US only and to my understanding only used on bases that were designated for training initial entry troops.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok, so with the TNT in place it would be a life grenade basically. Why not using a regular issue life version then and omitting one useless stock number (and associated costs)?
 
EOD said:
Ah, ok, so with the TNT in place it would be a life grenade basically. Why not using a regular issue life version then and omitting one useless stock number (and associated costs)?
Click to expand...

Because at the time M26 grenades were in very short supply and every one of them was needed in the combat zone. They used the M50 as a suitable substitute as they didn't need the frag as much as they needed the explosion (so troops weren't afraid of it).
 
EOD said:
M26? So why did they not use the M67 then? Excuse me if I am not getting it.
Click to expand...


The timeframe of the M26 Grenade Shortage and M50 substitution for use in qualification training, was prior to the M67 being introduced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top