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 an Australian made 18 Pr. ?

G

Gspragge

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I was told it was, makers name Colonial etc etc - I should have written it down :rolleyes:
If so, was Australia making fuzes by then or would it have been shopped plugged ?
It came as a composite round, 1908 RL casing and undated RMC No 80 fuze.
I'm not likely to find an Australian case here so will likely just leave it loose and plugged.
Any information welcome.
 

Attachments

  • P1010853.jpg
    P1010853.jpg
    344.5 KB · Views: 56
  • P1010852.jpg
    P1010852.jpg
    810 KB · Views: 57
Definitely not Australian Gordon (not Colonial Ammunition Company - they didn’t have the capability to manufacture large calibre shells and were only making small arms ammunition at that time). We did make some trial shells in 1916, but very small numbers. This is a Canadian made shell with the Canadian style lot code MV below the date (other British/Commonwealth/US makers used a lot number). Possibly made by Canadian Allis-Chalmers, but not their usual monogram.
 
Good to know - the seller is good, but I can see how he would be misled. Unfortunately he doesn't like the computer so is not a member here which is a shame.
IThe 1908 casing it came with is the prize today therefore and that's pretty good in these parts.
It's the - Cluff Ammunition Company , Toronto - !
 
Last edited:
It’s a very nice shell and worthy of a light cleaning. I’d try to find an age related Canadian made case and fuze for it. The No. 80 Mk VII (heavyweight) fuze fitted is incorrect for a Mk VII long shell though. It should be fitted with a No. 80 Mk IV A or Mk V, or a No. 85 fuze. I don’t think the alloy bodied Mk IV A or V fuzes were made in Canada though. And the shell doesn’t have the undercut groove just below the fuze adapter to secure the No. 85 fuze cover. So presumably this shell was shipped to the UK plugged?
 
A late 1917 approval of a heavy group (heavy shell paired with heavy fuzes) does allow the MkVII shrapnel (notwithstanding its November 1916 date) to take a common No.80 MkVII fuze. The attached excerpt refers:
 

Attachments

  • Heavy group.jpg
    Heavy group.jpg
    77.9 KB · Views: 10
Snufkin said:
A late 1917 approval of a heavy group (heavy shell paired with heavy fuzes) does allow the MkVII shrapnel (notwithstanding its November 1916 date) to take a common No.80 MkVII fuze. The attached excerpt refers:
Click to expand...
Thanks Snufkin, I wasn't aware of that. Issued late 1917 as there are many 1917 dated No. 85 fuzes about? Also Gordon's shell is dated November 1916. A separate set of range and fuze setting tables would have had to be issued.
 
Very interesting information. I'm sure that the projectile never left the country, likely a reject
as lots of what seem to be decent projectiles are found that never left for some reason or other.
1918 projectiles MK Xll seem to be the scarcest along with MKlls made by Dominion Arsenals into
1915 ~
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top