Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum

Author Topic: Whitworth cannon friction primer?  (Read 9075 times)

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Whitworth cannon friction primer?
« on: October 04, 2015, 10:55:08 AM »
  First, let me say publically that I intend no offense to Mike and Carl in questioning an object on the sales area of this website. I simply do not know of another example of this object on the internet, and readers here need a link to see what the object looks like.

  Please take a look at this item in the Fuzes listings here at bulletandshell.com.
http://bulletandshell.com/Items/item.php?id=U00363
Note that its body is threaded.

 In all my decades in this field, I've never seen any confirmation of the McKee-&-Mason book's identification of that object as a "Whitworth friction primer."   I have doubts about that ID, for the following reasons.

1- We know that Lee's army had Whitworth cannons, which were used more than just a little bit.  But insofar as I'm aware, nobody has reported finding "expended" Whitworth friction primers at the locations where those cannons got used. I'll acknowledge that it's possible some have been dug at those locations but the digger(s) did not recognize them as a civil war military relic and thus tossed them into the trashcan. But since the McKee-&-Mason book does identify them in a photo as a Whitworth friction primer, it seems like somebody would have dug some and announced the find.

2-  This threaded object obviously takes a lot more labor and precision to manufacture than the standard cannon friction primer of that era.  What is the advantage of this form over the standard form which makes the much-greater production labor worth doing?

3- Verification of the object's ID as a Whitworth friction primer could be tested by checking whether or not a Whitworth cannon's vent/touch-hole is threaded... and is the correct size to accept this object.

Also... perhaps John D. Bartleson Jr. can check with his British artillery experts for confirmation of the M&M book's identification.

Regards,
Pete

emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
Re: Whitworth cannon friction primer?
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2015, 06:23:07 PM »
No offense taken, Pete.  It is my listing not Carl's, and I had some questions as well which is why I have from the beginning listed it as "Machined brass friction primer" in the title, and the description "Whitworth friction primer?" concluded with a question mark.  I think it is safe to assume it is a type of friction primer from the wire pull lanyard and it is machined brass as described, but I have no further information about it other than what I saw in McKee and Mason myself.


John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Whitworth cannon friction primer?
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2015, 09:02:13 PM »
Pete and Mike,
    It's for the 3.6" field gun and the 1890 3.6" field mortar. I just don't have an illustration in my PC. But you can Google them.
Kind Regards,
John
« Last Edit: October 05, 2015, 09:34:39 AM by John D. Bartleson Jr. »

emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
Re: Whitworth cannon friction primer?
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2015, 06:30:40 PM »
Thanks John.  Another mystery solved...

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Whitworth cannon friction primer?
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2015, 09:00:15 PM »
Mike,
   so it is a friction and not an electric primer? I presume the primer is a breech mount if it is a friction otherwise the gunner would be pulling the wire at 90 degrees  to the upright primer body. If breech mounted the gunner would be pulling it straight  right in line with the canon recoil.
John

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: Whitworth cannon friction primer?
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2015, 09:48:55 PM »
  John, could you be more specific about the "3.6-inch Field Gun"?
Is that a Whitworth cannon?
Is it American, or is it British?
What is the time-period of the 3.6" Field Gun?

 Also, the title "Gun" when applied to a cannon meant smoothbore at the time of the civil war, so for the moment I have to assume the 3.6" Field Gun is a smoothbore... and it's one I am not familiar with.   Please clarify.  Thanks.

Regards,
Pete

Dave the plumber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 604
    • Email
Re: Whitworth cannon friction primer?
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2015, 06:50:49 AM »
the threaded screw in friction primer was a necessary in the evolution of primers. I have been reading up on primers a bit lately. Since a standard cannon barrel when fired would send a flame out the 2\10's vent hole like a blowtorch, [ see the wonderful photo on the cover of the newest Artilleryman magazine ],  it would eventually eat away at the hole diameter enlarging it and making it irregular the more the cannon was fired, eventually making the barrel unserviceable. Dahlgren addressed this problem and actually sent his cannon out into the field with two vents in them. One was open and the other filled with 'zinc' to be used when the first one was eaten out. The worn out hole was then plugged in the field, but this was easier to do then tapping in a new vent or sending it back to the arsenal for them to tap out the barrel.
   From what I have read, the British are credited with coming up with the screw in primer with the logic being to stop the erosion of the vent. More costly to produce for sure, and a wrench had to be used to tighten it down, but it saved on the service life of the barrel

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Whitworth cannon friction primer?
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2015, 08:37:03 AM »
Pete,
   I have to presume they are both from the 1890s and that the 3.6 field gun is a rifle, U.S. not
Whitworth. I will try to find out more about it. However the original question on this post is wheather or not the primer is Whitworth or not and it is not.
Johnn

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Whitworth cannon friction primer?
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2015, 10:51:13 AM »
Pete, I believe this is the 3.6" mortar I referred to :
http://warmemorials.us/artillery/m1890_3.6in_oconto_falls.html
John

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Whitworth cannon friction primer?
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2015, 07:58:43 PM »
With my apologies but I have been corrected on my I.D. as follows Mr. Ralph Lovett says:
, it is German.  It fits the 15cm sFH 1893 and likely many others.  I have several of these:
 
http://lovettartillery.com/GER_Friction_Primer.htm
Kind Regards,
John

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: Whitworth cannon friction primer?
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2015, 10:14:06 PM »
  Thank you very much for all of that information, John. :)

  Also, thank-you to Dave for his contribution of knowledge on this subject.

  Apparently, screw-in artillery friction primers are strictly post-civil-war.

Regards,
Pete

Daveslem

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • Email
Re: Whitworth cannon friction primer?
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2015, 10:41:00 PM »
Good sleuthing, John.
Later,
Dave Slemmer

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Whitworth cannon friction primer?
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2015, 12:40:34 PM »
Thanks Dave but I can't take the credit.  I have several informed contacts.
Regards,
John

Steve Phillips

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • Email
Re: Whitworth cannon friction primer?
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2015, 08:30:25 PM »
This was in Tom Dickey's collection when he died. He didn't put a number on it so it is probably not from the War. I don't know what it is.

CarlS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
    • Email
Re: Whitworth cannon friction primer?
« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2015, 09:19:38 AM »
Perhaps the screw in type are more designed for use in underwater mines that require a watertight fit?
Best,
Carl