Jump to content


Photo

Flame Thrower - M2


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 copdoc

copdoc
  • Members
    • Member ID: 498
  • 494 posts

Posted 20 December 2007 - 04:17 PM

It took me a long time to find an original uncut M2 wand. Hope you enjoy it. I sure did.

Posted Image

Posted Image

#2 BIGJOE

BIGJOE
  • Members
    • Member ID: 420
  • 262 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 December 2007 - 07:36 AM

copdoc..you lucky ###..finding the correct wand over here is like getting an invite from the queen to have afternoon tea...no way..i looked at some m2 flamethrowers this year over at A.S.M in belgium..tanks had been split open to deact them but the wands were post war frence ones..at 1000 ( $2000 ) ish..i was very tempted to buy one for my collection but with no chance of getting a correct ww11 wand it would never had sat right with me..the yellow number 3 is also very interesting as i have a bc1000 with numbers in yellow that look like the same font as on your wand..could ya post a closer picture of the yellow number 3 for comparision to my markings.do you know any history on your wand..its a fine bit of kit you have there..excellent..regards joe

#3 copdoc

copdoc
  • Members
    • Member ID: 498
  • 494 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 06:55 PM

Glad to be appreciated. I'll check my lotto ticket tonight and see if I can fly the lot of you over for new years. Bring the hot dogs and marshmellows. After finding the wand I had looked for for years I got a ticket.

I hope none of our Marine brothers heard you say the word yellow. I think everything marine is GOLD, the word yellow is a foul word that is not spoken. :lol: I was told my chances of winning the lotto or finding an uncut wand were less than getting bitten by an alligator or being stuck by lightning. Heck now I have 3 out of 4 so the lotto has to be next. Nothing personal but I would rather have the lotto money than meet the Queen.

I'll take some close ups for you of the number. I can email you a high res pic if you want.

EDIT
PS my wand is an M2 (not M2A1) but it is post war. I am pretty sure the 54 is a date code. It must be one of the last M2s made. I have been confused by the different models and when they were made. Almost left that out.

Edited by copdoc, 22 December 2007 - 07:09 PM.


#4 Charlie Flick

Charlie Flick

    MODERATOR

  • Moderators
    • Member ID: 68
  • 2,626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sunny Florida, USA

Posted 23 December 2007 - 10:14 AM

Nice find, Copdoc.

I thought that you might enjoy seeing this period pic of a Marine on Okinawa giving the old hot-foot to some uncooperative types.

Regards,
Charlie Flick

Flamethrower_Marine_at_Okinawa.jpg

#5 robinb

robinb

    MODERATOR

  • Moderators
    • Member ID: 61
  • 5,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Turner, Oregon

Posted 23 December 2007 - 09:33 PM

My tanks both have a gold 4 stenciled on them. Nothing on the wand.

wand.JPG
tanks.JPG

#6 robinb

robinb

    MODERATOR

  • Moderators
    • Member ID: 61
  • 5,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Turner, Oregon

Posted 23 December 2007 - 09:34 PM

tag.JPG

#7 copdoc

copdoc
  • Members
    • Member ID: 498
  • 494 posts

Posted 24 December 2007 - 06:06 AM

Nice set Robin, thanks for posting. I have been told the number at the end of the lot is the date code but yours is such a low number and made by Sedgley. How could that be a 1951 manufacture? Anyone know for sure if these are date codes? Mine is 55 (1955?) and is an M2 not M2A1. So few flamethrowers survived it is difficult to look at serial/lot numbers, variations, etc. Is your front pistol grip unpainted? Do you know the history of yours? The tanks in the picture appear to be the M2A1. Do they have a date on them? Thanks.

Edited by copdoc, 24 December 2007 - 06:07 AM.


#8 craig johnson

craig johnson
  • Members
    • Member ID: 673
  • 339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington State

Posted 26 December 2007 - 06:26 AM

Just a photo from a sale on EBAY some time ago.

Posted Image

Craig

#9 bob lamoreaux

bob lamoreaux
  • Members
    • Member ID: 2,176
  • 117 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Camp Hill, PA

Posted 26 December 2007 - 07:52 AM

Are you using ignition cartridges? Looks like you have to "set it off" like the first version of the f/t worked: using a torch. Don't know if my "new topic" posted, but about ten years ago someone was selling ignition cartridge assemblies for the M2-2 for about $60 (Shotgun News). Do you know what the composition of the ignition cartridge was? Did they keep on sparking for a time after the cartridge was fired? I'm mostly an ordnance (small arms) type and the f/t was a CWS weapon, so I'm not very cognizant on how these suckers worked!
Bob

#10 copdoc

copdoc
  • Members
    • Member ID: 498
  • 494 posts

Posted 26 December 2007 - 08:11 AM

Thanks Craig

That helps a lot. It does look like at least some of the M2A1 wands were made after the M7s. I have read conflicting informations on when the different models were made. I read in one place that the M7s were too short and hot so the troops in VN looked for the old M2s. Because of the ongoing need they made the M2A1 which was a M2 with updates. I wondered if it was made prior to this also. I was surprized that a Sedgley with such a low number was made after WWII(Robins). Bruce Canfield's book shows #15 made in 1941. I will try get another collector on this web page who has several of the M2 plates without the wands dated in the mid 50s. I'll also get a close up of my name plate.

Does anyone know who manufactured the MO stamped guns?

#11 copdoc

copdoc
  • Members
    • Member ID: 498
  • 494 posts

Posted 26 December 2007 - 09:27 AM

Hi Bob,
Sorry I missed your post. You must haved posted while I was responding to the other and I did not see it. I set it off with a torch to test it. I have one can of matches and found 2 more. I would like to know if you ever find anymore igniters as they have gone sky high. My M2 uses the M1 igniters (matches). It is a pyrotechnic mixture prob a phosphorus compound that ingnites a match(prob black powder or similar compound). It has a lead seal in the front that has to be blown out to light it and protects the other 4 chambers from ignition while the other is firing. I have thought about making a few but it is labor intensive. I just got a maual on the older flame throwers. (E1R!, M1, M1A1 etc) A friend is going to give me one to play with so I ordered the manual. It uses a hydrogen tank to blow in the chamber and then uses a spark to light it. If you can see one in person it makes sense. I like to understand how things work which I quess is why I got interested in FTs, recoilless rifles, PIATs, rockets, etc.

PS I might be crazy but holding a pressurized hydrogen tank on a burning wand is a bit wild even for me. http://www.usmilitar...tyle_emoticons/default/w00t.gif I will prob not shoot the M1(or M1A1) wand, just study it.

Edited by copdoc, 26 December 2007 - 09:28 AM.


#12 unterhund

unterhund
  • Members
    • Member ID: 682
  • 76 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hampden, Maine, U.S.A.

Posted 08 January 2008 - 07:23 AM

Probably been posted before, but I recall Chesty Puller's reaction when he saw a demonstration of the flamethrower:

"Where do you put the bayonet on it?"

#13 Guest_CharlieHobson_*

Guest_CharlieHobson_*
  • Guests
    • Member ID: 498

Posted 17 March 2008 - 02:25 PM

Great to see some interest in flamethrowers. First no M2's were made after 1945, there were only two manufactures. The tags you see were rebuild tags in 53 and 54. Original non modified units have two brass tags, one on the guns and one on the tanks, they say Chemical Warfare Service. After the war the units were updated with vented gas caps, safety valves, Grove regulators and a frame that used pack board canvas. WWII gas caps are hex shaped brass and kinda rare. Be patient and my book will be out soon, hopefully this year, it is in contract with the publisher and waiting for proofreading. There is a chapter on all the US flamethrowers and another on development of the M2. I currently do all the museums that have flamethrowers. including firing, training, hydrostatic testing and rebuilding. And by the way only one in four tank groups don't burst when pressurized constantly. Who did your hydro static, leak and volumetric testing? What was the elastic deformation limit he found and what does he think you have left for number of firings before 2% inelastic? If you think it would be a good idea to have it tested, email me at [email protected] If I do it you get a report with photos and peace of mind. They are great weapons to own and fire. Email if I can help and enjoy.
Charlie Hobson

#14 copdoc

copdoc
  • Members
  • 494 posts

Posted 17 March 2008 - 05:43 PM

Great to see some interest in flamethrowers. First no M2's were made after 1945, there were only two manufactures. The tags you see were rebuild tags in 53 and 54. Original non modified units have two brass tags, one on the guns and one on the tanks, they say Chemical Warfare Service. After the war the units were updated with vented gas caps, safety valves, Grove regulators and a frame that used pack board canvas. WWII gas caps are hex shaped brass and kinda rare. Be patient and my book will be out soon, hopefully this year, it is in contract with the publisher and waiting for proofreading. There is a chapter on all the US flamethrowers and another on development of the M2. I currently do all the museums that have flamethrowers. including firing, training, hydrostatic testing and rebuilding. And by the way only one in four tank groups don't burst when pressurized constantly. Who did your hydro static, leak and volumetric testing? What was the elastic deformation limit he found and what does he think you have left for number of firings before 2% inelastic? If you think it would be a good idea to have it tested, email me at [email protected] If I do it you get a report with photos and peace of mind. They are great weapons to own and fire. Email if I can help and enjoy.
Charlie Hobson

Thanks Charlie
I just fired off (Uh I mean sent) an email.


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users