Last night I saw on the History Channel a segment about the claymore mine. Old R. Lee Ermy boldly stated that an array of projectiles was propelled by a charge of C-4 explosive. I was Army, (reserves) 80-86, and as I recall the claymore used a propellant known as Composition B, a particularly dirty explosive that had a black smoke when fired. It was far less violent than C-4, and better suited to distributing projectiles. Am I just getting old and losing it, or was the history channel just wrong? I am asking for confirmation or repudiation of my assertion before calling out the History Channel on the error. I would not like to get my head handed to me by them. The board has handed me my head on a regular basis, so I am comfortable with that.
Any one out there know the real deal? Composition B or C-4?
I am not an expert by any means, but I tried doing a little Wikipedia search to see if I could help out any.
“C-4 is a 1960s improvement on a British World War II development called Nobel 808 which contained RDX (the nitro-amine Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine), mineral oil, and lecithin. C-4 is part of a group of explosives along with C, C2 and C3, each containing different amounts of RDX” - Wiki
Ah, I just realized that is not the information you are looking for.
Well, on the Claymore page, I could not find any helpful info, but going into a more general ‘Anti-Personnel’ page did yield some results.
" In most AP blast mines TNT or tetryl is used. On a U.S. M-14 AP blast mine, around 31 grams of tetryl is used, while up to 200 grams of TNT is used in a Russian PMN mine." - Wiki
Does that answer the question at least slightly?
1.5 Pounds of C-4.
The M-67 Handgrenade is made of Comp B. Perhaps you are simply misremembering.
I myself know nothing, but perhaps it varies by the exact model of mine?
According to the Federation of American Scientists page, there are at least two models, M18 and M18A1, and it seems the first used C3 and the second C4. The content on that page seems to be regrgitated all over the internet, but I have no idea if it’s accurate. The way to find out would be to check the field manual, but all the links purporting to lead to such material are either broken or need a password.
Thanks guys, it seems my memory was a little rattled. Got the M-18A1 mine and the M-67 Grenade confused, or at least what motivated them. It is much less humiliating asking a question and being wrong than making a statement and being wrong. Thanks for your help in preventing me from proving I am a bigger fool than I have previously proved.
Well, now I am worrying about the two guys with shades (in the middle of the night) sitting in an unmarked SUV accross the street.
Note to self: DO NOT Google ‘explosives’ without a spoof.
Scottish pride and hatred of imperial rule.
Does a kilt have a label saying “This side towards enemy”?
If not, they should do. But where? Front or rear?
Wow, considering how much damage these mines can do, that’s not alot of explosives.
Kind of brings into perspective what we did in the military once. On a week long maneuver we had to simulate a strategic retreat over a frozen lake. But to stop the enemy from eventually trekking over the lake we drilled a big hole in the lake and lowered 190 lbs of C4 in to the lake with the detonation cord coming out. Ran to solid ground and then detonated it. Shattered the ice on the whole lake and blew a plume of water several hundred feet into the air. Impressive.
Love. It’s powered by lots and lots of love.
I know that the question has been answered but I just wanted to say that a claymore detenation does not have black smoke. I have seen many claymore explosions. Except for the bang you would have a hard time telling that one went off. On claymore ranges we had to put targets out just so the guys would know it was actually doing something. No big puff of smoke.
Hmm, this is odd. I also have detonated many claymores, and I assure you that the ones I did do, in fact give off black smoke. I remember been quite suprised by this the first few times, as I had expected then to be similar to grenades. I remeber quite clearly that 1) Immedietly after detonation, we would poke our heads up from the sandbags, in tome to see a significant amount of resulting smoke, and 2) the snow covered ground that we detonated them on would be completely blackened from the particulated after a few mines.
Perhaps our Canadian ones are different, although I also seem to recall that they had US markings on them.
Could they have changed the explosive? From what I remember, TNT produces black smoke due to a lack of oxygen in the TNT molecule.
I don’t recall any smoke from the claymores I watched beig set off at the range in basic training in the early 80s.
Maybe we just sold all the old smokey claymores to Canada at a discount, keeping all the newer smokeless claymores for our own army.
Nope never saw any smoke. Just dust kicked up from the explosion. Not much snow in Texas so I can’t say if it left the snow black.
I bet the fish didn’t fare so well… 
Based on your experience, I’m sure you already know, but I’m sure there are others that don’t.
Most damage caused by detonations are cause by shrapnel, and not from the actual pressure wave. That’s why grenades have the pineapple cuts, to ensure maximum fragmentation.
I used to work for a company that did testing, some of which was done for retrofits designed to limit injury to building occupants during a terrorist attack. Nearly all efforts were focused on containing glass and keeping the building walls intact, so as to limit flying debris that could cause injury.
But grenades these days aren’t cut into the pineapple shapes anymore, though the reason why escapes me. Inhumane? Maybe. However, it’s not like getting blasted to pieces by a “normal” grenade is any more humane.
I’ve seen high-speed photography of the pineapple grenade that shows it failing to fragment along the notches. It looks like it should work, but it doesn’t in the real world. The size distribution of the fragments is very poor. It produces some big chunks and many tiny fragments.