Projectile Question

[callicles]

About a year or so ago I found a 3.8 inch James Cannister Iron Base which is pictured below.  My question is whether or not the two other pictures represent components of that weapon. All these items were found in the same location.

1. The case shot pictured may be representative of any number of other case shot.  However, I'm thinking it could be from that 3.8 inch weapon. Any thoughts?

2. In the 4th picture, I post large segments of lead.  They appear to have matrix embedded within them.  I don't think it is sabot, but I could be wrong.  Again, could these be components of the Iron Base projectile?


Thanks so much

[CarlS]

Really rare find there.  Congratulations.

Regarding the lead balls, I am not sure.  I looked in the books and didn't find an reference to the size of the canister shot.  I found a James canister base a bunch of years ago and found lead balls about 1 inch in size in the same general area which I always assumed came from that canister base.  But I don't know for sure.

The pieces at the bottom could be parts from the sabot.  Do they look like they are the right height to fit betwen the lips at the top and bottom around the ribs?  I found one piece of tin faced lead in the same general area that looked similar that fits my base fine and I always presumed was from that.

[emike123]

According to Canister Guru, Dave Gotter, who sometimes shows his face here, the proper balls for the James canister are the same size as those for 6pdr canister  --    1.14-1.17" in diameter.  He and I are using iron balls in our reconstructed James canisters which are the kinds of balls shown in the photo of a complete one of these on civilwarartillery.com and in reference books.  He actually had a rare, original top plate too, but I don't have one of those.

James sabot sections I have seen from fired rounds are thin lead and trapezoidal in shape.  As Carl said, they fit over sections of the birdcage part, slanted to follow the ribs.

That is a spectacular recovery.  There are very few of them and at least two have been recovered by forum members and another two are owned by forum members.  Maybe one or two other forum members have one, but there probably aren't many more out there.

[callicles]

Thanks emike and CW.

1. As regards the last picture (4th picture), what I meant to ask was whether the lead items could have come from the lead can which sat atop the base.  There is matrix (or what appears to be matrix) trapped on the insides of the lead.  Would sabot from around the birdcage contain this "matrix?"

2. I post below, as well, another lead item I found in the same area as the other pictures above.  I'm about 95% sure it is a part of the lead can, particularly the base section.  An "S" and an "E" is visible through the plow marks.  I'm assuming they represent the word "BASE."  It is because of this find, combined with the find of the lead with matrix, that I think most all the lead items might be from the can or from inside the can.

Any further thoughts would be appreciated.  Again, thanks.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Can you post a side view of this item.  It might help.
John

[CarlS]

You can find a ton of infomration on Jack Melton's wonderful website CivilWarArtillery.com.  I highly recommend any artillery interested person spend some time looking around that site.  There is a ton of infomation there and for a basic reference it replaces the need for a book.  There are lots of Jack's great photographs as well.  This is the site we often see Pete reference for shot tables.

Specific to your question on the lead base, you'll find that this is a Wiard canister base.  An example is shown at:
      http://www.civilwarartillery.com/projectiles/canister/FAOIIIA19.htm
Note in the descripition they come in a few sizes.  There aren't too common in my experience.  Yours looks lke it was right at the bottom of the farmers disc.  Fortunately it didn't cut it in half.

[CanisterD]

Hi Callicles ... got a heads up from Mike Ward on this topic .... looking at your ruler and the shot beside it, the shot look smaller than 1.15" ( the 'normal' size for 6pdr or 3.8 James ) they could be case shot balls, or they could be canister shot for your other base ... I agree the lettering on the base represents the word "BASE" , but is there a second set of letters / numbers? (under the word base ?)  if it were a James diametered projectile, your base will read "BASE", the second 'set' will be "3.8" . There were also some canisters for the rifled 6pdr, they are about 3.5" dia and the word base appears on it, but no diameter size (as in 3.6")  I think the lead shots you are showing are probably canister balls from the Lead sabot round, not the James round.  If you can get an accurate (as possible) measurement of the shot,  they will be smaller than 1" for your lead based canister, or just over 1" for your James.  I am pretty certain the lead sheet material with matrix attached was the remnants of the lead canister round ( likely Wiard )  If they are James 'canister' sabot fragments, you should be able to see the imprint of the ribs from the iron base section, and these WILL NOT be slanted or trapezoidal, as the birdcage openings on the canister base are vertical, not slanted like most typical James rounds.  None of 'us' know it all, but the more we see and handle, the more we learn, and canister has been my obsession for about 25 years.  If you have access to Jack Meltons book, check page 66, or Pete Georges second issue book, pages 65 / 66 If you want to email me, feel free, Mike can get you in touch with me.  Regards, ( and CONGRATULATIONS !!!!!! on that find ... I'd give Mikes left arm for it )  Dave Gotter   

[callicles]

Thanks to all who have provided answers. 

Does anyone remember another picture of a 3.8 inch. James Canister Iron Base on Jack Melton's site?  When I first found this item a couple of years ago, the one picture on his site was of a dropped 3.8 inch complete with the base, lead can and lead case-shot inside.  He stated that it was recovered from Shiloh and the base simply had "BASE" on it.  Am I dreaming, or did he remove the picture?

Thanks CW for directing me there.  I will be just as happy if it is a Wiard!  Thanks, too, CanisterD.  Unfortunately, the base is too damaged to see anything other than "S" and "E". I post below more pictures with better measurements of both the lead base and the iron base, along with a side view per Mr. Bartleson's request.   

[emike123]

Picture is still there on Jack's website.  I was looking at it this am when I modified my above post about the iron balls in these rounds

[CanisterD]

I have handled one 3.8" James canister, museum quality, with the original canvas wrap, and the factory label on the canvas.  Looking at your pictures, both canister bases appear to be about the same size, appx 3 5/8", which translates to 3.625". If you consider that the 3.6" Wiard canister for the rifled 6pdr would be about 3.6" after being fired, and the iron base for the 3.8" would have lead around the birdcage, then canvas over the lead, it too will measure about 3.6" ( prior to being wrapped with all that other stuff ) So it is an educated guess that your lead base is a Wiard canister for the rifled 6, and it will not be marked with a bore diameter, and the iron base is for the 3.8" James.   Dave G

[callicles]

I think I know where some of the confusion is coming from -- at least from my confusion.  When I first found the iron base, lead case-shot, slithers of lead, I identified the item, not from Melton's site, but from this one (the pictures are the very first pictures on the page:

http://www.relicman.com/artillery/zArchiveArt.James.00.htm


I hope y'all take a peak.  As you will see, the can is lead, and it contains lead balls.  Moreover, the lead base just has "BASE" written on it, not with any additional letters or numbers. I know nothing about this site but recognize now that this is a pieced-together artifactl.  But now that ya'll know where I was coming from, I'd like to get y'all's thoughts.

[CanisterD]

I woulda thought Harry R would have known better when he listed that one. It is indeed a James canister base, with a 3.6" Wiard lead canister sitting on top of it.  That's how misinformation spreads like wildfire.  I don't know if all Wiards had plaster as a matrix ... the unfired 2.6" I was able to examine was missing its top plate, and the shot inside were 'plastered' in place.  But I don't think James ever issued a canister with a lead can, filled with lead, sitting on top of an iron bottom.  The one in Meltons book, shows the 'tin can' rusting/splitting open, and iron balls showing through the cracks in the side of the can ... lead wouldn't split like that, so it makes that 'made up' one really bogus.  Plus the iron bottom serves as the sabot plate for the James canister ... no need for an additional bottom on the stack of canister balls, and certainly no need to mark the bottom "BASE" if it's sitting on top of the iron section ... no one could read the word Base and insert it properly ... the more you look at it, the sillier it looks.  I have a 3.6" fired base with 15 really nice grooves in it from a 6pdr rifled in the James pattern.  Took me a long time to find enough fired 1.1" shot to build up the base plate appropriately, plus a fired top plate to fit.

[knack4iron]

Interesting piece. Looks like a James HotShot base but without the concave top. The Hotshots are very rare and would you believe I found 2 in a creek bed on top of the ground in Vicksburg MS back in the 80's and haven't seen any since then. 1 i sold the other was stolen by my "ex" partner at that time. They heat up 6lb solids red hot, shove in a powder bag, slide in the hotshot base as a spacer to keep it off the bag the roll in the red hot 6lb. It'd start fires behind the lines.

Yours looks flat in the pics. Unless the lip around the top was broke off then modified in the field to fire a cannister round in that gun. I've never seen anything like it besides the Hotshot Base for James rifles. maybe Pete will chime in on it. But either way its a rare as hensteeth piece. Wish I still had mine.

[callicles]

Thanks to everyone who responded.  I hope that now y'all see how I was confused.  From now on, I'll stick to Melton's site and D&G's book. 

It's good to know that I have a Wiard lead base.  I now can't wait to start learning as much as I can about the thing. CanisterD, when we talk about a Wiard lead canister, does that mean only a Wiard cannon could fire it?  or could any 6 pdr have fired it?


It's also good to know I have access to this site with all the accumulated knowledge.  Again, thanks for the education!

[CanisterD]

So far as I know only Wiard manufactured a 2.6" bore gun. so any ammo in the 2.6" category could be considered Wiard ammo. 'He' also made 3.4", 3.5", 3.62", and 4.62" guns, so the 'common' calibers ( 3.6" and 4.6" ) could use ammo from other guns if needed.  The 3.4" and 3.5" were boat howitzers, and the ammunition for them probably had to be made to order.  If you have access to "Artillery and Ammunition of the Civil War" , by Warren Ripley, it is a wealth of information on cannons, accessories, and ammunition.  It is not the 'beat all' of the info books, you need 8-9-10 of them to get a better cross section of what everyone knows or thinks he knows.  But I never tire of reading Ripleys' book.  Some little tidbit pops out of a page that I didn't remember from before.  There is a 'second' edition that has been updated to correct some of the earlier confusion on artillery or ammo, if you can get it, that one is the better choice.  Ebay or Amazon might have a copy available.  To answer your question, in the 6pdr  ( 3.6" category ) it could have been fired from a 6pdr smoothbore ( does your sabot show rifling marks? ) or a rifled 6pdr .. there were several variants of rifling patterns, would give you a clue as to what rifle fired it.  So calling it a Wiard canister identifies it by the manufacturer design, not the gun that shot it ... that's a new research topic.       Dave G