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!

This one has stumped us.... please can anyone help?

F

fallenidol1

Member
Ordnance approved
Hi,

We decided to catalogue our collection in our training room at work and this one stumped us.

I was wondering if anyone had an idea what this fuze is?

Any suggestions would be gratefully received!!

Many thanks,

Dan.

photo 1.jpgphoto 2.jpg
 
Might wanna add any markings that are on it and measurements. When taking photos, a ruler in the backround is helpful for scale.

just my 2 cents
 
Yeah, in retrospect scale and markings would have been a good idea.....

I'll take another pic when I go back in tomorrow and also make a note of any markings.

Thanks.
 
It's a Fuze, Percussion, D.A., No. 117.

I suspect it's a very early one circa 1920s, Mk I or Mk II. It would appear that the striker cap is short, (it doesn't appear crushed) and there is no striker cover. Also, at the base of the taper there appears to be a machined groove, but it could be a gasket - the groove was present on the Mk I but not the Mk III. However, on the Mk I the shutter was placed higher up in the main body and the CE pellet was long and thin as opposed to short and fat as found on the latter marks.

Regards

TimG
 
Last edited:
No117 MK1 .TO COMPARE.. as Tim has said earlier the shutter is higher in this compared to the one shown in the earlier photos,

sectioned drawing from Textbook of Ammunition 1926
other drawing sorry but i dont know the source..
 

Attachments

  • 155a.jpg
    155a.jpg
    79.3 KB · Views: 55
  • P1030104.JPG
    P1030104.JPG
    97.4 KB · Views: 51
  • 155.jpg
    155.jpg
    94.1 KB · Views: 30
  • 156.jpg
    156.jpg
    97.4 KB · Views: 25
  • 157.jpg
    157.jpg
    95.8 KB · Views: 27
Hi, thanks for the replies.... I've taken a few more pics with a scale next to it.

Due to the nature of the place that I work, it is possible that it is an experimental fuze, but there is no documentation anywhere to positively identify it...... it even has our fuze expert stumped! He's ruled out a 117 and we've compared the two side by side.

The markings are unfortunately partial due to the sectioning of the fuze, but what remains is:

238
K.531
B*
00 R.L 3/27

And here are the new pics:

SDC13668.jpgSDC13669.jpgSDC13670.jpgSDC13671.jpg
 
Last edited:
Apologies peteblight! Completely missed your post!

Yes, that would probably fit in with the markings...... we cleaned it up a bit earlier to reveal those stamps, thank you!

Thanks to all for the help!!
 
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why do we think it's a no 238? Did you miss spotters post with pictures? It looks exactly like a 117 MK I should look like and is dated the right sort of date in the late 20's. I have never heard of a 238, it's not in the list of British fuzes and for it to have been allocated a number that high it would have been introduced in the late 30's early 40's. The numbers '238' stamped on it could mean anything. Happy to be proven wrong, but seems clear cut it's a 117 MK I, or varient with slightly lower shutter.

D
 
Last edited:
Pete,

Can you confirm No. 238? "Land Service Fuzes, 1962" makes no mention of it whatsoever.

Fallenidol1

You say the fuze was compared against a 117, which Mk? Although similar, the Mk I has some major differences to the other marks

Regards

TimG
 
Last edited:
To be honest Tim, I'm no fuze expert, I'm posting this on behalf of our resident expert who did the comparisons.

I know Pete used to work in the same team I'm in now so he may well have come across these in the past, and I suppose it's possible that it's an experimental fuze that never fully went into production.

Any further info on it would be gratefully received.

Dan.
 
Last edited:
I have just picked up on this thread. There was fair bit of work on the 117 'family' in the mid-1920s. The derivatives 118, 230 and 360 were all allocated these numbers in 1927 -(the cannelure on the 117 (and 106) was also dispensed with in 1927 for 'ballistic' reasons). As Dan suggests there was fair number of experimental models in this period and this was overlayed with work on lead azide versus fulminate detonators on this type of fuze. The 117 was subject to a patent so I suspect there was some motivation to get around this but I have no evidence to substantiate. The markings on the fuze are interesting, given the cut by Woolwich the remaining characters are open to interpretation; the top number 238 could be the remains of the design number for an experimental fuze e.g. DD(L)Sk238 (would be about right for 1927) as would DD(L)1238 and DD(L)2238 or an Ordnance Committee number. The K number is typical for specification number of about that date. B* might indicate it has been converted from something else (eg 117). 00 as a lot number is often seen on fuzes sectioned at Woolwich. None of this helps with the identification of course and still leaves the possibility that it is a Fuze, Percussion, D.A., No 238 :)

Dan, if you PM an email address I will send you a couple of drawings which might be of interest.

[The allocation of the numbers 118, 230 and 360 in 1927 shouldn't be confused with approval dates which were much later.]
 
Last edited:
I'm a littel confused here Norman. At what point is the fuze number allocated? If a fuze is allocated a number wouldn't it appear on the list of fuzes?

D
 
Burney Davis said:
I'm a littel confused here Norman. At what point is the fuze number allocated? If a fuze is allocated a number wouldn't it appear on the list of fuzes?

D
Click to expand...

Me too and we are entitled to be confused, it is difficult to extract consistency out of the papers relating to fuze design. Ignoring the commercial material, in the period after WW1 there are designs by the Royal Laboratory (CSOF) until about 1921* when reorganisation produced the Design Department; the Research Department and the Naval Ordnance Department. So designs in development are often referred to by their design drawing number (eg Fuze, Percussion DD(L)1400 or Fuze, Percussion, DA, No 117 Mark I modified to NOD1234). It seems (but I cannot be sure that it was the general case) that at some stage when a design showed serious promise it could be allocated a designation, and it also seems possible that the Admiralty had reserved numbers. There are examples of the allocation in Ordnance Committee 'B' Minutes (118,230 & 360 is in OCM in the form of a memo from Chief Inspector of Armaments (CIA)).

Before a fuze could become a Service store it had to be approved** ('Introduced') and it is not unusual to find that designs were cancelled before this happened (No 230 Mark I is an example).

As for the list I think it is substantially the case that if a number was allocated it would be in a list maintained by CIA/QAD.

My take on this is that it is perfectly reasonable to take the date of introduction as the 'start date' but don't be surprised if the fuze is referred to much earlier during its development.

Hope that is of some use.

N


* RL designs were still relevant for many years.
** It could be approved for other purposes such as trials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top