Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum
Relic Discussion => Artillery => Topic started by: swest47 on March 14, 2012, 04:32:16 PM
-
http://www.mytreasurespot.com/main/read.php?3,528715,528766#msg-528766 (http://www.mytreasurespot.com/main/read.php?3,528715,528766#msg-528766)
http://www.mytreasurespot.com/main/read.php?3,528908,528908#msg-528908 (http://www.mytreasurespot.com/main/read.php?3,528908,528908#msg-528908)
Let me know if I've breached some etiquette thing.
-
No etiquette breach, Scott. Thanks for posting. That second one he found is a rare type. I have 10 different ones and don't yet have that one. If you see him up in VA, tell him I want it!
Hope all is well. It was nice seeing you. Did you get the write up I sent you with the picture of the Double Bridges site?
-
I don't have that one, either. Also interested. But who can outbid Mike? :)
-
not me, I can't even afford the one he has for sale right now:(
could I please ask questions, since neither looks like my archer
the second one (Mike said rarer) looks to have no grooves, and is just a tapered tail?
Is it my imagination, but the 1st one doesn't look tappered at all, but has grooves. Is it just the picture that makes the tail look all the same diameter?
-
The one with the grooves is the rarer type. It was the second one he found. It would have had a lead ring sabot over the iron grooves, but that was removed, likely during firing
-
I'll talk to him and see if he's interested and what his price might be.
-
Emike wrote:
> The one with the grooves is the rarer type.
Well, yes, it is a scarce variety, but it is not an ultra-rare type like a Tie-Ring Archer. It is a 3.3-inch "Shiloh" Long-Sabot Archer which is missing its sabot. I mention that only because I'm surprised to hear you do not already own one. By the way, most specimens of that type have been found with the sabot still on them.
Swest47, please ask the digger if he found it in the Shiloh area, or some other area.
Regards,
Pete
-
Nice catch, Pete. I do own a nice one with the sabot. I defer dibs to Scott.
(http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff458/emike123/33inchShilohArcherBolt.jpg)
Is the other one a 3.67" "prototype" pattern? I have one of them in both 3.3 and 3" In fact a 3" prototype is for sale on the commercial part of this site.
-
The "other one" appears to have a Bolt's pointed nose. That would exclude it from being a 3.67" Archer, all the currently-known specimens of which are shells, not solids.
The digger made no mention of its size or weight. Also, because it is so dirt-encrusted, I cannot be certain about any of its body-details except its general outline/profile. But, because it seems to have been found near the sabotless 3.3-inch "Shiloh Archer" Bolt, it is probably a 3.3-inch Archer Prototype.
Note: I've modified my original post to correct a major typo - I meant to say "cannot be" but I typed "can."
Regards,
Pete
-
Right, 3.3" not 3.67". If it is a 3.3" Prototype Archer bolt, I think they are harder to come by than the Shiloh variety
-
Post from Scott (that was causing the troubles with our server, by the way. Scott, do we need to warn you again about practicing safe computing from wherever you are in the world?)
Sorry, I guess I have one, too. Only mine is not nice and new like Mike's. Mine is previously owned. Someone used mine at Shiloh and the sabot is all lumpy and its got lines running on it. I guess I should try to grind them off.
I guess you win this one, Mike.
Scott
-
Yours is battlefield used. I remember when you got it and it was also about 2/3rds the cost of mine.
I know that a couple of these guns were overrun at Shiloh. I think there were four, two in the Washington Artillery and two in something like Watson's Flying Artillery (also of Louisiana and excuse me if I got the name slightly wrong, but I am running from memory). I have always wondered if the unfired ones with the sabots were tossed on the ground as part of temporarily losing the tubes.
-
Mike,
What makes it a prototype?
John
-
There is commentary on this in D&G on page 73 and 74. That style is found at early war sites like Shiloh as Pete queries above.
It is an ineffective design from an aerodynamic perspective. Later ones are a little better but still sucky. Thats a technical term, but I am still on semi sabbatical ;-)
-
I am posting from Atlanta. Sorry about the problems. I could not post of a pic of my previously owned Archer.
-
Mike,
So it is an early model that just didn't work out. The reason I asked about the term prototype is I think of prototype as a pre-production model that is still in the testing stage, then if proved satisfactory, placed into full production or back to the drawing boards.
Do you think it was rushed into production without the testing stage? Surely it would have proved unsat rather than finding this out on the battlefield...
Regards,
John
-
It was absolutely rushed into production. There is a book you should get, John, called From Under Iron Eyelids, the Biography of Henry James Burton. Thomas K. Tate is the author.
On pages 367-374 is a letter he wrote that includes a drawing of this projectile. The letter is dated Dec. 16, 1860. That doesn't leave a lot of time to get them out the door. Burton was proposing this projectile design in it and so this type should be called a Burton/Archer by the way.
-
Scott: Try using Photobucket to post it. I'd have you eMail me it, but I am afraid I might catch something from you :D
I am using Photobucket to post this picture of some different Archer bolts.
(http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff458/emike123/DSCN0328.jpg)
-
OK, but my computer is completely clean. There are no risks of viruses - not sure why my system seems to have trouble with the site's software.
-
Its working now obviously but no attachment in your last post.
I had at one time blocked registration from some of the God forsaken places you travel to because a lot of spammer IP addresses come out of there. Last time you had troubles I think you were in the Middle East. I'll check the available memory for posting as that gets maxed out periodically which is why I try to go the Photobucket (eg, Free) route more often than not.
-
Mike,
I have read the book you proposed. It certainly looks like Archer stole Burton's design, just replace the wood sabot with lead.
Regards,
John
-
No stealing -- if you read Chapter 10, you will see they had a partnership agreement, hence why some feel these should be called Burton/Archer.
-
John Biemick will present the Archer/Burton in his book.
John
-
Yes, I referred Col. Biemick to this book on Burton published in 2006 after Jack Melton referenced the book on Burton to me. Its a good book covering lots of other stuff including the initial Minie ball trials at Harper's Ferry. I recommend it highly.
-
Personally I'm not sure I'd want my name on the Archer shell if I was Mr. Burton. They are so small that they had to be one of the least effective bolts and shells in that caliber. Probably why they weren't used more. One advantage might be that you could put more of them in the same size caisson than Reads, for example, and they might use less powder with them. But as a collector I like them a lot and used to have a decent collection of them.
-
Thanks for posting the pic Mike. You can look at the book pages, but its alot different and easier to see the differences in the types when they are all lined up. Do you ever get complaints from the wife about dusting your collections:) I have to dust all mine. They just don't understand.
-
Mike,
Do you think any were made with wooden sabots in the early days of the war at Manassas?
John
-
I have seen a mint non dug one with a round wooden sabot with a hole in its center that went around the base knob on an Archer and beneath the lead driving band so that particular one (a forum member has it and its up to him if he chooses to post it) has both a lead and a wood sabot. Its very cool.
-
Mike,
Most have probalby rotted away by now. Burton's disign called for a wooden sabot.
John
-
Hi Pete,
Sorry, it took so long. We were both attending DIV (Diggin in Virginia) and have been out of pocket for over a week.
Brant was kind enough to say they were both found North of Shiloh on property owned by Santana Dredging. He listed the following info
The 2 groove diameter is 2.94", length is 5~11/16" and weights 5 lb 15 oz.
The 3 groove diameter is 3.22", length is 6 1/2" and weights 8 lb 14 oz.
Cheers, Scott
-
In the interest of adding to our knowledge I would encourage the member who owns this mint Archer with a wooden sabot to post side, base and nose views. and if the sabot is removable, to post photos of it to show inside and base images.
Thank you.
John aka Bart
-
"Seige Artillery in the Campaigns Against Richmond" by Bvt Brig. Gen H. L. Abbot:Pg. 104:"The lead in some instances (Fig 67 Plate VI)must have been attached w/ zinc solder by the Britten invention". Plate VI fig 76, shows a sabotless Archer Bolt,which was listed as a 3Pdr. Wt 8 Lbs. Other than these 19 -20 words,nothing further said or shown ref. Archer Projectiles.Most of the projectls shown in Abbot's,were recovered between Aug 1864 & Apl 1865 in and around the Richmond /Petersburg area,and with a few shown from Ft Fisher N.C.where Abbot temp. seved with A.H. Terry in operations against Ft Fisher By this time the Archer had in all probability been phased out in C. S . service.
Jack
-
Jack,
Thank you for the information on Archer from the "Seige of Richmond"
Regards,
John