3 inch British rifling with three grooves;

[Lamar]

Going off on a tangent - there's an article on the CSS Stonewall (Abandoned Ship, by Mike Coppock) in the March/April 2013 issue of The History Channel Magazine. The only detailed reference to its firepower is "The Stonewall had a 300-pound Armstrong cannon in her forward turret and two 70-pound Armstrong cannons in her aft turret", she had "a few rifled British cannons along her sides...Gatling guns would be added later." The ship was sold to Japan in 1868.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

You can read about it at:

http://www.thehistorychannelclub.com/articles/articletype/articleview/articleid/1735/abandoned-ship

Regards,
John

[emike123]

John:

If you go on Jack Melton's website and search" Armstrong," then scroll down you will read the story of the battery of these guns that made it from England to Richmond just in time to participate in the retreat and be surrendered near Amelia Court House without apparently firing a round.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Mike,
you know I heard the same story about the bottle shaped lead covered Amstong shell.  I will read Jack's article.
John

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

To All,
   If I may return to my original question is there existing today in the U.S. a 3 inch 3 groove Armstrong rifled cannon?
Because these copper studded shells were aledgedly found with the Armstrong gun they were labeled Armstrong shells. These shells were invented  by the Arsenal for the woolwich gun and by Armstrong guns.  Remember we name shells by their inventor or patentee and not by their manufacturer.  Shells made at Elswick will bear the EOC on its ogive; those by the Arsenal will have the Royal Laboratory (RL) stamp on its base.
   Below is the quote from 1870 Treatise on Ammunition:

     “THE WOOLWICH SYSTEM.
The Woolwich system, so called, is nearly identical with one adopted Woolwich
by the French.' It owes its designation to the fact that some name of system.
general signification was thought desirable, and  " Woolwich " was chosen
on the precedent of the Enfold rifle, which was called after its place of
manufacture, and was not connected with the name of any individual.
This system embraces uniform and increasing twists; in both cases
the rifling is given by studs moving in three or more grooves.”

      I am really trying to learn if these shells were shot during our ACW  and to educate people on the correct name for the British copper/tin studded projectile.
Regards,
John

[joevann]

http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.php?topic=147546.0

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Joe, they are not even banded like an Armstrong gun.
John

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

To All,
  somehow I lost a post.  Would England continue testing the stud system after released for service use and foreign sales?  Read the below excerpt from the 1870 Treatise on Ammunition which shows they were still testing the stud after the ACW years end and after.

Testing of studs at Shoeburyness 1865 – 1867:

“I The superintendent (Shoeburyness) remarks that " on examination of the shells
" after being recovered, the front stud n as found in every instance to have been worn
" away on the driving side, showing that it had come into bearing." The same effect
was seen even when the front stud was " very much reduced in size." Vide Ordnance
Select Committee Extracts, vol. iii., p. 156, 5/6/65 and 7/6/65.
2 On experiment with front studs still further reduced in size. " On this occasion
" the reduction in the size of the front studs was effectual, those on the recovered
" shell showing no symptons of having touched the driving side of the groove. The
" practice is very nearly as good as that reported in June, and inclines the Committee
" to the conclusion that the use of those studs is to steady the shot in the bore and
" not to rotate then)." Vide Ordnance Select Committee Extracts, vol. iii., p. 256,
24, 7 i 65.
3 Fixed by a letter from Ordnance Select Committee to Superintendent Royal
Laboratory, dated 12/9,67.
1 In all the projectiles of the same calibre, the front and rear stud shall be placed (as
far as practicable) at one uniform distance from each other. Changes in War Stores
(new series) q 1518, 2110/67, 74/12/33-40.”

Please comment!
Regards,
John

[joevann]

Private manufacturers sold a lot of ordnance the British GOVERNMENT didn't adopt.  Blakeley?

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Yes and Whitworth.
      Armstrong and his politics won out over Blakely, Scott, Jeffery, Whitworth and others not mentioned,  foreced these manufacturers to sell to other countries. I have never understood how they were able to sell to the U.s., when Britian built ships for the south they were  forbidden to include any arms or crew.  The ships would sail to the Azores or Bermuda and have cannons, shot and shell loaded.  That being said, other dealers would secretly arm their ships.
   If you look at all the Treatise on Ammunition you barely see mention of these other arms manufacturers except during trials.  You will not find any shells or fuzes illustrated except those made by Sir Wm. Armstrong and or the Woolwich Arsenal.  So we as interested yanks only have two systems that were documented for us to study, the lead coated RBL and the RML copper studded shunt system copied  from the French by the Royal Laboratory at Woolwidh.
Best Regards,

John