Pair of No5 Mills ?

[butterfly]

Hello everyone,

First of all in my experience as a collector, many Mills grenades that I have come across over the years have been circulated, bits added, swapped around etc and in many cases its impossible to say if the combination in which they now appear was the one in which they were manufactured - this together with the reproduction parts now available makes collecting even something as common as a Mills grenade something of a minefield.....its with this in mind I would like to show a pair of Mills that I got yesterday and although its impossible I am sure to say if they are original configuration, I would like to know if indeed it is possible that this combination of striker/lever/centre tube/pull ring etc could appear on what the baseplugs suggest, as a late production Mills No5?

As I mentioned, I picked up these yesterday from a good friend who obtained them from an old man who had them for many, many years, and certainly as such fresh to the market. They are both inert (filler plug removes from one of them and the centre tube from the other). When I bought them I thought maybe that they were a mix of No5 and No 23 components, however now I am begining to think that these havent been messed with and are indeed original combination late produced No5 confirguration?

Now I would like help to confirm that the configuration is correct for a late production No5. I have taken time to look through other threads, though information is somewhat fragmented as there are lots of posts regarding Mills grenades as you can imagine. My initial concern was the later style levers, together with the slotted striker, large ring pull etc.....however I believe it is possible that these were used on later No5's?
The date on one baseplug is 12/16 - which is I think quite late for a No 5, the other I cannot determine?
The centre tubes are one piece and have a ridge around the centre (as seen in the photos)
The bodies appear to be black - at first I thought they had been covered in paint, but now I think it could well be original shellac that has turned to this darker colour with age?

There are marks impressed into both bodies - what looks like a C (on the front beneath the filler plug) on the first and C6 (beneath the lever on the other) - not sure if these are just foundry marks.

Note different shape to the top lugs, also different handle styles........the holes for the pin are also very close to the edge of the casting.

Comments and futher information about these including manufacture details would be welcome......and more than anything confirmation if possible that they could well be 'unmessed with' late production No5's.

Of course I understand that one can never assume the combination to have been unmessed with, indeed on this pair the baseplugs etc may have been switched between each other during the passing of time, however, being a collector and somewhat of a purist, its always good to share genuine finds such as these in a hope that something may be added to knowledge.........I look forward to the thoughts of those who are more knowledgeable than me on this subject.

thanks in advance, regards Kev

 

[Snufkin]

Kev,

They look fine and all parts are correct.

The small ring pull was phased out at the beginning of 1916, so big ring pulls are expected.

Ignoring a minor issue of drawings denoting a No.5 MkII grenade, the slotted striker was finally authorised in September 1916. While it took a while for the supply to be implemented, the dates on the base plugs match the supply; GD Peters had a contract for indefinite supply from August 1916 and Edward Williams one for 320,000 from October 1916. The levers have outward facing reinforcing ribs?




Tom.

 

[butterfly]

Hi Tom

Thanks for the information and confirmation of supply dates.

One lever has outward facing rib, the other inward facing.

Not so easy to photograph, but the one on the left in the photo below is outward facing rib............the one on the right is inward facing rib (this has also the flatter profile to the flanges toward the top of the lever)

again although it is quite possible for bits to have been switched between the two examples, I do believe with what I read and you have confirmed that the parts are original to these two grenades...........unless of course you now tell me one of these levers is of a later type??

Tom you also say that GD Peters had a contract for 'indefinite supply'; was this of No5's or mills in general? ....and when the No23 came into production did they have a renewed contract for supply of No23's ? (presuming of course they manufactured No 23's?).
Likewise did Edward Williams then progress onto No23's and if so, from when did supply of these begin?
I have no idea how long the No5's continued to be manufactured, but I did see a baseplug posted somewhere dated January 1917, but surely not for much longer after this?

regards Kev

 

[Snufkin]

Kev, there is nothing out of place with what you have. It's pleasing to see a couple of items that do appear not to have been messed with.

The lever with outer facing rib appears in conjunction with the approval for the No.23 MkII in October 1916, and were certainly used on the later No.5s.

The lever with inner facing rib is a bit earlier and is found on No.5 and No.23 MkI from mid 1916 until the end of that year.

As for contracts, about 50 companies are marked as having indefinite production from June-August 1916. Some were No.5 only, some were a mix of No.5 and No.23 MkI - simply a change of base plug. Come January 1917 when manufacture of the MkII kicked in, most of the companies would have just morphed the production by changing the base plug to the cast iron Hearn design, using the latest lever, and the slotted striker.

No.5 manufacture ended effectively in January 1917 but they trickled out of the factories until May.
For instance in the week ending 30 March 1917, 288 No.5 were received for inspection, whereas that week saw nearly 500,000 No.23 MkII. (I have never seen a genuine No.5 base plug dated later than 1/17.)

I am sure Peters made 23 MkII but I don't know about 23 MkI. Someone might have a base plug to show it. Conversely Williams made the 23 MkI but I don't think they made the MkII. However, they certainly produced the Vickery-Gibbons No.23 MkIII.





Tom.

 

[butterfly]

Small detail, of no significant importance!! however........
When I removed the centre tube I noticed that the threads extended up onto the part where the detonator would be inserted. All to do with alignment however thought it interesting enough to show; this may happen quite frequently, however I've not seen it before myself.

Kev

 

[Millsman]

Very nice pair. I especially like the GDP plug made during the 1916 brass shortage. A good purchase.

John

 

[butterfly]

Very nice pair. I especially like the GDP plug made during the 1916 brass shortage. A good purchase.

John

Thanks John,
I've learnt a lot from this thread and hadn't realized the reason for the plugs being made as an alternative to brass, but obviously makes sense. When did the use of alternatives to brass begin to be produced generally?
I take it also there was a brass base plug for GDP ?
Sorry for what may appear 'dumb questions' but I'm not in familiar territory here!!

regards Kev

 

[Snufkin]

Shortages of copper and zinc (and therefore brass), and aluminium were making themselves particularly felt towards the end of 1916. A couple of quotes from December 1916 Trench Warfare Design weekly reports:

9/12/16. No.5 grenade. "Attempts are being made to use a cast-iron built-up centre piece in this grenade, in order to save aluminium and brass."

30/12/16. Rifle Grenades. "Trials of a cylindrical cast-iron body with internal serrations for rifle grenades which have a paper covering for the explosive, gave promising results, and further experiments are being proceeded with. It has, however, been recommended that even if this pattern of body were successful, owing to the large amount of brass used in the Nos 20 and 24 rifle grenades, no more of these types should be manufactured."

Conserving brass was one reason why the malleable cast iron plug used on the No.23 MkII was so desirable. Cast iron plugs appeared in quantity with the No.23 MkII from January 1917.

Lead antimony was used along side brass for No.5 base plugs, from at least January 1916, by a handful of manufacturers.

GDP did make brass cup style No.5 base plugs.

Nothing dumb about the questions. It's dumb not to ask questions.




Tom.

 

[Millsman]

Thanks John,
I've learnt a lot from this thread and hadn't realized the reason for the plugs being made as an alternative to brass, but obviously makes sense. When did the use of alternatives to brass begin to be produced generally?


regards Kev

Hi Kev.

Can't add much to Tom's answer but I've seen Lead Antimony plugs in the field (dug ups) from 6/16 as the earliest date I've personal knowledge of. There is a definite increase in non brass plugs from 8/16 onwards.

The early use of aluminium plugs was probably due to William Mills' personal liking for the material.

Manufacturers were given some freedom in the choice of materials for filler screws and baseplugs during the whole of the war, although from 1917 onwards this was less true for baseplugs.

There were probably more iron plugs for the 23 Mk I than people realise, it's just that most have not survived in the ground very well so aren't very collectable.

John

 

[timmymac]

Magnificent pair of Mills Kev!