You’re Supposed to Actually Toss the Grenade Away from Yourself!

You’re Supposed to Actually Toss the Grenade Away from Yourself! August 16, 2013

Official Instructions Available here.

So people have been tossing grenades these last couple weeks. As an experienced grenadier I thought I’d throw a few pointers out there. For starters most people assume the grenade in use today is the old-school pineapple grenade that looks like this:

That is incorrect. Before I joined the Marines I also held that false assumption. The military stopped using the pineapple grenade because they found that Soldiers and Marines could actually throw them further if they were shaped like a baseball. The US Military transitioned over to this grenade:

Now that we have that common misconception out of the way we can move on to more important aspects of the “grenade toss”. Now, once you have the grenade you cannot just pull the pin and toss it. You need to be able to throw it accurately and ensure that goes far enough out to hit the intended target, but not too far so as to hit an unintended target thus creating a casualty.

  • Step 1 – Grip the grenade with your strong hand
  • Step 2 – Place weak hand over strong hand
  • Step 3 – Sweep the safety with weak hand
  • Step 4 – Twist and pull the pin with weak hand
  • Step 5 – Extend your weak hand out and establish a target
  • Step 6 – Rear back strong hand with grenade while still gripping trigger
  • Step 7 – Toss grenade, tuck, and take cover

If all this is executed properly then it should look like this


Now, that is the proper execution of a grenade toss performed by a professional. If you fail to follow these simple procedures then this could be the end result:

Fortunately, in the instance of that last video, there was someone present who knew the dangers of throwing the grenade and how to properly protect the individual who was inexperienced in it.

To end

Ensure you are able to throw the grenade far enough away to not get yourself or some unintended target hurt…ya know like a victim whose name will more than likely be made public because there are no such protections in a libel suit.

PZ’s original post can be read here.

"Here I'd thought my friend had gone off the deep end. I am very much ..."

Dawkins is Worse than ISIS But ..."
"Go "back" to FB?You're talking about alternate futures."

Dawkins is Worse than ISIS But ..."
"JT is trolling today too. Was there a behind the scenes note to play knifey-spooney?"

Dawkins is Worse than ISIS But ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • SattaMassagana

    Very good advice Paul. Also one might want to talk to one’s commanding officer(or lawyer) before playing with grenades in the first place.

    • Paul Loebe

      I always contact a lawyer before I do something that might be questionable with my activism. It hasn’t failed me yet.

      • Richard Sanderson

        PZ and his fellow travellers (inc. Benson, McCreight, Zvan) seem to think the law doesn’t apply to them. Particulary amusing in the light of Benson’s constant moaning about people “libelling” her, when they are merely criticising her.

        They are all completely two-faced.

        • Mike De Fleuriot

          But remember a lot of them have new books out that need publicity. And there is no such thing as bad publicity, especially from a first world crowd.

          • Paul Loebe

            Fuckin A!

  • Atheist Loki

    I hope the grenade blows his blog off the Internet

  • Paul Loebe

    Ooooh! Down votes. Must be another grenadier that knows a superior technique.

  • Mommiest

    It might also help to have an instructor who doesn’t hold your weak arm back while you’re throwing with your strong arm.

    • Paul Loebe

      In PZs case he didn’t even look for an instructor. He just threw it like an amateur.

      • ohnugget001

        PZ bobbled it, dropped it his feet, and didn’t bother to run since he’s got so many groupies/acolytes/worshippers/etc ready to throw themselves on the damn thing for him. The tactical nuke Shermer is likely to drop on him will hopefully have a blast radius large enough to encompass Svan, Carrier, and the rest of the hyper-feminists on that site.

  • Jeff

    So what’s the story on the detonation of a grenade, anyway? Movies tell two conflicting tales: that the grenade is on a timer, so throw it quickly when you pull the pin; and grenades are activated by some sort of jostling – you can pull the pin and hold it, because it’s the hard landing that sets it off.

    • Paul Turek

      The detonation is not caused by “hard landing”. The grenade is on a timer and the timer is activated by a striker. The striker is released once the “spoon” leaves the grenade. The “spoon” is held in place by the pin.
      To throw a grenade properly, place the grenade in your hand so that the spoon is lodged firmly into the arch between your thumb and index finger. Grip around the grenade holding the spoon and grenade body tightly together, then pull the pin, take aim, and throw. The spoon will pop off the grenade and the timer will activate. When people hold the grenade after popping the spoon off they are, in fact, holding a grenade which will blow up in a few seconds. This is done on occasion when you must “cook off” a grenade so that the enemy may not have an opportunity to escape or throw it back. For example, when throwing a grenade into a pill box or bunker.

      • Paul Loebe

        Correction, until you release the handle (trigger) even with the spoon off the counter does not start. You can hold it all day long. As long as you don’t release your grip it won’t blow up. The moment it clicks when you get a looser grip (or throw it) the timer starts.

        • Paul Turek

          Correction to your correction. In the U.S.Army we called the handle a “spoon”. They are the same thing in the vernacular I was using..

          • Paul Loebe

            Duly noted! Oohrah

      • whatever

        Can you put the pin back in once the timer has been activated to deactivate the grenade? (If so, does that reset the timer?)

        That’s the impression I get from various movies, but it’s not the impression I get with the phrase “The spoon will pop off the grenade”.

        • Paul Loebe

          You can put the pin back in as long as you have not released the spoon. The timer doesn’t activate without releasing the spoon (which is why you grip it tightly until you throw it). So the analogy of putting the pin back in is appropriate.

    • b33bl3br0x

      As Paul said, though there are some grenade designs that do use impact to trigger detonation, such as several German and British models (M1913 and M1915 on the German side and Numbers 69, 77, and 82 grenades from Britain, most of these were used around WWII and are not manufactured anymore). Many grenades fired out of launchers are also impact detonated.

    • Paul Loebe

      The hand grenades we use are on a timer. I think Paul Turek explained it best.

  • Ananomass

    How ironic coming from this blog. You know what else someone shouldn’t do, add their two cents on something that doesn’t involve them in the least, especially when just last year your blog did the same thing over at freefuckblogs. How opportunist of you. Guess that grenade blew up in JG face!

    • Paul Loebe

      Blew up in Justin’s face? I saw PZ throw a grenade at Justin back then, too. Maybe he’s just been throwing too many grenades.

      • Ananomass

        I’m referring to JG accusing someone of raping him, twice and accusing Laden of threatening him on the internet. Talk about playing the victim card. Rumor has it the woman he accused of raping him took him to task and it seems that blog mysteriously disappeared from RBB’s site and FtB around the same time JG went silent.

        Honestly Paul, I don’t see why you’re even bringing this up? If PZ blogging about it was questionable wouldn’t the same go for you? It’s apparent JG is stilled miffed about what happened and is using you as a mouth piece to take a jab at PZ, very unprofessional for someone who is suppose to represent AA.

        • Paul Loebe

          Hi! I know you. Your IP address makes it pretty obvious who you are. Quit stalking, stalker.

        • Paul Loebe

          Ummm…you’re a moron. Take your dipshit reason elsewhere. Laden got kicked from FtB because there was definitive proof. Justin was exonerated. Go hang with your homie Priscilla and chill with CFP. Fuck off and die!

        • Cat

          So you get banned and still can not stay away, you need to get over your sick twisted obsession with Justin, Paul and RBB.

          • Ananomass

            Derp. Why would I be banned and wut iz up with de obsession? Who are you?

  • Iiti

    No wonder the American Military has such a huge sexual harassement problem.

  • Axel Blaster

    Troll baitin’ soldier?

    • Paul Loebe


      • ohnugget001


  • Mark Hall

    What did your trainers have to say about intentionally stepping into the blast range of someone else’s grenade? Especially for no reason?

    I mean, shorn of the clever coy camouflage, your entire post boils down to one blunt statement – P. Z. Myers shouldn’t have provided his megaphone to the first anonymous woman. That’s fine, if that’s what you meant…but it pretty clearly aligns you with the status quo, in silencing harassed women.

    If you had something more to say along with that, like a statement of support for Shermer, announcing that you know there’s no way he could possibly be guilty of these accusations… Or an informed legal opinion, perhaps. Those might have made stepping into the fight somewhat worthwhile. But there’s simply nothing here…was your sole intent to line up alongside Ron Lindsay and those like him?

    Speaking of informed legal opinions…I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t have one. But don’t public figures have a MUCH higher standard to meet to prove libel? Given the inevitable “He said/she said” nature, I think Shermer is going to have a very hard time meeting that standard – especially since there seem to be more women confirming the reports.

    Of course, that might not be the intent. As we all know from our creationist friends, ripping away anonymity is a very powerful thing – even if you cannot hope to win the case on the merits, the fear of attack might cause your opponent to leave or recant.

    • Edward

      “…but it pretty clearly aligns you with the status quo, in silencing harassed women.”

      You are assuming the woman was harassed. You have no justification to do so. That’s the issue at hand. To argue otherwise is to beg the question. The author cannot be “silencing harassed women” if we haven’t established whether the woman actually was harassed.

    • Cat

      “:.but it pretty clearly aligns you with the status quo, in silencing harassed women.”

      You have no idea what you are talking about! What PZ did was dangerous FOR HER and he made that very clear, IF there really is a woman. Not like PZ didn’t have it in for Shermer already, he is hardly someone that is creditable.

      • Eucliwood Hellscythe

        Yeah it’s crazy how they’re talking as if it’s already been established that anyone was harassed (rape. Not harassment. facepalm). Going “You’re silencing harassed women” or “You’re condoning shermer getting away with rape” are total non arguments. Really, all these people need to be accused in a similar way so they’ll stop automatically lynching other people. I’d feel 0 sympathy for them. Karma.

    • Paul Loebe

      Point 1. PZ Myers put at risk the anonymous woman because due to a libel suit her name WILL come out in a court case and be made public.

      Point 2. I neither support Shermer nor the alleged victim. Neither you nor I have enough evidence to make a case on that point.

      Point 3. Libel is a big case here because a public figure who will forever be called a “rapist” regardless of the outcome will undoubtedly have his speaking gigs, his book sales, and any public appearances from here on out affected.

      Point 4. I’m not trying to rip away anonymity. PZ has done that himself. He exposed the woman by coming forward. Had he posted this on an anon blog where no one could be called to court it could have achieved the alleged charges against Shermer without putting the women in question at risk. It’s only a matter of time before EVERYONE knows who she is…unless PZ settles out of court which will likely take away his ability to blog henceforth.

      Point 5. I didn’t bring up Ron Lindsay. Ron Lindsay also isn’t accused of rape. He merely said men should be allowed to have a say in the matter. Get your facts straight!

      Point 6. You implied but did not infer I am a rape apologist. Go fuck yourself!

      • Ananomass

        Point 1: no suit has been filed and won’t be. PZ didn’t accuse Shermer of rape, he simply said a woman he is familiar with reached out to him claiming assault. That’s not libel.

        Point 2: if you don’t have enough evidence to make a case, why are saying anything at all?

        Point 3: IF Shermer is affected by this, which is highly unlikely, how does that concern you?

        Point 4: aligning your-self with this matter which has absolutely nothing to do with you or your blog suggests you have personal qualms with PZ for whatever reason and are using it as an opportunity to condemn him for raising an issue that was brought to his attention in an effort to get attention your-self. That inadvertently demonstrates you believe women who are harassed shouldn’t have a medium to speak out about it, even anonymously and by extension does make you empathetic to rape apologist mentality.

        Point 5: You’ve demonstrated multiple times in your demeanor an air of perceived superiority on matters that you are ill informed to speak to and that don’t involve you in the slightest. You’ve latched onto others activism and single-handedly ruined the legitimacy of RBB through your incoherent babbling. It’s incomprehensible that you represent American Atheists as you’ve demonstrated behavior that the president of that group has publicly called others to condemn. Telling others that disagree with you to ‘fuck off?’ You’re behavior is very unprofessional and unbecoming of a representative of a national organization let alone Marine.

        • jjramsey

          PZ didn’t accuse Shermer of rape, he simply said a woman he is familiar
          with reached out to him claiming assault.

          I don’t think you realize how much than looks like tendentious sophistry or, as our blog host would probably call it, bullshit.

          if you don’t have enough evidence to make a case, why are saying anything at all?

          That’s a question that could be easily asked of PZ.

          • Eucliwood Hellscythe

            It’s crazy that someone said because he got word from someone else he’s not accusing Shermer of rape. All of the people involved who passed word along are accusing Shermer of rape. PZ is indeed saying that Shermer is a rapist, in his own mind as well, and stands by that.

            Not assault, not drunk-and-regret (carrie poppy said that assumptions of that from the fact she said it involved alcohol are incorrect), but plain ole legit-to-anyone rape.

        • Cat

          “Point 3: IF Shermer is affected by this, which is highly unlikely, how does that concern you?”

          How does it concern you that this was blogged about? Funny how some people think they have a right to have an opinion yet don’t feel others do.

          • Eucliwood Hellscythe

            That’s crazy that someone’s asking why someone would care. Are they a psychopath with no understanding of how people work? That or just being obtuse on purpos.

        • Paul Loebe

          *RAPE APOLOGIST* EVERYONE LOOKOUT!! It’s official!!!

          Thanks for playing this week in irrational judgment calls.


          Gratuitous Cat Meme

        • Paul Loebe

          Oh and you clearly have never met a Marine before. 😉

      • Mark Hall

        Point 1 – PZ did not put her at risk. She gave him the letter to be published, to borrow his bully pulpit. She is at risk for her identity to be revealed – but surely that was her choice.

        Point 2 – I realize you didn’t come out and declare support for either side. But you suggested silence was the best course. In the current emotionally-charged environment, that’s going to be seen as choosing a side.

        Point 3 – sure, this accusation, if not disproven, is going to hurt Shermer. That doesn’t make his burden of proof any lighter. Given the number of accusations now out there, a libel suit might backfire. I do not share your certainty that Shermer will go that route.

        Point 4 – I didn’t say you were trying to rip away anonymity. I suggested that might be Shermer’s goal in such a suit.

        Point 5 – Yeah, I brought up Lindsey, mostly as an example of the other side of this overarching ongoing issue. Again – my point here is that your post amounts to choosing sides, not only for this specific alleged incident, but for the ongoing debate as a whole. If that was not your intention, then I respectfully suggest that you fucked up.

        Point 6 – No, that’s really not what I implied. I stated fairly clearly that your post was calling for silence in this specific case, and by extension in any case where there isn’t enough proof for a criminal trial. That is not nearly so bad as being a rape apologist. But did you by any chance read Greta Christina’s discussion of the level of proof?

        Edward’s point is relevant to this last one, too. Yes, we do have justification to come to a conclusion – you should read Christina’s post, too. We don’t have enough justification to go to trial, and as always we should keep an open mind regarding new evidence. But even without that…it seems to me that Paul’s post was calling for silence whether the woman was harassed or not. Don’t you think that opinion has applicability for other, similar cases? Even if this woman completely made it up…don’t you think the opinion might apply to a woman who really was assaulted?

        • b33bl3br0x

          I believe the point of the post was to suggest, not that silence should have been maintained, but that better steps should have been taken to avoid further victimizing the victim by creating a situation where remaining anonymous would eventually prove to not be possible.

          Or in the parlance of the analogy, throwing it away from you so that not only do you avoid injuring yourself but also avoid injuring the people on your own side.