Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum
Relic Discussion => Artillery => Topic started by: Aquachigger on August 26, 2013, 09:07:35 AM
-
I have a friend of a friend that recently found this shell in Port Hudson. Anyone care to educate me on this one? I can't find an exact match in the books.
-
That is a Sawyer without its lead coat or fuse
-
Rommack can discuss this better than me, but there is at least some possibility that the Confederates recovered this shell and cut the lead off to melt down for bullets. I've got a Sawyer shell from Port Hudson where about 40% of the lead was carved off - you can clearly see the hack marks from a knife or small hatchet. Your friend found a nice shell - congratulations to them
-
Hey Chigger,
Can you give us the shell diameter, length, fuze hole diameter and TPI? Thanks. John
-
Great find ! A high percentage of the 3.67" sawyers found at port hudson tore their sabots and damaged their fuse. Hardly any i have seen tore all the lead off. Also the fuse seems to be removed rather than ripped out upon impact. I think its more likely the Confederates salvaged the lead and removed the fuse. Lead was at a premium during the siege; the Johnny's were molding over two thousand bullets a day! So in a way you have a rare union shell and a great Confederate story .
-
Thanks guys. I don't have possession of the shell so can't take any measurements. I do appreciate the quick response!
-
Mike is probably correct with his I.D. but I have two thoughts:
1. the fuze hole looks to small for the 1.5 inch Sawyer combination Fuze.
2. the tapered tail closely resembles the Blakely, Preston made shell. I wonder if the shallow flanges can be found under all that rust?
Regards,
John
-
The fuse hole is for the iron post part of the fuse. The wafer shaped anvil cap went over and around it and screwed into the lead coating only. A "natural" cut-away of the fuse system is shown in this picture of a Sawyer shell from Port Hudson which was exposed after being fired.
-
Ah, okay, Jones page 33., the4 Percussion fuze. Is there a cut-away of that fuze any place? I had forgotten about it to tell you the truth. What is inside the brass fitting? John
-
Is this the same model? John
-
No one knows???? :'( John
-
It is the 3.67" version of this shell. See 1993 D&G page 296
-
Mike, was it a breech loader? It would appear dangerous to ram this one. John
-
Will someone post photos of the percussion fuse, top, side, bottom views? John
-
John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> Is this the same model? [image of a lead-coated Flanged Sawyer shell]
No. The Flanged Sawyer, which is the type in the image you posted, has axial iron flanges underneath the lead coating, which follows the shape of the flanges. The shell posted by Aquachigger is the non-flanged version of Sawyer.
Regards,
Pete
-
Good catch Pete, my bad.
John, its the shell on page 295 of 1993 D&G, not 296. I rushed to post the other because I did not want to get into a discussion of the different iron "posts" that support the two types of fuses (candlestick and brass percussion anvil cap). If you want to see the percussion fuse iron post and brass anvil cap, they can be found on page 33 in Chuck Jones' fuse book you cited. I do not know of anyone who has one cut in half so the picture I posted above is the best I'm afraid we have for now.
-
Thanks Pete. It actually has iron body ribs underneath all that lead? Is id a breech loader? John
-
Yes, the Flanged Sawyer shells have iron ribs underneath the thin jacket of lead. You can view a Flanged specimen missing its lead jacket in Harry Ridgeway's archive, here: http://www.relicman.com/artillery/zArchiveArt.Sawyer.00.htm
Scroll down to shell A2006.
All of Silvanus Sawyer's cannons were muzzleloaders.
Regards,
Pete
-
John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> Will someone post photos of the percussion fuse, top, side, bottom views?
In addition to the photos of the Sawyer Percussion fuze in Chuck Jones' book, you can view a blueprint-style "cutaway" diagram of that fuze, along with text explaining its construction and its functioning, on page 463 of the Dickey-&-George 1993 book ("Field Artillery Projectiles of the American Civil War, Revised & Supplemented 1993 Edition').
Regards,
Pete
-
No safety device on the fuze, looks dangerous for transport and handling. Unless of course, the wafer was installed right before loading.
Like John says, it would be dangerous ramming\ setting the shell down in a barrel. They must have had a specific rammer with a hole cut out for the fuze so no contact would be made, as I gather many other types of percussion and paper time fuze shells would require
-
Unless it was a breech loading shell. Thanks Pete. Was your drawing made from a blueprint? John
-
Here is a picture of the only surviving Sawyer gun, and as Pete said it is a muzzle loader. Its in a cemetery in Minnesota.
More info on the gun can be found through this link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=twcQGSi1F7QC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=sawyer's+cannon&source=bl&ots=4Ckx_CtwF0&sig=53RB_B-8OTlf-VTl0QK5TAIJe80&hl=en&ei=PcTmTaLiBMa1twf-5YjXCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=sawyer's%20cannon&f=false
-
Thanks Pete and Mike. Only one surviving Must have been a small amount in use.. John.
-
The larger caliber ones had a nasty habit of blowing up, 2 in the battle of Mobile Bay (after firing only a few rounds at Fort Powell) and another as noted in the linked book on the 11th shot at Petersburg.
Most of the known specimens in the field size come from Port Hudson, but I know some were used at Harper's Ferry too.
-
John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> Was your drawing made from a blueprint?
The D&G book's "cutaway" diagram of the Sawyer Percussion fuze was drawn by Tom Dickey's adult son (Tom Jr.) in 1980, with the informational details supplied by Tom Sr. The "original" source of the book's diagram (and information) was Sylvanus Sawyer's patent for the fuze and the shell, US Patent #13,799 (dated November 12, 1855). The D&G book's diagram differs slightly from the Patent's diagram of the fuze because we preferred to show the shape of the fuze that got mass-produced and used in combat -- which differs slightly from the Patent's diagram. For example, in the Patent the fuze's top is much more "domed" and also quite a bit thicker than the "Production Version" of the fuze, which is what was used in the battlefield-found shells.
To view the Patent's diagram of the fuze, go here:
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat13799.pdf
Regards,
Pete
-
Dave the plumber wrote:
> No safety device on the fuze, looks dangerous for transport and handling. [...]
> Like John says, it would be dangerous ramming\setting the shell down in a barrel.
> They must have had a specific rammer with a hole cut out for the fuze so no contact would be made [...]
I think the fuze's "safety device" was the thickness of the brass fuze's face. As shown in Emike's photo (below), the fuze's face was approximately 3/16"-thick brass. That is NOT thin, easily-dented sheetmetal. Considerable impact-force would be needed to crush the 3/16"-thick brass down onto the anvil-plug's wafer primer. Also, as the Patent diagram and D&G book's diagram show, there was a space between the iron anvil-plug and fuze's brass top -- it did not fit "flush" against the plug and primer. Major (and "straight down") impact was needed for crushing the 3/16th-thick brass fuze-top inward to strike the anvil-plug. I do not think the cannon's rammer (which was WOOD-tipped) was capable of that much force. Nor, even dropping the fuzed shell on the ground.
I've owned several Sawyer Percussion fuzecaps, and you can tell from handling one that you'd need a harsh "straight-on" strike from a steel hammer to crush it downward enough to contact the iron anvil-post. I doubt the cannon's wood-tipped rammer could do that. Note, the reason that the 3/16"-thick brass fuzecap in Emike's photo is in contact with the iron anvil-post is because it is a fired. impacted shell.
Regards,
Pete
-
Pete, I would be more concerned with the brass cap stripping out the lead walls of the sabot than of the cap smashing inwards. Regards, John
-
Pete, I bet they put "the new guy" on the gun crew on the rammer anyway !! [ Okay, take this here rammer and pound down the barrel on that there piercussin' fuze way down yonder!!]
And I bet all that lead probably sealed any lands and grooves and caused considerable pressure buildup and blew the barrels..........
-
Yes, and I wonder how many got stuck in the rifling as it was rammed home. John
-
There is generally a reason shells are rare. The manufacturer is most likely to be willing to make and sell the government as many as they are willing to buy. Since it's rarely used you have to figure there weren't more purchased due to it being ineffective or some government black balling that kept Mr. Sawyer from getting more sales. I would guess the former since as has been pointed out here the shell was likely not easy to load in the heat of battle and I've seen references that the lead casing absorbed the blast and lessened the shrapnel effect (which makes sense).
-
When I look at the base of this ribbed Sawyer I do not see any iron ribs beneath the lead ribs. Anyone else?
Regards,
John
(http://i1069.photobucket.com/albums/u465/jbart2/A2435E_zpsdfbaebef.jpg) (http://s1069.photobucket.com/user/jbart2/media/A2435E_zpsdfbaebef.jpg.html)
-
When the shell version of Sawyer projectile was manufactured, the lead jacket covered the shell's iron body completely. So, it's normal to not be able to see any iron on an unfired Sawyer shell. The iron is only visible when the lead jacket got torn off by the shell's impact into the ground, or somebody cut it off.
I specified "shell version" in the above statement because the curved top of the Bolt version of Sawyer was not covered by the lead jacket.
Regards,
Pete
-
Dear Pete,
I am looking at the iron base, looking between the ribs the lead jacket clearly touches the shell sides., so does the lead ribs. I wonder why I can't see the bottom of the iron rib as well as the iron shell base?
Regards,
John
-
The photo you posted is the bottom of the shell's lead jacket, which covered the ENTIRE shell-body, including every part of the iron flanges/ribs and shell-base. The weight-markings on the 4.2"-caliber shell Sawyer in the photo are stamped into the lead jacket's bottom.
The photo below shows the bottom of a 5"-caliber Flanged Sawyer shell, with part of the lead jacket torn off the base, revealing the iron shell-body under the lead jacket. Note that where the lead jacket is not torn off, the flanges/ribs are entirely hidden by the lead. If this photo isn't large enough for you to see clearly, you can view it in the Ridgeway Archive's photos of the 5"-caliber Flanged Sawyer (shell #A2524) at the following link (click on the photos there to see an enlarged version): http://www.relicman.com/artillery/zArchiveArt.Sawyer.00.htm
Regards,
Pete
-
I have a Sawyer shell that has the entire lead covering stripped off and it has all of it's iron ribs intact.
-
Dear Pete,
Yes I can see the iron rib now. So you think my posted example also has the lead covering the base? John
-
John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> So you think my posted example also has the lead covering the base?
Yes. In my previous reply, I said "The photo you posted is the bottom of the shell's lead jacket, which covered the ENTIRE shell-body, including every part of the iron flanges/ribs and shell-base."
Regards,
Pete
-
For further support regarding the lead on the bottom discussion, you can clearly see the layer of lead across the bottom of this flanged Sawyer shell base fragment in the first and second images of:
http://www.bulletandshell.com/Items/item.php?id=F00012
You can also make out the iron portion of the rib in the bottom image as the lead was stripped away on detonation from the side. Only the lead on the bottom is present on this cool frag. For those interested, this frag is on our sales site and an incredibly good priced fragment from Port Hudson which could be yours! ;D
-
here's the same type Sawyer shell, also from Port Hudson, as Aquachigger originally posted. You can clearly see the hack marks down the side of the lead, and with shell in hand, it is clear some of the lead was cut/peeled from the base and lower third of the shell. The Confederate defenders of Port Hudson were doing everything they could to keep bullets in their cartridge pouches, and this shell is evidence to that effect
-
John, there is little doubt that you are looking at a lead covering on the base of the shell in your photograph. Iron just doesn't scratch, dent, and stamp that easy.
-
Yep...