Stick Grenades

[milsurp]

Hello,

I just came across these, what do you think....

stick grenade 1

<Ostick grenade 2</O
<O
Where's Michael (MGN) when you need him.</O

[Bergflak]

There is a slight possibility that the handle of the second grenade is original. The rest is crap, crap & crap!

[milsurp]

What makes you say that?

There is a slight possibility that the handle of the second grenade is original. The rest is crap, crap & crap!

[GEBIRGS-JAGER]

Feedback

Hi there check this sellers Feedback.My opinion spend more and buy from a reputable dealer.Brian

[milsurp]

I'm not looking to buy I have enough of these, I was trying to start a discussion.

[Bill Grist]

smoke

I'm not looking to buy I have enough of these, I was trying to start a discussion.

I would say that #1 is a copy of a smoke grenade..wfg

[50_CAL]

I'm not looking to buy I have enough of these, I was trying to start a discussion.

hi craig,
looks like you started a nice discussion

[whsammler]

Stick Grenade

Ok gang here is my 2 cents (Canadian) so thats about 1.2 cents U.S.

Grenade #1 43 FCC O The head for sure is a fake. Why do you ask? well its too nice for somthing that old. The paint does not look 60 years old nor does the paint chipping. There is no red primer and the paint is paper thin.

Where is the fuze well? Did someone is a hole saw to cut it out?? if they did they did one heck of a good job.

On all the smoke grenade heads I have seen the fuze well goes clear accross to the rolled lip so if you look inside through the smoke holes you can see part of the fuse well. To totally remove it you would have the take the head appart. This one looks untouched.

Not a speck of rust on the head or handle. I have 2 stick grenades in my collection and they are very nice and they both have some rust on them where the paint has been chipped off or worn with age.

The Wa stamp...its picture perfect clear and easy to read...I have only seen this on faked items. Non of my legit items have crisp marks like that.

Even the handle has perfect markings (applied with care) and in an odd font.

I think the only legit parts on this unit are the end cap and mabe the pull ball.

I think the rest is FAKE.

Gernade #2 This one is a bit harder to sus out as the pictures suck ass big time and leave some details out.

The handle looks legit why? Well the marking is sloppy as to be expected on many late war items. The paint on the end fitting is also on the wooden handle this is very common and it looks like it has been there, age patina ect.

The pull string is new & the pull ball also looks very new or at least cleaned to look better.

Just by looking at the head tells me its a fake or a restored item. Its hard to put my finger in it with the stellar photos the seller posted but I bet dollars to donuts its a fake.

Now the other reason that makes me suspect this seller is peddeling fakes is his past and current auctions.
Everything that is listed or just about everything is PERFECT this guy has a time machine or has been collecting only unissued MINT examples. The too good to be true quotient is just wee bit too high for me.

Take a look at my web page and look under weapons I have both my grenades well documented.

Enjoy gang.

[milsurp]

I pretty much agree with you Bill and whsammler, here's how I see it...

Grenade 1:
I like the handle, pull pearl, cord and end cap (rattle stopper), although from experience you don't find these end caps on stickies with crimped on collars, these normally predate these and are found on the screwed on collar types, altough I am confident the cap is genuine, just not original to this grenade. The date on the handle also coincides with crimped collars and so this seems to fit the story. The collar also seems to have the typical reverse thread for the fuse. Although the "O" at the end of "fcc" is so odd, I can't help but feel it is genuine, you would never make a reproduction with this mark, it doesn't fit known examples at all. The handle is also the typical shape I would expect to see, not all fakes have this mastered yet. The head IMO is completely bogus, no flange as you pointed out, I have never seen any one make this neat a job of deactivating it (pure fiction), plus the head has no patina or age to it and it looks brand new. Even if the head was genuine (which it isn't) it would still not be original to the handle as the handle would either have a white stripe around it (or at least the remains of one) or have the double groves lathed into it, depending when it was produced. The WaA stamp is also bogus.

Grenade 2:
The end cap looks good if you look at the age of the paper insert, it looks just like one of mine, the handle again looks good, I like the paint from the collar and it is crimped which is in keeping with the date on the handle. The pull pearl looks good, but the string is a modern substitute and well the head is at least reconditioned and repainted, but based on the other grenade's head I can only assume it is also a reproduction. With out better shots, it's impossible to tell.

I have asked him for better photos out of curiosity, but as yet they haven't arrived.

[Glenn Barbaritz]

I agree with all 3 of you Guys. unfortunatly I have been slammed at work the last few days and couldnt give deailed descriptions of the grenades as you Guys did. GOOD JOB. they both suck! as you stated, there are a few parts that are good but mostly all fake. kudos on the detailed reasons why they are bogus. someone out there will be winning 2 pieces of crap unfortunatly. just goes to show you... join our forum people, you cant go wrong. Glenn

[milsurp]

Hi Glenn,

Not any more these 2 have been pulled from Ebay.

[Glenn Barbaritz]

good, although unfortunatly someone will get stung soon by them. also if you do want to get ahold of MGN I have his e-mail address and still talk with Him every now and then. PM me if you want it. Glenn