Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum
Relic Discussion => Artillery => Topic started by: John D. Bartleson Jr. on February 13, 2012, 08:11:15 PM
-
To All Interested,
I have only found one (1) Blakely patented projectile, Patent #3087 and is illustrated in the first drawing below. It was produced in limited numbers by Blakely's Ordnance Company and was not introduced into the U.S.
My question is this- if Blakely only manufactred one design then who patented the second projectile shown below that everyone refers to as a 'Blakely/Preston"?? Do we call it a Blakely merely because it was fired from a Blakely gun? becuase we usually name a projectile after the person who patented it, or if not know, by where it was made. Comments?
Best Regards,
John aka Bart
-
The "operating principle" of the projectile in the 2nd illustration was patented by Blakely in his British Patent #1863-1286. See page 97 in the D&G 1993 Edition for details about its manufacturer, the firm of Fawcett, Preston & Co. of Liverpool England, which also manufactured Blakely's cannons. Also see: http://captainblakely.org/FirstManufacture.aspx
The projectile in the 2nd illustration was fired from a 3.5"-caliber Blakely Rifle with 6 deep hook-slant grooves (mentioned at the above-linked Blakely website as "ratchet" grooves). Like the Tri-flanged Blakely shell, the Hex-flanged shell had no sabot of any kind, because the flanges fit the grooves with no need for the projectile to expand into them.
I must comment about Illustration #1. In it, no provision is shown which would keep the sabot disc from simply spinning on the projectile's flat iron base when the sabot gripped the cannon's rifling. I believe sabot-slippage would have been prevented by the "angular post" mentioned in the Blakely patent I read in 1993.
Interestingly, your Illustration #1 is a very good representation of the Type 1 CS Blakely Plate shell shown on page 98 of D&G-1993 ...except that the actual shell has an "angular post" (in this case, square) cast as part of the shell's iron base. The short sqaure post fit through a corresponding square hole in the copper sabot, which was held on the projectile's base by a flush-fitting bolt and round iron washer. See photo of that shell's base and sabot on page 96 of the D&G-1993 book.
In D&G 1980, Tom Dickey wrote: "This sabot appears to have been picked up from Blakely, who in 1863 patented a very similar projectile in England.
A third type of Confederate Adaptation of Blakely's "angular post" anti-sabot-slippage design was found at the CS Richmond Naval Ordnance Works when the city fell to the yankees in April 1865. It is shown in two diagrams in Abott's 187 book. See Plate 5, figures 39 & 40. You have to look closely to see the short square iron projection at the center of those projectiles' flat iron base -- but it is definitely there.
Note: I've called the CS Blakely Plate Type 1 and Type 2 sabot a "Plate-sabot" because its whole top is flat (even prior to firing) ...like Brooke's ratchet-plate sabot. For comparison, the top of an unfired Disc-sabot (such as the Mullane/Tennessee-sabot) is a convex curve. I believe the term "disc" comes from the ancient Greek discus, used in the Olympic Games, whose top is a convex curve.
Regards,
Pete
-
To All Interested;
My first drawing above was drawn from Holley's Ordnance and Armor and described as Blakely's design. It is also shown in Pete's URL reference above.
I think everyone knows that the second drawing is a projectile fired in Blakely's gun. My original question was who patented it? since no one seems to have its patent, it really can't be debated. Perhaps we need to revert to Preston, its manufacturer.
Pete, you are correct, my pasted copy of patent #3087 was not totally complete since I could not copy and paste its drawings. There were three images, drawings 1 and 3 below and Drawing 2 which showed only his plan for a novel way to load powder and shell into his cannon.
Drawing 1 was a cup type sabot which looks very similar to a sabpt behind Mike's posting of the two sabots. It apears to have a very slight dovetail on the shell base, but not on the sabot. The words "angular post" and the other phrase you mentioned appears no where in the 3087 patent, which you also reference on page 93 of your book.
In Drawing 3 there apears to be two (2) bolts/screws holding the sabot onto the shell base. Also, you are correct in saying that my shell in the first drawing has no provisions to prevent sabot slipping, but none were shown in the drawing either.
Regards,
john
P.S. Pete not everyone has Abbots plates perhaps you should show the plate.
-
what is the rod through the breech in the first two drawings ??
-
Dave,
You have to read the patent description to get the details but basically it is Blakely's proposed method of pulling powder bag and projectile into the gun barrel through the rear of the breech. Weird yes?
John
-
Pete,
With regard to your comment that patent 1286 describing gun rifling and projectile design and construction and patented by Blakely.
Thanks to Mr. Steven Roberts, owner of the URL you recently posted, concerning this thread and the other one of this nature,
I now have a copy, with drawing, of the Blakely patent 1286 of 22 May 1863, Rifling Gun etc. and it describes only the hook slant rifling for his proposed gun, not one mention of the projectile and its construction.
Best Regards,
John aka bart
-
I don't understand why people want to call a segmented Selma a Blakeley just because it was fired in that gun. Are all the other segmented Selma shells also Blakeley? Poor old Selma.
Steve Phillips
-
Steve, those segmented "Selma" shells are 3.67"-caliber, and there are no records of Blakely ever producing a 3.67"-caliber Rifle.
Therefore, I have not been calling those segmented shells CS Blakely Plate shells for any reason involving what kind of cannon fired them.
As mentioned in a recent discussion here, I've been calling those shells a CS Blakely type (ever since 1993) because of their "angular post" anti-slippage sabot and the fact that several specimens have been found with the (mis-spelled) name "Blakeley" stamped into the flat top of the copper sabot. Some readers here choose not to believe the stamped name in the sabot is an Identification name, like "Brooke" is stamped into Brooke ratchet-plate sabots. But none of the disbelievers have been willing to post an alternative explanation for Blakely's name being stamped into some of the sabots.
Regards,
Pete
-
Since some readers continue to dismiss my reasoning about Blakely being the originator of the so-called "Preston" shells, let's come at the question from another direction than just the Blakely patents. Here is my reasoning.
Blakely patented a unique type of "sawtooth" rifling, with the intention of using it in his rifled cannons for firing his Hex-Flanged projectiles (which some people still insist is a "Preston" shell.) Very importantly, with the single exception of a non-dug 8-incher of unknown provenance, those Hex-Flanged shells exist only in 3.5" and 4"-calibers. The following information regarding those two calibers of Blakely Rifles and their flanged-projectile rifling is from the book by Hazlett, Olmstead, and Parks, titled "Field Artillery Weapons of the Civil War".
Page 203, the 3.5" Blakely Type 4 Rifle:
"Rifling was changed from seven conventional flat grooves of right-hand twist for Type 6 to six sawtooth or flanged projectile grooves for type 4.
Page 205, the 4" Blakely Rifle:
"Recoveries at Fort Branch, North Carolina include a number of Blakely shells with six spiral flanges to engage the grooves of rifling. Ash Harrison has determined that these shells still fit the bore of the 4-inch Blakely Rifle also recovered from the Roanoke River [at Fort Branch] after more than a century of submersion. Thus it is now apparent that the type 7 Blakely rifling pattern is not sawtooth, but of the preguided [a.k.a. "shunt"] principle. On their guiding sides the grooves curve sharply to rotate the projectile with minimum wedging. On the trailing side the grooves curve gently to provide space for the supporting buttress portion of each flange on the projectile."
(End of my quoting from the Hazlett, Olmstead, & Parks book.)
Please note that Hazlett, Olmstead, & Parks, for reasons which are obvious in the quoted text, specifically identify those Hex-Flanged shells as Blakely shells. Furthermore, they did so in 1988, so those astute gentlemen cannot be merely relying on my 1993 books naming of the Hex-Flanged shells as being Blakely's design.
In his book titled "Civil War Heavy Explosive Ordnance," Jack Bell says:
"Two other projectile designs -- both flanged -- were used in Blakely rifles that used the shunt system. Both are actually Blakely designs ..."
We know for certain that the Hex-Flanged shell in the famous 1865 Charleston SC photo were labeled by the yankee photographer, not the Confederates. Where did he get the name "Preston" for it? Logic suggest she found the name on the shipping-crate from its manufacturer ...which was the Fawcett, Preston Co. of Liverpool England, the manufacturer of Blakely's cannon-designs and projectile-designs.
Which of the following two scenarios do you readers think is more likely to be the correct one?
Scenario 1: Blakely himself designed the Hex-Flanged flanged projectile for use in his six-groove "sawtooth" pre-guiding/shunt rifled cannons.
Scenario 2: Some unknown engineer at Fawcett, Preston & Co. designed the Hex-Flanged projectile for use in Blakely's cannons.
While you are thinking that over, please note that the HO&P book's "known survivors" of Blakely's sawtooth pre-guided/shunt rifling system cannons are marked 1862, which is one year before his British Patent application for the rifling. My point is that (just as happened in America), in some cases cannons and projectiles got manufactured a significant amount of time before a Patent for them was issued.
Regards,
Pete
-
I had a comment, but it was about the blakely sabot picture, which I now can't find. Looking this over, I think a whole page is gon from this post. Any idea where it went?
-
Someone else asked about that yesterday and found it. I think the confusion is because some of this discussion started under another thread:
http://bulletandshell.com/forum/index.php?topic=355.0
-
Thanks Mike, that was it. :) The Picture that was posted of the Blakely mark in the other post was not spelled the same, as Blakeley. Were all the marked pieces all spelled incorrectly, or were some spelled right? If they are all misspelled, could have been a totally different guy altogether.
-
The Hazlett, Olmstead, & Parks book on civil war Field Artllery cannons lists a "surviving" civil war era Blakely cannon on which the stamped name has the same mis-spelling seen on the sabots we've been discussing ..."Blakeley".
Regards,
Pete
-
Thats interesting. Early immigrants often Americanized there names, example Brown and Browne. . Could be a mis-spelling, name change, relative, or different person entirely. Were some of the sabots stampings spelled correctly? I understand the quest for written documentation through patent or official letters, but if its a confederate copy of a shell not actually produced by Blakely himself, I would assume that written information on the exact confederate modifications to the blakely patent could have been destroyed after the war. We have lost so much info to time. Documented info on the Union stuff is hard to find, Confederate even more so. Did the Confederates even have a Patent system? and how complete was it?
so:
1. were all the spellings the same on all sabots or were some calibers stamped one way, some another, maybe indicating arsenal of production?
2. Did the confederates even have a patent system for there designs?
3. Has Blakely ever been seen stamped on a different style sabot than the 4 sided post? excluding obvious english shells
4.what field calibers have we seen this 4 sided post on? 2.5", 2.9,3.6,3.67, any others?
5. What field calibers have we actually seen this name stamp on?
6. Has Blakely been seen stamped on the cloverleaf style shown in the other post, or is that another thing entirely?
7 What caliber was the Blakeley cannon?
I guess I'm looking for a pattern, if anyone can help with the above info
-
Info on the Confederate Patent Office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Patent_Office
-
Thanks Mike, I was modifying that post . Guess written documentation will be non existent. not many patents approved, let alone ones "in the works", and no records left. was afraid of that.
-
Alwion wrote:
> 1. Were all the spellings the same on all sabots or were some calibers stamped one way, some another, maybe indicating arsenal of production?
Insofar as I'm aware, the spelling on the marked sabots is always the same, "Blakeley".
> 2. Did the confederates even have a patent system for their designs?
Yes, but only about 10 of the 200+ CS Patents are currently known to survive. I've only seen one of those ten.
> 3. Has Blakely ever been seen stamped on a different style sabot than the 4 sided post? excluding obvious english shells
No.
> 4. What field calibers have we seen this 4 sided post on? 2.5", 2.9,3.6,3.67, any others?
> 5. What field calibers have we actually seen this name stamp on?
Only 3.67"-caliber.
> 6. Has Blakely been seen stamped on the cloverleaf style shown in the other post, or is that another thing entirely?
No. I think that's an important point. Many of the Selma Cloverleaf sabots have been found marked with Selma's "inspector" G-mark. But NONE of the Confederate Blakely Plate sabots have ever been found with a G on them ...NOR any other marking except Blakely's name.
> 7 What caliber was the Blakeley cannon?
According to the Hazlett, Olmstead, & Parks book, the Field Artillery calibers of Blakely rifled cannons are:
2.5"
2.9"
3"
3.5"
4"
Additionally, the HO&P book says that a wartime Confederate Ordnance Department document's list of the propellant-powder charges for cannons in Confederate Army service includes a .375-inch Blakely Rifle. Because there is no record of Blakely ever producing a 3.75-inch Rifle, I think it was a 3.5" Blakely with worn-out rifling which the Confederates had "re-rifled" (cutting new grooves into the worn bore) ...thereby increasing the bore's diameter to 3.75-inch. There is also some evidence that other 3.5" Blakelys were re-rifled to 3.67"-caliber. My theory is based on the fact that there are civil war doscuments showing that the Confederates did indeed do "re-rifling" of heavily worn cannon bores. This explains the existence of UNFIRED Read shells whose diameter does not match up with the caliber of any known cannon. For example, see the unfired 2.59" and 2.69" diameter Read shells in the D&G 1993 book.
Regards,
Pete
-
To All Interested;
If I may get us bac on track with the question, ho patented the six flanged, grooved, milled or whatever discription is used to describe the second image with m question.
Pete claims the Blakely patent #1286 as Bakely's patent for this shell when in fact the patent merely describes the rifling for the cannon, it mention of the construcion, design or manufacturer. This is Pete's reference, not mine.
Next we asked to stray from using lpatents as references and to use a modern 1980s book as a reference to idently the projectile. Does this mean that a modedrn document is to be taken over Blakely's own patent?
To my knowledge no patent has surfaced for this projectile.
Regards,
Johno
Patent #1286 follows:
"
A.D. 1863, 22nd mAr. N° 1286.
Rifling Guns, &a.
LETTERS PATENT to Theophilus Alexander Blakely, of Montpelier Square-, in the County of Middlesex, late Captain Royal Artillery, for the Inven¬tion of " A NEW METHOD OF RIFLING GUNS, AND OF FORMING PROJECTILES TO CORRESPOND THEREWITH."
Sealed the 18th November 1863, and dated the 22nd May 1863.
PROVISIONAL SPECIFICATION left by the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely at the Office of the Commissioners of Patents, with his Petition, on the 22nd May 1863.
THEOPHILUR ALEXANDER BLAKELY, of Montpelier Square, in the County
5 of Middlesex, late Captain Royal Artillery, do hereby declare the nature of the said Invention for "A NEW METHOD OF RIFLING GUNS, AND Or FORMING PRO-JECTILES TO CORRESPOND THEREWITH," to be as follows :
My new method consists in rifling guns and in forming projectiles in such manner that let the turning force come upon whatever point it may of the 10 projectile, it shall exert the same power or influence.
My rifling is formed thus :---I first decide at what distance from the centre of the projectile the turning force shall act, the smaller the bore the nearer the centre should this force act; let a circle be now drawn with a centre in the axis of the barrel, the radius of which circle is this settled distance ; then I form.
15 the rifling of such shape that a line perpendicular to any point of its surface• shall also be a tangent to this circle. I form the projectiles to correspond, and follow the same mathematical rules for determining the shape of the external, surface thereof.
2 A.D. 1863.-N° 1286. Specification.
Blakely's New Method of _Rifling Guns, Ore.
SPECIFICATION in pursuance of the conditions of the Letters Patent, filed by the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely in the Great Seal Patent Office on the 21st November 1863.
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, I, THEOPHILIIS ALEXANDER BLAKELY, of Montpelier Square, in the County of Middlesex, late 5 Captain Royal Artillery, send greeting.
WHEREAS Her most Excellent Majesty Queen Victoria, by Her Letters Patent, bearing date the Twenty-second day of May, in the year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, in the twenty-sixth year of Her • reign, did, for Herself, Her heirs and successors, give and grant unto me, 10 the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, Her special licence that I, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, my executors, administrators, and assigns, or such others as I, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, my executors, administrators, and assigns, should at any time agree with, and no others, from time to time and at all times thereafter during the term therein ex- 15 pressed, should and lawfully might make, use, exercise, and vend, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Channel Islands, and Isle
of Man, an Invention for " A NEW METHOD or RIFLING GUNS, AND or FORMING PROJECTILES TO CORRESPOND THEREWITH," upon the condition (amongst others) that I, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, my executors or administrators, 20 by an instrument in writing under my, or their, or one of their hands and seals, should particularly describe and ascertain the nature of the said Inven¬tion, and in what manner the same was to be performed, and cause the same
to be filed in the Great Seal Patent Office within six calendar months next and immediately after the date of the said Letters Patent. 25
NOW KNOW YE, that I, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, do hereby declare the nature of my said. Invention, and in what manner the same is to be performed, to be 'particularly described and ascertained in and by the following statement thereof, reference being had to the Drawing hereunto annexed, that is to say :— 30
My new method consists in rifling guns and in forming projectiles in such manner that let the turning force come upon whatever point it may of the projectile, it shall exert the same power or influence.
My rifling is formed thus :—I first decide at what distance from the centre of the projectile the turning force shall act, the smaller the bore the nearer the 35 centre should this force act ; let a circle be now drawn with a centre in the axis of the barrel, the radius:of which circle is this settled distance ; then I form the rifling of such, shape that a line perpendicular to any point of its
Specification. A.D. 1863.-N° 1286. 3
Blakely's New Method of Rifling Guns, 4'e.
surface shall also be a tangent to this circle, as shewn in the accompanying Drawing, wherein A B, C D, and E F, are bearing surfaces ; lines perpen¬dicular to any part of these surfaces, as A G, H I, B K, all pass within an equal distance from the centre O. I form the projectiles to correspond, and
5 follow the same mathematical rules for determining the shape of the external surface thereof.
In witness whereof, I, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, have hereunto set my hand and seal, this Twenty-first day of November, One thousand eight hundred and sixty-three.
10 T. A. BLAKELY. (Ls.)
LONDON :
Printed by GEORGE EDWARD EYRE and WILLIAM SPOTTISWOODE,
Printers to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty. 1863.
D.1863. NAT 22. 11?1286. BLAKELY'S SIT CIFICATION SHEET)
The-filed drawing is not colored,. Drawn an Stone -by Malby & Sans
LONDON: Printedby GEORGE EDWARD EIRE and WILLIAM S POTT1SWOODE ,
Printers to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty 1863 ."
-
I'm trying to stay on track, , am not using any book for reference on this, just trying to gather information, and definitley not taking sides as my final idea on this with this data isn't ending with either concept. I'm a geologist by training, and the 1st rule is that the story is always based upon what info you currently have, and as more evidence appears over time, that may need to be revised. I do know most of archeology is based on speculation. We would all love to have hard written facts and pictures, but you can't always have them, and you must then guess from what you have actually observed. Here's what I conclude from the massive amount of info posted
1. I don't really see any resemblance of the shell under discussion to the English patents John has laborously dug out and posted. I agree, to my mind, I don't think the English shell inventor personally had anything to do with the design of the confederate shell. The people who were designing these shells were smart, I doubt they made a spelling mistake. That would be Large conjecture that someone mismade the stamp. I don't think patent info on this shell exists, unless it's in the destroyed Confederate patent info. I doubt the Confederacy had documentation and patent info at the top of its list at the time anyway
2. The basis of the name in the D&G book seems to be based on the Blakeley stamp on some 3.67" square post base shells and one cannon. From there it has been assumed that all square post flanged shells to be named the same. I'm Ok with that since its a definitely a specific design, but am not sure calling it Blakely is at all correct. I would suggest using the spelling as known for ID. I would guess the shell is a unique design for the confederacy, either designed by or inspected by a Blakeley, probably with no connection to the English shell inventor at all! Having 2 people with a similar last name could easily happen.
3.Since we have other types of shells stamped with there maker's name, it is very possible that the designer is Blakeley, but with no similarities in the design to the English Blakey shells and the similar but different in names, I'd conclude that it was designed by a Confederate engineer, possibly using some other design ideas, but a unknown individual otherwise, written documentation otherwise lost
I don't really connect the cloverleaf base to this at all, don't see any connection. Improved disc sabot?
Please be kind when you beat me up now:), I have no other info besides what was posted, and have tried to use the info we actually can visually see and read, without trying to stretch anything to join the facts together. We do have the name and its hard to ignore connecting it to that style sabot, but no way to connect it to anything else for sure, since it doesn't seem to "match up" with anything else for sure
Blakeley sabot, details of designer unknown
-
Inventor?
some would suggest that the projectile in question above was invented, but not patented by Commander Robert Scott, RN who also designed the three large flanged projectiles for Blakely, as did Bashley Britten. Blakely seemed content to let others design shells for his cannons. See the Blakely web site owned by Mr. Steven Roberts at:
http://captainblakely.org/Associates.aspx
As you view the above web site of Mr. Roberts you will see Scot's large three flanged bolts that Gen. Abbot also mis-identified as Blakely projectiles all because they were found with the Blakely cannons and so our generation has repeated this I.D. error. I have often wondered how many other projectiles fall into this type of association
Best Regards,
John
-
Marketer/dealer. The Bill Gates of cannons lol. now I'm of track. wanted to share this photo from this site with the pictures of Blakely's shell offerings. Looks like Brook sabots along the bottom of the picture
-
Back on track. What hurts my theory from this article is the letter with the misspelled name on Blakeley, not his signature , but if enough of these were sent by a secretary to a shell designer or supplier in the CSA, the spelling could have been misspelled enough times to compound this error, that could make these shells commissioned by Blakely (Blakeley).
Helping my theory is nothing of similar design in what he was making or having made. He liked the pre rifled shells, although the picture above shows pretty much standard stuff. The shell looks from the outside to be a confederate design through and through, only the attachment is different. It seemed to have been made in other sizes than just for Blakely cannon, and I see no reason for the name to be on that design, unless he was involved somehow, or there again, another person entirely, maybe a relative living in the south with some cannon experience
If it wasn't for that pesky name, it would just be a form of Selma disc sabot. You just can't dismiss that name stamp. I just wanted to share a possible alternate theory of why that name would be there. Now I'm about torn 50-50 on it being another guy, or somehow involved with Blakely. There has to be a reason this was distinguished from other Selma single letter stamping.
I think this one awaites more answers which may never appear:(
-
They sure look like Brooke sabots. Is there a Brooke - Blakely connection? The ones on the shelves are Blakely's copper disk shells and bolts. Hummmm did Brooke steal the Blakely design for his ratchet sabot or did the Blakely Ordnance Co. make them for him. An interesting thought!
Regards,
John aka Bart
-
Or perhaps that display is a collection of projectiles known to be fired by Blakely's guns and were made by a number of customers/manufacturers. It was Blakely's shell collection.
Also, given that there was so much tried under field conditions during the ACW, I'm sure it's quite probable that they paid close attention to what worked and didn't work as they developed their products. They may have sent envoys to the US to gather information on the competition. At the start of the CW, England was the big dog in the arms manufacturing industry. But I can't help but think that they realized that after the war the US war machine would look overseas to continue their industry and be competition.
While the sabots on the floor certainly look like Brooke sabots, nothing on the shelving unit really does. Brook sabots fit smooth with the shell surface and have no groove. The two big shot on the left could be. I sure would like to have those.
Most impressive is teh weight those shelves are hold. They appear to be made of wood and the middle shelf alone has about 3/4 ton on it. One thing that doesn't make sense in the picture is the two cartridges on the floor. They are marked 11-inch and 9-inch and are probably no more than 6-inches in diameter based on the other stuff.
-
Those Blakely copper disk shells are in Blakely Ordnance Co. warehouse. See what else was in there - courtesy of Mr. Steven Roberts.
Carl remember the underside of Brookes are ratchet steps. Those items at ehe bottom are proofing cylinders.
Mr. Roberts says they are not Brooke sabots, however, if not then Blakely appears to have the same ratchet system or I am really going blind.
John
-
Looking at those shelves, I would say they are 3" thick old growth lumber. Every few years construction span charts change, because force growing lumber gains size but removes strength. A 200 year old piece of old growth wood would have to be replaced by a steel I'beam now lol. That old stuff is dense and hard!!!! When we were discussing fixed charges in the other post, I was wondering if the charge could be made a small diameter to fit and not bind, I would guess that it was easier to make different size charges using the smaller but longer bags. would load easier, and if it broke when rammed it wouldn't matter. Does anyone have specs on bag diameters for shell size, how much undersize where charge bags? the charts I see have length, not diameter. Interesting point on the cartridges. I don't really see anything in the picture that resembles any of blakelys patents, do you? I'm assuming the grooves we see are for grease rings, turned into the shell body not down by the sabot? Does anyone know what the cute little 4 groove shells are on the top shelf? It's funny how one question always gives you 5 more lol
-
I'd say these guys traded (stole?) ideas more than automobile manufaturers lol The picture says gas checks? is that english for sabot? and what are proofing cylinders?
-
Gas check, sabots, rotting bands, same. Soneone else will have to explain the proofing routine.
John
-
IAW Mr. Stefen Roberts; “proofing cylinders” are overweight projectiles fired twice with double charges to secure government proof of every piece of ordnance. For example the 11 inch Blakely gun fired a 400 pound service projectile but was proof fired twice with a solid 600 pound cylindrical bolt and a double charge. This was applied voluntarily to ordnance sold for export as well as being obligatory for guns provided for British army and navy use. End quote.
Regards,
John
-
I'm not sure I understand the question here as far as the 3.5" "preston-blakely" shell and it's inventor. It would appear to this casual reader that the arguement is being made that a rifle was invented by Blakely to fire a shell that had previously been invented/patented by someone else. Maybe I'm just reading this the wrong way. Concur that perhaps the 3.5" and the 4" Preston Blakely shells should perhaps not have the Preston name. Why not call them Fawcett. Nevermind.
Anyway, the patent posted plainly states: LETTERS PATENT to Theophilus Alexander Blakely, of Montpelier Square-, in the County of Middlesex, late Captain Royal Artillery, for the Inven¬tion of " A NEW METHOD OF RIFLING GUNS, AND OF FORMING PROJECTILES TO CORRESPOND THEREWITH."
Seems pretty plain to me, picture or no picture.
-
No Sir,
The cannon was first patented by Blakely and I am beginning to believe that the shell above was invented but not patented by Cdr. Robert A. Scot, RN for Blakely's cannon. However, I must add that this is mere speculation about Scott as I have no documented proof.
The initial Blakely guns sent to America were furnished with Bashley Britten's lead skirted shells.
John
-
Well, according to that website it is obvious that some credit may be due to Scott for the large caliber flange projectiles commonly called Blakely.
I'm not so sure about the preston blakely projectile.
-
Thank you for clarifying the matter!
-
with regard to your second post above, Neither Are We. :) The only thing we do know is that a Blakely patent for it has yet to be found. Thanks for your interest. The Forum is beginning to be confusing is because we mixing topics, and I am guilty as the next by putting up the three patent drawings above from a previous discussion about another Blakely patent being quoted as a reference.
John
-
To All;
Will someone please post a high resolution base view of the projectile in question so we may see the position and angle of each spline, groove or flange as it may be called? Close up please.
Regards,
John
-
John:
It is difficult to follow this thread and I admit to having stopped watching it closely long ago, but if you are interested in a picture of a flanged "Preston," there is one on the commercial part of the site:
http://www.bulletandshell.com/Items/artillery/item.php?id=00125
Or perhaps you all are discussing the flanged Blakely shell such as this one on Rick Burton's site:
http://www.ccrelics.com/artillery/89-britishcs-45-inch-triple-flanged-blakely-shell
-
Not what you wanted, but best I can do at the moment..... my little 4" Preston Blakely from Ft. Caswell.
-
Mike,
The above shell you posted is the shell in question. However, we need a base view that will show position and shape of grooves. I don't believe your specimen will show them clearly due to its condition.
I am aware that our posts are beginning to stray from the very first post which poses the question as to the correct identity of this projectile. I admit I am guilty of causing some of the confusion and will attempt to stay on track in the future.
John
P.S. The three flanged projectile you referred me to in the above URLs will soon be another topic.
-
Unfortunately, the two I have in my collection are packed away. I do have this top half of one sitting on my desk. Not sure the pictures provide everything you want but here they are until a better view comes along
(http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff458/emike123/DSCN0260.jpg)
(http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff458/emike123/DSCN0266.jpg)
-
Now that shell definitley looks like the info John posted a Blakely design patent. The firing orque is distributed on the shell body, not the sabot . Is there any question this is an English produced imported shell, not a US or CSA produced copy?
-
Mike,
Great frags, thank you.
John
-
To All Interested;
Below is a comparison of the rifling patent drawing in #1286, how it would look with six projections, Mikes shell fragment and my rendering of Mike's image. They appear to match , as well as my eye can attempt a match.
Notice the similarity with Cdr. Robert Scott's other invention (not patent) for the Blakely guns.
If you stop and think about Scott's rifling design, it is the only British rifling system that has projections proud of the shell body, save the Woolwich System of copper studs. Please note that I am not sayhing that Cdr. Scott invented this design(as I have no proof) but it is starting to 'quack like a duck'.
Best Regards,
John aka Bart
-
Follow Up to last Post;
Below is a view, from the above site of Mr. Burton, which illustrates the base view of Cdr. Scott's invention for the large Blakely cannon found at Fort Fisher. It too has been identifed in error and passed down through the ages by Gen. Abbot's association with the Blakely guns.
Observe the small projections above and how they resemble the large flanges below.
John