3.67 Inch Read Shell, blind

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

To All,
    I have always known this blind shell as a Read as I picked up a sample from Fort Monroe in the 60s.  Doesn't it have the approximately the same principle as James?  Any comments or good quality images would be nice to post on this thread.  Thank you.
Regards,
John

[jonpatterson]

John,

Attached are photos of both the 3.67" Read Experimental Blind Shell (D&G page 277) and its bigger brother the 5.82" Read Experimental Blind Shell (Jack Bell, page 340). I take no credit for the photos, they are from Harry Ridgeway's listing of the shells when I purchased them.

Yes, I believe their design is related to James' designs. Both the Reads and James’ work (or not) on the premise that the pressure created by the firing of the cannon will be sufficient to force a thin sheet sabot wrapped around the shells into the rifling. I think the holes in the 3.67" and the slots in the 5.82" were too small to allow enough pressure in to expand the sabot as needed.

For those wishing to join the ELITE group of us owners of a Read Experimental Shell, Master Collector Mike has one of the 3.67" shells for sale on the retail side of the website. This commercial was offered without consideration or payment from Mike.   

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Great images Jon, thatnks for your comments.  I never even considered that the slots in the James would be too small, interesting thought. Come on guys, lets make this a long and interesting post.

[jonpatterson]

John,

I meant the slots (around the base perimeter) of the 5.82" Experimental Read being too small. I think James figured it out and added the birdcage etc. to make sure there was plenty of room for the pressure to enter to expand the sabot.  Just my thoughts.

Jon

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thank you, I caught my error in your email.
Regards,
John

[CarlS]

The odd thing about the 5.82-inch Read is it appears to be cast with splines to take the grooves of the cannon (like a Delafield or the lead sabotted Dyer on the other thread) so the vents wouldn't really be to help the gun take the rifling.  They appear to me to aid in closing out the windage to ensure maximum seal as they are located in the areas that would be between the cannons grooves.  Would that be accurate?

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Are they pre-engraved ribs or has it been fired and those are rifling marks?  I can't see it that well.
Kind Regards,
John

[Pete George]

 To my eyes, the 5.82" Read's splines/flanges are parallel with the projectile's axis, not slanted. So it would seem that they have nothing to do with rifling.

Respectfully,
Pete

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Bearing surfaces then?
John

[CarlS]

Does appear that way Pete.  I agree.  In which case the thin metal would really have to expand outward a long way to take any rifling as they would have to expand outward past the bearing surfaces.  I would think the metal would tear before it went that far.  And as John said the slits appear way too small to allow enough volume in to expand the metal.  Brooke seems to have address that issue with his so called "Milled Base" projectile:
    http://civilwarartillery.com/hap/page93.htm
Plenty of surface area to push the thin wrought iron outward.

Neat shells Jon.  Thanks for sharing.  I've always seen these in the book but not given the their due attention to understand them.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

To All,
    Will everyone tell where their specimen came from and perhaps we can arrow down if they ever went into service?
Mine came from Fort Monroe from a mid 60s cache that was discovered during some electrical work buried under a CONAC building.  They were turned over to the Yorktown EOD team who may have checked them and turned them over to the Fort's museum.  I email to Jon that the cache was destroyed but after further though I don't believe they were as they were inert.
   The patent date is 1857 so perhaps they were sent to Fort Monroe for testing and failed and were buried along with Hotchkiss, Schenkl, Parrott, Dalhgren, Brook and several of this Read blind shell.
Kind Regards,
John

[CarlS]

The one in Jack Bell's book is also listed as from Fort Monroe so perhaps that is the only source.  Neat history.

[jonpatterson]

Pardon my absence from the conversation. 
To answer questions or confirm observations made:
Carl:   The splines/flanges are more like embossed than pre-engraved as they are of minimal difference in height to the remainder of the shell’s sabot. The shell is unfired.
Pete: You are correct the splines/flanges are parallel with the projectile’s axis. Or as I would have said, perpendicular to the base.
The air vents/slits are approximately .3” by 1.4” The sabot metal is very thin, but has been coated and thus not sure of its actual thickness. The thinnest measurement I got was .07”.
The shell I have is the one from Jack Bell’s book and is listed as the only one known.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

I had one of the 3.6 inch blind shells and is shown is the misc. section, page 127 and the radiograph on page 128 of my book.
Regards,
John

[jonpatterson]

Here are a couple pictures showing the base vents and a side view of the flanges.  No, I don't have psychedelic backdrops for my photos, some got that way when I was playing with the contrast so the vents would show better.