Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum

Author Topic: Flock of Dahlgrens  (Read 11638 times)

redbob

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
    • Email
Re: Flock of Dahlgrens
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2014, 06:17:41 PM »
I don't know about a CS 4" Dahlgren, but I have a US 4"Dahlgren shell.

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Flock of Dahlgrens
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2014, 07:17:25 PM »
Thanks Redbob, would you post a sharp image of it?
Regards,
John

CarlS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
    • Email
Re: Flock of Dahlgrens
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2014, 08:01:21 PM »
In the 1993 Dickey and George book I only see the CS Dahlgren in the 3.25-inch and 6.4-inch calibers.
Best,
Carl

emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
Re: Flock of Dahlgrens
« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2014, 07:36:43 PM »
Sorry, John.  I was out of the country and just got home.  Here are a couple base shots of the 6.4in Dahlgren.  I hope they suffice.

emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
Re: Flock of Dahlgrens
« Reply #19 on: October 24, 2014, 07:37:22 PM »
Straight on base shot:

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Flock of Dahlgrens
« Reply #20 on: October 24, 2014, 07:49:30 PM »
Mike,
  Beautgiful projectile. U.S. or C.S. so that is the top shell in your first post.
    How doesw one tell a U.s. from a C.S. bolt?
Regards,
John
Below is his patent drawing, note the straight ribs.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 07:56:24 PM by John D. Bartleson Jr. »

emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
Re: Flock of Dahlgrens
« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2014, 08:08:18 PM »
Yes it is the top one and CS.  See Carl's comments above for reasons why it is CS.

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Flock of Dahlgrens
« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2014, 08:31:24 PM »
Mike,
  If it is a C.S. Watercap then that appears to make it C.S.
My question was how to tell two bolts from each other. I never looked at the ribs being straight or slightly angled as a means to tell U.s. from C.s.  l
   Now, humor me as I ask another question.  If the angled bearing ribs and the sabot were the same diameter  and rammed down a smoothbore of equal diameter, when fired as a bolt would the angled ribs cause a slight rotation to the bolt? Any thoughts?
John
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 09:21:41 PM by John D. Bartleson Jr. »

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Flock of Dahlgrens
« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2014, 11:38:40 PM »
Mike, see previous post.
Could this be your 6.4 shell?
John

CarlS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
    • Email
Re: Flock of Dahlgrens
« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2014, 11:57:43 PM »
John,

There was one other thing I neglected to add to indicate CS which you cannot tell from the images unless some close-ups were provided but even then it would be hard to tell.  That is how crude the finish of the shell is.  Without doubt nearly all US shells have good finished lines that are crisp.  With CS, not so much.  This big Dahlgren is much cruder than its US counterpart.

I am not aware of any CS Dahlgren bolts of any caliber.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 11:59:24 PM by CarlS »
Best,
Carl

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Flock of Dahlgrens
« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2014, 10:36:21 AM »
Thanks Carl,
    You would have thought the C.s. would have made bolts for counter battery fire.
    No comment about my last question?
John

CarlS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
    • Email
Re: Flock of Dahlgrens
« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2014, 10:43:53 AM »
John,

That would only be a guess on my part and I think many others as well.  The physics are probably pretty complicated.  My guess is the ribs aren't raised enough to impart much if any rotation in flight.  The angle of the ribs is rather small which also minimizes the amount of rotational force they would provide.  So I think all in all there is very little to no effect.  Assuming the sabot stayed attached, the shell is very tail heavy and I would also think it would need to have a very good rotation rate to not tumble.

I think the angling of the ribs allows them to be less impactful to the lands-n-grooves of the bore.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2014, 11:25:52 AM by CarlS »
Best,
Carl

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Flock of Dahlgrens
« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2014, 11:05:56 AM »
No other thoughts on this one?
John

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Flock of Dahlgrens
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2014, 11:43:55 AM »
Carl,
   I was not attempting to trap you, honestly, I just read this from Dahlgren's patent description:
   "The body of the projectile when intended
to be used as a shot, may be made solid or
hollow. When intended to be used as a
shell, it must be made hollow, filled with
gunpowder or other suitable explosive material,
and fitted with a fuse in the usual
manner. In Fig. 2 a hollow projectile is
represented which may be used either as a
shot or shell.
     The body of the projectile may be divided
35 into three parts, viz :—The middle which is
cylindrical,—the fore end which is conical,—
and the rear end, which may also be conical,
but I prefer to make it hemispherical. The
rear end of the body is made with protu-
40 berances (a' Fig. 3,) so shaped that when
the bottom is cast on the body, these protuberances
will be embedded therein and thereby
unite the two firmly together. The middle
of the body is cast with a series of ribs
45 a, projecting about one tenth (.10 in.) of an
inch from its surface. These ribs are to be
turned to a diameter two hundredths of an
inch (.02 in.) less than that of the bore of
the gun. The width of these ribs is about
50 eight hundredths (.08) of the circumference
of the projectile. These ribs I prefer to incline
to the axis of the projectile like the
threads of a screw, and to make their. inclination
to correspond in degree and di-
55 rection with the rifle grooves of the bore of
the gun out of which the projectile is to be
fired. The object of these ribs is: First,
to diminish the bearing surface of the projectile
. against the bore of the gun. Secondly,
by their oblique action against the air Co
during the flight of the projectile from the
gun, to assist in steadying it and in keeping
rt from deviating from the direction in
which the gun is aimed."
   Of course this applies to a RML and not to a smoothbore.
John

CarlS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
    • Email
Re: Flock of Dahlgrens
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2014, 01:35:24 PM »
John,

That makes sense actually regarding what the patent says about the ribs being angled and not something I considered.  On a shell that was rotating, the ribs would certainly produce less drag if the only air resistance was from the leading edge of the rib and the side edges were cutting the air with the angle of rotation thus contributing little drag.  Of course someone would need to measure this efficiency to see if the savings were worth the effort or this was just good patent fodder to help get it approved and get a government contract.
Best,
Carl