The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 16, 2012, 01:22 PM   #51
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
You wont care how it looks if it kills you and you will probably be very sorry if it kills the ones you love and regardless if anyone gets hurt you are likely criminally liable not to mention civil litigation....

Even if it was by some miracle totally legal to have (it could be but I seriously doubt it) it isnt very wise to do so without knowning for absolute certain its safe..

The suggestion to keep it for a collection without being certain is in my opinion very, very bad advise....
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old April 16, 2012, 04:19 PM   #52
USOrdnanceCollector
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2012
Location: Southwest Iowa
Posts: 2
"I can't believe I just read that.

It almost sounds as if you are saying that looking good in a collection is all that matters, and that keeping a probably armed artillery shell without being certain is acceptable behavior, and that being able to put the thing on a shelf is worth the risk involved in taking a pipe wrench after the thing to disarm it."



Please don't try and put words in my mouth. If I wanted to say "looking good in a collection is all that matters", I would have said that. I did not realize that the projectile was "PROBABLY ARMED". In fact, I am not sure how we determined that it is probably armed. It could just as easily been probably NOT armed. It is not a dud. There are no rifleing marks on the driving band. It has not been fired. In fact the driving band, as shown in photo #1147, shows that it has been beat around quite a bit. Pipe wrench to disarm? No, actually I would most likely use my M-18 fuze wrench.


"Even if it was by some miracle totally legal to have (it could be but I seriously doubt it)"

Miracles do happen -

http://oldguns.net/catho.htm

http://www.big-ordnance.com/

http://www.inertord.com/index.html

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=245681

http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/forum.php

I just counted. I have 66 items in my collection above 60mm - up to and including 175 mm - and over 4,000 other items. The big stuff does not sit on a shelf. It is much to heavy. It is legal - and - I don't doubt that.

Sure, this stuff is dangerous, unless it is not.

I just don't believe the first thing to do about something that could be dangerous is to blow it up. The bad thing about a sympathetic explosion with an EOD demo charge is, if you don't get one, it is too late; you already blew the thing up.
USOrdnanceCollector is offline  
Old April 16, 2012, 04:28 PM   #53
Twycross
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,187
Quote:
I talked to the guy, he said it's definitely inert, and that it was just a placeholder fuze.
Yes. Because your antique dealer is obviously a trained EOD expert, who has no incentive whatsoever to lie to you about having sold you a potentially lethal item.
__________________
The test of character is not 'hanging in' when you expect light at the end of the tunnel, but performance of duty, and persistence of example when you know no light is coming.
- Vice Admiral James Stockdale, USN (ret.)
Twycross is offline  
Old April 16, 2012, 04:48 PM   #54
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
just counted. I have 66 items in my collection above 60mm - up to and including 175 mm - and over 4,000 other items.
You’re really into this stuff and I get it... I’m not going to try to convince you any further than what I am about to say.

I have over 2 decades of active duty day to day military experience including combat and service in combat arms (none of it national guard or reserve). I have been in more military operations then I care to remember. The one thing all us ex-military, military and retired military seem to agree on is the simple possession of one of these is not wise UNLESS a bonafide expert has made a judgment otherwise... It’s not blue (the round) so more than likely it is or was a live round and even being blue isn’t a 100% guarantee... you have others here who are EOD, military, police, lawyers and the like... thats a whole lot of expertise to ignore.... Im not a ordinance expert, but I do know all to well what kills..

You of course can do whatever you wish... I’m not going to comment further. Best of luck, hope no one ever gets hurt...
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; April 16, 2012 at 05:21 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old April 16, 2012, 05:41 PM   #55
Flopsweat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2011
Posts: 182
When I was little, I ran into traffic once. Everyone said it was dangerous, but they were wrong. Noting happened.
Flopsweat is offline  
Old April 16, 2012, 08:15 PM   #56
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,712
Quote:
Please don't try and put words in my mouth. If I wanted to say "looking good in a collection is all that matters", I would have said that. I did not realize that the projectile was "PROBABLY ARMED". In fact, I am not sure how we determined that it is probably armed. It could just as easily been probably NOT armed. It is not a dud. There are no rifleing marks on the driving band. It has not been fired.
"Probably armed" is the default safe consideration when there is no evidence that the round wasn't an inert practice round or no evidence that the round had been live, but that had been physcially inerted.

Believing that the round is safe without verification is what gets people killed or seriously hurt.

It does not matter if it was a dud, fired or not.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old April 16, 2012, 08:33 PM   #57
davery25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 318
haha alan you rascal. i get the impression you knew all along. you just wanted to see our reaction didn't you?
davery25 is offline  
Old April 16, 2012, 09:28 PM   #58
alanjaow
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2012
Posts: 9
I didn't, but I was pretty sure.
alanjaow is offline  
Old April 16, 2012, 10:02 PM   #59
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
kraigwy. Cute toy. I'm old school. We had a KBAR and a rope when I was in in 1975.

You"re right Until the thing has been confirmed that it has been decontaminated to XXXXX (5X) level by a competent demil facility It is live and dangerous.
ltc444 is offline  
Old April 16, 2012, 10:02 PM   #60
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
Mister collector, since the word probably means the one and only option that is most probable, it can't be probably armed or unarmed. It is certainly one or the other. It is to be assumed that when there is no physical evidence of an action, that it probably didn't happen. there was no evidence that it was disarmed, the default probability with no evidence is that it was not disarmed.

Regarding the tool, it's also probable that the shell owner was not in possession of a fuse wrench. Once again, it is probable that he used a pipe or spud wrench Or some other tool from his garage.

my opinion? There was nothing particularly stupid about what he did, he simply gambled his life, family and home that the thing was safe to open up. Millions of people take far bigger risks every day, doing things like jumping out of planes for fun.
briandg is offline  
Old April 16, 2012, 10:09 PM   #61
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
I thought about tossing in a post about the possibility that it was even a chemical shell, but I really saw that as being a completely unreasonable supposition. I believe that chemicals were always delivered by heavy shells to get good coverage.
briandg is offline  
Old April 16, 2012, 11:19 PM   #62
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
Quote:
Millions of people take far bigger risks every day, doing things like jumping out of planes for fun.
Carefull now.

You're stepping on toes.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old April 17, 2012, 12:17 AM   #63
InigoMontoya
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2007
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Posts: 229
@briandg,

Well, given that it was pretty definitively IDed as an anti-aircraft shell, me thinks that chemical can be ruled right out.
InigoMontoya is offline  
Old April 17, 2012, 12:38 AM   #64
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
Agreed, it is almost definitely without a doubt an AAA shell.

There is something else to consider, though; the 90mm AAA was adapted to field artillery and antitank usage. The army may have loaded phosphorus, or smoke, into rounds meant for ground use. But, I see no reason to suspect mustard gas or other chemicals, that's what I was saying.

I can't find any comprehensive information about what modifications were done on that shell throughout the 40 or 50 years the system was in service.

otoh, it's also fairly certain that the 1942 was a production date, and I also doubt that we were loading gas rounds at that time. My history is rather weak in areas.

Last edited by briandg; April 17, 2012 at 12:49 AM.
briandg is offline  
Old April 17, 2012, 12:46 AM   #65
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
kraig, I eat my mother in law's cooking several times a year. Several times a year, I risk food poisoning that could put me in my grave.

I might be safer jumping out of planes or disarming artillery shells.


I hesitate to call anyone an idiot for taking that sort of gamble when I myself have eaten food from her kitchen.

this easter, I mostly just pushed her cooking around on my plate and ate a whole lot of the things I brought to the table personally. I also made sure to wash down every bite of her easter ham with a large shot of sterilizing beverages.

Regarding the "bomb" that is hidden in her crawlspace, come christmas, I'm going to be sorely tempted to go down there with a sawzall and an impact drill and see if it is a live munition or not.

Much safer than eating, I fear.
briandg is offline  
Old April 17, 2012, 10:09 AM   #66
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
i spent over 20 years in US Army EOD and another 25 years doing EOD/UXO work as a civilian. The thing in the nose is a not a "placeholder". Its an M48 or M51 point detonating fuze. The superquick detonator, flash tube and sheet metal ogive are missing. The selector is set on delay. There could be a live delay primer, flash pellet, detonator lead in and a big tetryl booster. Fuzes of this type are not used in anti-aircraft founds.

The fuze is on the left of the screen:

http://www.specialistauctions.com/au...php?id=1315129

Here is a cutaway drawing of the fuze:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/ordnance/pg185.htm

Last edited by thallub; April 17, 2012 at 10:22 AM.
thallub is offline  
Old April 17, 2012, 11:31 AM   #67
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
I'm glad to see that we have a definitive answer now. thanks

I knew from the beginning that there was no reason for a storage plug to have that device in the side of the cone. From the information available on that page, that screw is the selector that sets instant fire or .005 seconds delay; it is set horizontally, meaning that it is set for delay. The fuse uses a nose located crush type instant detonator that is disabled by turning that selector key, (access to the main charge is blocked) and a base mounted inertial detonating delay fuse.

as it appears now, the sheet metal cone and instant detonator mechanism have been removed; this would have left the thing unable to fire on the instant mechanism but would have left the secondary mechanism armed. There is no indication that we can see that the secondary is disarmed.

Last edited by briandg; April 17, 2012 at 11:57 AM.
briandg is offline  
Old April 17, 2012, 11:47 AM   #68
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
Quote:
as it appears now, the sheet metal cone and instant detonator mechanism have been removed; this would have left the thing unable to fire on the instant mechanism but would have left the secondary mechanism armed. There is no indication that we can see that the secondary is disarmed.
Bingo.
thallub is offline  
Old April 17, 2012, 11:56 AM   #69
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
There was a lot of information witheld here.

Given a top view of the fuse assembly, the opening that the flash channel would have been visible, making it perfectly clear that it was a fuse assembly base, not a shipping plug.

Likewise, we haven't been shown the bottom, or base of the fuse assembly, and this would be essential to determine if the delay mechanism is intact.

IF the delay mechanism is still there, it is likely to still be armed. here is why I say that.

The person who prepared this round did so by just removing the instant fuse assembly and front nose cone.

We don't know if that person even knew about the delay fuse. if the delay fuse is still in the body, I am going to have to say that the fuse itself is still armed. According to the schematics, I can't see a way of removing the primer, delay charge, or actual detonating charge from the assembly after removing it from the fuse. If the deactivator followed his previous pattern, he would have removed the base mechanism completely, leaving only the inert steel base.

So, if the delayed mechanism is still there, it is very likely that the detonating charges are still intact. It would probably only be a few grams total. if the delay mechanism is missing, it is, in fact, definitely an inert round.
briandg is offline  
Old April 17, 2012, 12:59 PM   #70
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
The M48 and M51 fuzes are fitted with boosters. The booster contains a detonator that is out of alignment with the fuze explosive train. This prevents premature detonation of the round. At a safe distance from the gun the detonator in the booster aligns with the fuze detonator and primer and the tetryl booster pellet. The round will detonate when it impacts. When the fuzes is set for superquick action it always has a delay backup. The tetryl pellet can easily kill a person.

The original booster used with these fuzes was the M20. After WWII newer model boosters were used but the functioning is basically the same.

See page 402 for the M20 booster:

http://www.90thidpg.us/Reference/Man...on%20Guide.pdf
thallub is offline  
Old April 17, 2012, 03:22 PM   #71
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
very neat site. I've bookmarked that. thanks.
briandg is offline  
Old April 17, 2012, 07:40 PM   #72
dajowi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 1,196
For some obscure reason this reminds me of all those "I thought the gun wasn't loaded" statements
dajowi is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 06:23 AM   #73
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
Quote:
For some obscure reason this reminds me of all those "I thought the gun wasn't loaded" statements
It's like that.

In about 1960 i helped investigate the death of a NC farmer who had kept a 155mm HE dud in the back of his 41 Chevrolet car for years. One day he hit a bump and it blew up. The car was recognizable by the front bumper and grill which were down the road about 75 yards from the site of the explosion.
thallub is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 03:14 PM   #74
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
Quote:
In about 1960 i helped investigate the death of a NC farmer who had kept a 155mm HE dud in the back of his 41 Chevrolet car for years.
I can only assume that he carried it around to show it to all of his pals for one reason or another.

As I've said in a whole lot of other posts, I'm a risk averse old man, there's no way in this world I'd own a possibly live piece of antique ordinance, especially a battlefield dud. I'd never drive around with it in my trunk.

OTOH, maybe putting it in my brother in laws trunk would be a possibility.


Here's a story that happened to a friend of mine. he did welding, and came up with the idea of storing his rods in pieces of 2 inch galvanized pipe, with both ends capped. His friend asked for some rods. the welder dropped the container of rods into the guys passenger seat. Whoever discovered this "pipe bomb" called in police, the county sheriff called in help, and the pipe was blown in place in the guy's truck.

Maybe that was a little overzealous. I think they could have dug a hole, safely removed it with rope, dragging it from a distance, then blown it in that pit. There was no real indication that it was a pipe bomb.

Right now, I have a few "pipe bombs" in my shop; I have a number of sections of pipe on hand because I always overestimate what I need when I'm working. Storing the caps and other fittings on the ends of the pipes is a way to keep them from being lost.
briandg is offline  
Reply

Tags
artillery , emergency , explosive , live , shell

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.08923 seconds with 8 queries