M24 Grenade -frag Sleeves

[Bergflak]

There has been a lot of good thoughts in this thread, but absolutely no conclusion. And the thread was started more than 10 years ago, my last contribution was posted back in 2005!

The following discussion (or monologe) will be about the serrated fragmentation ring only.
The smooth "SS" model can only be appreciated by the external appearence, like rust, paint and markings. Or (valid only for the actual owner) the source it came from. I have one of those...
Any smooth ring stamped with a metal stamp (impressed letter) has been faked in my eyes. Enough of that, as it is a matter of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"!

In theory, there are three ways to make the serrated Splittering.
-die cast (never seen one, even not a fake)
-machined from a piece of tubing (pattern milled out with traditional tools)
-forged (heated, and the pattern pressed into it)

To tell if the Splittering was forged or milled is very easy! Some talk about even-sized and uneven sized squares, but that is an inaccurate way to tell them apart, as the milled ones could in theory be cut by hand in different sized squares. The difference lies in the technique used.
Let's pretend the initial pipe is 1 meter (could have been longer, could have been shorter)
The forged one is heated red hot and a set of "v" shaped knives are rolled around the body in one operation. The pipe is then sent through another machine with the same set of knives, but this time they cut along the length all at one time to distribute the pressure evenly. This technique will not remove any metal, it will simply push it sideways, as the knives presses down. The metal will protrude slightly along the edges of each square, giving that "uneven" look. Since the cutting is done in two operations, the last turn of the knives along the length of the tubing will also slightly move the ends of the cut along the length, making the "crossroads" narrower on the circumference, but wide open along the length.
The milled one is simply cut with a grinder or file, removing the metal that once occupied the place that the pattern is cut into.
A slight "melt-down" will appear at the crossroads if the milling has been done with a high-speed tool, slightly resembling the narrowing of the forged variety, but the raised edges of the squares is impossible to duplicate.
The first two pictures shows the difference between a milled and a forged Splitterring. The last picture show the "fake" metal displacement on a milled variety due to high-speed cutting. Note the totally flat squares.

[Bergflak]

And now some facts and discussion about the forged Splittering:

Richard Rinker was mentioned in official documents as the initial designer and manufacturer allready in January 1943. On 18 February 1943 their model was adopted for production.
It was made from tubing, rolled and welded, of "Thomas" quality, whatever that means! The pattern was rolled into it.

"Fabrikationsbeginn und Liefermöglichkeit der ausgeschweisstem Rohr, Thomas-Qualität mit eingewalzter Riffelung hergestellten Splitterringe hängt von dem monatlichen Bedarf und der Dringlichkeitseinstufung ab."

The tubing used for simple items like a fragmentation sleeve or a Panzerschreck was rolled into a tube and then welded. Most of the time so well done that it is impossible to see. There will be lines visible on the inside from the depression of the cutting wheel, but seeing the actual seam from the welding is hard. Extracted tubing (seamless) was a known technique during WW2, but seldom used due to cost and labour.

So the initial model and manufacturer was the one that can be found marked brb 43 or 44, of the forged variety.
Faking them will be extremely difficult (but not impossible) as it would require some really HEAVY machinery and processes. I have never seen an attempt to fake a sleeve with the forging technique.

Any other makers?
I haven't been able to find any documents about other makers, but there is at least one more maker, and he did not mark the Splitterring with a impressed code. The production method is the same, forged with rolled in pattern. They can most of the time be distinguished from the brb's as the pattern is lighter (shallow) in comparison, but still leaves the raised edges around the squares. The fantastic Dunkelgelb example owned by member Maus is an example of this unknown maker. It was factory fitted to a Stielhandgranate 43 (I most strongly assume), and contains the details about the explosive filling ink stamped to the body, but no makers mark.

[milsurp]

I'm still not convinced that tan sleeve is forged. I agree that in places it looks like it might be, but certainly in others it does not look like it to me. The quality of the photos are too low res to be 100% certain. I would personally like to see a picture magnified 20x in macro mode, everyone has access to a good quality camera these days and on a good sunny day it should be an easy task...

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...1&d=1116090674

[Bergflak]

I have no need for another photo. One look at the top line and I can clearly see that it is forged, and not milled. The metal has clearly been showed to the side to create those raised edges. And a mix of forged and milled lines would defy logic. But people see things differently....

And then the milled variety!

There is absolutely no information about a WW2 manufactured variety that was milled available, so it will all be guessing from now on!

Those I have observed are marked "ar 4", "OXO 4", "duv 43", "oxo 44" and unmarked. The first three all have sloppy added, not making any sense, plainly faked stampings, and ruled out by those alone. The last two are basically the same. The "oxo 44" version is the one everybody is discussing as "possible".

-Maker: oxo was the code assigned to Teuto-Metallwerke GmbH, Osnabrück, a company manufacturing small arms cartridges and shells for aircraft machine guns from 1935 to 1945. Yes, they could possibly have manufactured an item like the Splitterring.
-Method: The Splittering was approved by the Heeres WaA in February 1943. It's construction and the method of production was described in my last post. It was a fast to make and relatively cheap product that required a minimum of machining time and low tool consumption. By 1944 most products in the Third Reich was made as fast and economic as possible, to save labour time and materials. The use of stamped parts on Mausers and the simplified Stielhandgranate 43 to name a few. The oxo theory means that a new manufacturer of the Splitterring was added, that milled them out instead of the much cheaper and faster forging method. I guess (strictly guessing) that a factory could make at least ten forged ones compared to one milled, at the same price and same time. In 1944 that would mean quite a lot for the supply situation.
-Faking: To make a copy of the forged one is possible, but hasn't been as far as we know. It makes no sense to go those extra miles, as long as people buy the milled ones. Any tool shop in Eastern Europe could make a believable copy with simple tools.
-Marking: I do not personally like the marking. (Personal preference)
-Tradition: "oxo must have made them, even though the oxo item I see is a proven fake. They must have copied an original." Nope. Plenty of examples of pure fantasy items bobbing around on the sea of fakes. Personally I think they chose "oxo" as it was a metal works and the letters are the same in capital and lower case. Traditionally the stamp kits came with capital letter stamps
-Rust: OOOHH PLEASE! A rusted item as proof of existence was good back in the 1980's. Nobody was willing to buy the rusty scrap as good stuff was all around, so there was no point in making a rusty copy. Today the boneyard market is huge, and there is a whole industry manufacturing fakes and burying them, harvesting the items later. On a gun show I attend there is a Russian seller. His items are 100% ground dug (all of it), but 95% of it was made post 2010! Helmets, handgrenades, mines etc. As long as people are willing to pay for rusty items the fakes are easily swallowed up by the market. Rust is no way to judge if an item is the real deal anymore. And the stories that goes with them are worth zilch.... I understand that people are willing to buy special items that has been dug up, but a rusty oxo is absolutely no proof it was real once.
-Conclusion: Possible; it can't be proven that it wasn't a variety that wasn't manufactured, the same way that it can't be proven that Herman Göring wasn't an alien.
Likely; just as likely as the fact that Herman Göring was in fact an alien.....

It is a matter of belief I guess. Those who own one believe in them, those who don't own one doesn't want one. But everybody is entitled to an opinion. Maybe there is a real oxo, and maybe it was milled. I am just unable to see it from the evidence produced so far.

Last week's ebay find. A oxo 44 in Dunkelgelb, with artificial rust added as topping! I guess this one has been sprinkled with chemicals and suspended from a spring to grow that rust so even. If it had been lying underground it would have looked a lot different. The small crystalized pearls of rust that can be spotted in clusters are driven out by the chemicals. Note the area within the red ring, where they forgot to add the chemicals!

[milsurp]

I think it could be a trick of the light because of an uneven looking edge due to patina. Working this out is in my mind crucial, but I won't hold my breath waiting for additional photos, because if it proved to be 100% milled, then this piece would be scrutinized further...

Yes the sleeve above is an obvious fake, just one look at the age of the paint confirms that.

I have no need for another photo. One look at the top line and I can clearly see that it is forged, and not milled. The metal has clearly been showed to the side to create those raised edges. And a mix of forged and milled lines
would defy logic. But people see things differently....