Aluminum Mk II Grenade Observations & Questions

[Stressman]

Shown in the attached eight photos is my recently acquired aluminum-body grenade.  It was part of the collection of an advanced collector (now deceased).  I am trying to learn more about this rare grenade.  I will provide several of my observations, whether correct or incorrect.

 

(1)   Notice from the photos that this is an extremely high-quality grenade, cast as a single item with no mold separating lines as are seen on iron grenade bodies.  It was obviously not made/intended to be a frivolous advertisement, a sales promotion prize, or a retirement gift, etc.

(2)   As has been previously posted on this forum by MA012, in 1948 the Picatinny Arsenal was requested to test an experimental aluminum-bodied Mk II grenade (designated as the T38), the bodies of which “came from” Eastman Metal Products Co. of Tuckahoe, NY.  There is no mention of exactly what part Eastman Metal Products played in supplying the final product.  Did Eastman cast the grenade bodies in-house, or were they cast by a sub-contractor and then shipped to Eastman to be “loaded”, assembled, etc.?  We may never know these details.  However, what we do know is that my grenade was either cast by a sub-contractor using the initials “AA” or by a sub-contractor that borrowed the molds from a company that used the initials “AA” on their grenade bodies --- but these would have been split molds for iron grenade bodies, not a single-piece mold as was used for my grenade.  My lists of grenade body manufacturers show that the AA initials were for either the Alcan Aluminum Corp. (a Canadian company) or the American Armament Corp. (a New York company).  An extensive history of Alcan can be found on Wikipedia.  After reading the Wikipedia article, I would put my money on the American Armament Corp., especially since there have been photos posted on this forum of an iron grenade body containing the AA initials.  I doubt that a company like Alcan that made and supplied aluminum sheeting, etc. for the war effort would have been casting iron grenade bodies with the AA initials.  However, would American Armament have been casting both split mold, iron grenade bodies and single mold, experimental aluminum grenade bodies?  I suppose that the AA on my grenade body could have been either, or neither, of these two companies.

(3)   Notice from Photo 6 that this grenade body appears to be a solid bottom casting.  I see no indications in Photo 6 that it initially contained a fill plug.  However, when I shine a strong light down through the fuze attachment hole, the casting obviously contains a fill plug which appears to be shiny aluminum (not lead).  So, this grenade body was originally made with an installed fill plug which was apparently not planned for use in filling the grenade body.  Then, for some unknown reason, the fill plug was sealed over with molten aluminum --- and the manufacturer did a commendable job of this!

(4)   The fuze pull ring split pin is the newer, longer, thinner type as compared to the older, shorter, more robust type.  The information on the spoon top surface seems to indicate that the fuze was made in 1946.  So, this may possibly account for the fact that the newer style pull pin was used on this fuze.

(5)   Both arms of the split pull pin were bent 90 degrees in the same direction as opposed to being bent spread apart as is usually seen.

(6)   I straightened the split pin and removed it and the spoon for inspection.  A primer has never been installed.  So, this fuze and grenade body were never “armed.”  This seems to indicate that this grenade was pulled out of the production process before being sent to, possibly, a sub-contractor to be armed.

(7)   The engraving on the spoon top surface shows that the fuze was intended to be an M10A2.  It seems a little strange to me that a later configuration fuze was not used for this post-war grenade.  This caused me to question in my mind if this fuze assembly did not originally come with this grenade body of if it may possibly be a (excuse the dirty word) reproduction.  What makes me think that this is the original fuze is the fact that this grenade was owned by an advanced collector who would not have been able to sleep at night knowing that he had installed an incorrect or repro. fuze on this rare grenade!  This one thought convinces me that the fuze is original.

Your thoughts and comments are requested and welcomed.

[Kaptainssurplus]

IMO the fuze looks like a replica and the body does not match up to known examples of the aluminum experimental ones, especially the maker mark. 

[crayj]

I have had this MKII body for a long time and have always assumed it was someone’s a well made “project”.  I can find no casting seams, the top and bottom holes are slightly out of round and I believe that they were cast in place and not drilled.  The length is 3.5” and the Max, OD is 2”, weight is 5.125 oz.  The only markings that I can find is a “0”, there is a light mark next it that might have been another number.  My neck is not tapped and the bottom has a hole, but in overall construction and appearance I think it looks a lot like your MKII...

cj

 

 

[Stressman]

It is obvious to me that you have a high-quality but unfinished aluminum grenade body.  Apparently, this grenade body was removed from the manufacturing process before threads were machined at the top end to accept a fuze and at the bottom end to accept a fill plug.

 

“Rifleman” posted photos on this forum of an aluminum grenade body with a solid base and an unthreaded fuze hole at the top end.

 

Someone else posted photos of two more aluminum grenade bodies that are very different in detail and obviously made at two different foundries.

 

I know of another aluminum bodied grenade with solid base and no foundry code initials, numerals, etc.

 

“Kaptainssurplus” posted a note to me stating that my grenade body does not match-up to known examples of the aluminum experimental ones.  As I stated in a previous post, my aluminum grenade came from the collection of a highly respected but now deceased grenade collector.  I doubt that he would have included in his collection a “home-made” or fake T38 program grenade.  What convinced him that his aluminum-bodied grenade (that I now own) had been a part of the experimental T38 program?

 

Where are the known examples, or at least where are their photos and documentation that prove their authenticity AND eliminate ALL other existing aluminum grenade bodies like those, including yours and mine, that have appeared on this forum?  Is it possible that there were experimental aluminum grenade bodies furnished by several different subcontractor foundries, all of which were/are authentic/experimental T38 aluminum grenade bodies?  There may have been an effort to determine which foundries made the highest-quality and most consistently reliable grenade bodies.  We know from photos posted on this forum that aluminum-bodied grenades were being made with both solid bases and fill plugs.

 

If we uncovered an aluminum body with initials “EMP” for Eastman Metal Products cast or stamped into one of the body panels, then we could all rest assured that it is an authentic T38 body.  But, to my knowledge, we are not so fortunate.  The fact is that we do not know what foundry or foundries provided aluminum “T38” grenade bodies for the experimental program.  At least no one has come forward on this forum with this information/proof.  All we know for certain is that Eastman Metal Products Co. provided the experimental grenades to Picatinny Arsenal.

 

One thing that seems to be a fact is that these various aluminum grenade bodies, photos of which have been posted on this forum, are very high-quality items.  They do not appear to me to be a variety of “one-offs” cobbled together by several different “shade tree” hobbyists who had aluminum foundries and machine shops in their basements or garages.

 

I have previously made the following request on this forum: “Will someone please provide photos of a positively identified T38 experimental aluminum grenade like those provided to Picatinny Arsenal by Eastman Metal Products for testing in 1948”?  No one has posted any photos or provided any documentation in answer to my request.

 

From the few details that have been discovered with respect to the experimental aluminum-bodied T38 grenade program, my impression is that all we know about the aluminum bodies in this program is that they were supplied to Picatinny Arsenal by Eastman Metal Products Co. of Tuckahoe, NY.  We do not know what part, if any, Eastman played in the manufacturing process of the aluminum bodies.  Was Eastman a primary contractor that had several sub-contractors that cast and machined the aluminum bodies?  It is beginning to look like this may possibly have been the case because photos of high-quality aluminum bodies from obviously different foundries have shown-up on this forum.  Did Eastman receive aluminum bodies from several different sub-contractor foundries and then provide the machining on the castings or “load” the aluminum bodies and install the fuzes?  To my knowledge, we do not know Eastman Metal Products Company’s contribution to the experimental program other than that they supplied the “ready to test” grenades to Picatinny Arsenal.