Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum

Author Topic: New picture of two uncommon shells  (Read 18629 times)

CarlS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
    • Email
Re: New picture of two uncommon shells
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2012, 11:07:48 PM »
Ok; here is the rectangular post version of the Blakely sabot.  Note is doesn't have the Blakely stamping.   The stamping on the ones I've seen are on the surface shown in the image named Blakely_Rect_Post_Sabot_04.jpg and up close to the post.   Note that this sabot is for a 3.67-inch diameter shell.

Note that you can also see a picture of this type and the square type on page 96 of the 1993 Edition of the Dickey and George book.  The square post type must be quite uncommon.  I don't recall having ever seen one.

« Last Edit: February 10, 2012, 11:12:14 PM by CWArtillery »
Best,
Carl

CarlS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
    • Email
Re: New picture of two uncommon shells
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2012, 11:11:29 PM »
This is the clover leaf type mentioned in earlier posts and drawn by John.  This is also for a 3.67-inch diameter shell.  Also note that there are 3 flame grooves that are filed equal distant apart into the edge to allow the flame to more easily pass and light the fuse.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2012, 11:14:46 PM by CWArtillery »
Best,
Carl

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: New picture of two uncommon shells
« Reply #17 on: February 11, 2012, 12:37:58 AM »
  Sometime around 5 PM today, I had typed most of the following reply, but I pushed the wrong button and it vanished.  Then I had to go out to an appointment.  I'll now reconstruct it as best I can ...even though Mike and Carl's newly-posted photos visually show what I was trying to verbally describe in my reply.

John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> I always thought that the Blakely Type II sabot had three raised ribs running at an
> angle for most of the length of the shell.

  No... the projectile you are describing is a Flanged Blakely -- which has no sabot at all.  The raised ribs (flanges) on it fit into the bore's rifling grooves, with no need for expansion of any part of the projectile.

> So this is not a regular C.S. Read with a distorted sabot?

  Definitely not a regular CS Read with a distorted sabot.  The typical Read sabot is a ring-sabot.  As the CS Blakely Plate Type 2 sabot's name indicates, it is a 1-piece solid cast plate-sabot, made of copper.  Its top, except for the angular post at its center, is perfectly flat, and it fitted perfectly flush with the projectile's flat iron base even before firing (unlike a "disc" sabot such as the Selma Cloverleaf sabot).  Unlike Read's ring-sabot, the CS Blakely Plate sabot covers the entire iron bottom of the projectile's main body.  In that respect, it is similar to a typical Brooke plate-sabot.

  In a previous post I pointed you to photos of CS Blakely Plate sabots in my book, and in Jack bell's book.  Because you apparently do not own a copy of either of those books, my "vanished" post included a request to Emike, asking him to post photos of "naked" CS Blakely Plate Type 2 sabots in his sabot-collection.  Emike and Carl, thank you for posting the photos without seeing my request.

  As you see in the photos, the CS Blakely Plate Type 2 sabot's flat top has an integrally-cast angular post at its center.  The angular post is what "locks" the sabot onto the shell's iron base to prevent slippage when the sabot engages the cannon's rifling ...thereby matching the description in Blakely's patent.

  When present, the stamped-in name "Blakely" is located on the sabot's flat top, alongside the base of the angular post.  Thus, when the sabot is on the shell, the "Blakely" name cannot be seen.

John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> You mention the shell body was cast around the sabot.
> Don't you mean the other way around?
> The sabot was cast upon the shell body.

  No, I meant what I said.  The shell's iron body was cast around the sabot.  I'll explain after I answer your next question.

> I don't understand how the word 'Blakely' could be stamped onto the sabot.

  The name "Blakely" is very definitely die-stamped -- like a button's backmark -- into the copper plate-sabot's flat top.  We know the lettering is die-stamped because it is crisp, and it is "incised" lettering, not "raised" letters.  Therefore, it's physically impossible for the molten copper sabot to have been cast onto the projectile's iron base and then die-stamped with Blakely's name on the "inner" surface of the sabot.

> Even so, why would a rebel manufacture copy the British patent even to the point of putting Blakely on it??

  I have never said a Confederate manufacturer COPIED the British patent ...because that would mean the CS sabot is IDENTICAL to Blakely's design.  Ever since 1993, I've said the sabot is a Confederate ADAPTATION of Blakely's patented design.  In fact, there are several Confederate adaptations of Blakely's "angular post" anti-slippage design.  On the first CS adaptation (the CS Blakely Plate Type 1), Blakely's "angular post" is part of the shell's iron base, which fits into a corresponding square hole in the copper plate-sabot.  On the Type 2 CS Blakely Plate sabot, Blakely's patented "angular post" design is part of the copper plate-sabot.

  The info in the paragraph above is in my 1993 book, on pages 93-96, in the section titled "Blakely and Read-Blakely," along with photos of each Confederate type of Blakely-inspired "anti-slippage angular post" sabot.

  Regarding your question "Why would a rebel manufacture copy the British patent even to the point of putting Blakely on it?"  I do not know for certain why the Identifying marking was die-stamped into an "inside" surface of the sabot.  Those sabots' manufacturer MUST have had an important reason for marking them with Blakely's name.  In writing the 1993 book, I put some thought into the reason.  Perhaps the name was intended to identify the type of cannon the projectile was intended to be used in.  I knew that some Brooke sabots are marked with his name ...so I thought maybe the "Brooke" stamping was meant to tell the gun-crew that that particular projectile was to be used only in a Brooke Rifle -- NOT in a 32-pounder Rifled-Smoothbore.  But the Blakely-marked sabots are 3.67"-caliber, and there is no 3.67"-caliber Blakely Rifle ...so the Blakely name-stamping cannot refer to cannon-usage.

  One other explanation-theory which came to my mind in 1993 was that the sabots marked Blakely were manufactured in England at Blakely's company.  I put aside that idea because these Blakely-marked sabots are copper, not brass, AND their "quality-level" seems much more like Confederate workmanship than British.

I've thought of one other explanation-theory:
  It is possible that these copper sabots were not manufactured at the same foundry which would be casting the shell's iron body around them.  If that's the case, perhaps the Blakely-marking was "instructional" -- meaning, it told the receiving foundry to use them with the appropriate CS Blakely shell-casting pattern when manufacturing the casting-mold for the shell's iron body.

  Among other purposes, Mike and Carl created this forum to foster discussion.  So, if anybody here disagrees with my theories in this discussion-thread, please post your own "better" explanation of the Blakely-marking and my ID of the sabot as a CS Blakely Plate -- a CS adaption of Blakely's patented "angular post" anti-slippage design.

Regards,
Pete
« Last Edit: February 11, 2012, 12:31:54 PM by Pete George »

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: New picture of two uncommon shells
« Reply #18 on: February 11, 2012, 05:32:45 PM »
To All Interested;
     It is not my intent to belittle anyone ever on this Forum.  I have exhausted my personal images, theory and thoughts on this new sabot system now referred to as a "C.S. Blakely" but will continue to believe that it is another design from the Selma Arsenal patterns that exist in several similar yet different designs.  I have no thoughts on why some sabots have "Blakeley" stamped,cast or engraved onto the face of the sabot that is next to the shell base.
   Thanks to Author Jack Melton Jr I will present Blakely's pattent #3087 which bears absolutely no resemblence to the images posted on this thread:

"A.D. 1863, 8th DECEMBER. N° 3087.
Projectiles for Ordnance, &c.
LETTERS PATENT to Theophilus Alexander Blakely, of Montpelier Square, in the County of Middlesex, late Captain Royal Artillery, for the Invention of
" IMPROVEMENTS IN PROJECTILES TOR ORDNANCE AND IN LOADING AND FIRING ORDNANCE."
Sealed the 3rd June 1864, and dated the 8th December 1863.
PROVISIONAL SPECIFICATION left by the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely at the Office of the Commissioners of Patents, with his Petition, on the 8th December 1863.
I, THEOPHILUS ALEXANDER BLAKELY, of Montpelier Square, in the County
5 of Middlesex, late Captain Royal Artillery, do hereby declare the nature of the said Invention for " IMPROVEMENTS IN PROJECTILES FOR ORDNANCE AND IN LOADING AND FIRING ORDNANCE," to be as follows :—
Various contrivances have been suggested for causing projectiles to take the rifling in the barrels of ordnance. Now my present Invention consists in
10 fitting a cupped ring of copper or other similar metal round the base of the projectile in such manner that on its being fired the outer edge of the ring shall be expanded beyond the circumference of the projectile. Or instead of the cupped ring I sometimes fix on to the rear end of the projectile a concave disc of copper or other similar metal, the edge of which is expanded on the
15 explosion of the charge beyond t Liu forence of the projectile.
A.D. 1863.-N° 3087.
Provisional Specification.
Blakely's Improvements in Projectiles for Ordnance, c.c.
My Invention for loading ordnance relates to such as are muzzle-loading, and consists in the employment of a disc or piston carried or fixed at the end of a rod, which passes through an aperture made entirely through the rear end of the gun. In order to load, the piston is pushed forward to the muzzle of the gun ; the powder is attached by a string or otherwise)to a projection on 5 the face of the piston, the piston is drawn back a sufficient distance to admit the powder, the projectile is next attached to the powder bag, and the charge
is drawn into its proper position for being fired. In some cases I make the vent through the travelling piston, and thereby fire the charge. In some cases again I attach detonating powder to the powder case, and explode it by 10 a plunger or wire passing through the travelling piston.
SPECIFICATION in pursuance of the conditions of, the Letters Patent, filed by the said" Theophilus Alexander Blakely' in the Great Seal Patent Office on the 8th June 1864.
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL 00XE, I, THEOPHILIIS 15 ALEXANDER BLAKELY, of Montpelier Square, in the County of Middlesex, late Captain Royal Artillery, send greeting.
WHEREAS Her most Excellent Majesty Queen Victoria, by Her Letters Patent, bearing date the Eighth day of December, in the year of our Lord One thousand eight -hundred and sixty-three, in the twenty-seventh year of Her 20 reign; did, for Herself, Her heirs and successors, give and grant unto me, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, Her special licence that I, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, my executors, administrators, and assigns, or such others as I, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, my executors, administrators, and assigns, should at any time agree with, and no others, E5 from time to time and at all times thereafter during the term therein expressed, should and lawfully might make, use, exercise, and vend, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Channel Islands,
and Isle of Man, an Invention for " IMPROVEMENTS IN PROJECTILES FOR ORDNANCE AND IN LOADING AND FIRING ORDNANCE," upon the condition (amongst- 30
others) that I, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, my executors or administrators, by an instrument in writing under my, or their, or one of their hands and seals, should particularly describe and ascertain the nature of the said Invention, and in what manner the same was to be performed, and cause the same to be filed in the Great Seal Patent Office within six 35
Specification.
A.D. 1863.-N° 3087.
Blakely's Improvements in Projectiles for Ordnance, 4c.
calendar months next and immediately after the date of the said Letters Patent.
NOW KNOW YE, that I, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, do hereby declare the nature of my said Invention, and in what manner the
5 same is to be performed, to be particularly described and ascertained in and by the following statement thereof, reference being had to the Drawings hereunto annexed, that is to say
Various contrivances have been suggested for causing projectiles to take the rifling in the barrels of ordnance. Now my present Invention consists in fitting
10 a cupped ring of copper or other similar metal round the base of the projectile, as shewn at a in Figure 1 of the accompanying Drawings, in such manner that on its being fired the outer edge of the ring shall be expanded beyond the circumference of the projectile. Or instead of the cupped ring I some-times fix on to the rear end of the projectile a concave disc of copper or other
15 similar metal, as represented at b, Figure 9, the edge of which is expanded on the explosion of the charge beyond the circumference of the projectile.
My Invention for loading ordnance relates to such as are muzzle-loading, and consists in the employment of a disc or piston c, Figures 3 and 4, carried or fixed at the end of a rod d, which passes through an aperture e made
20 entirely through the rear end of the gun. In order to load, the piston c is pushed forward to the muzzle of the gun into the position represented in Figure 3 ; the powder is attached by a string or otherwise to a projection on the face of the piston, the piston is drawn back a sufficient distance to admit the powder, the projectile is next attached to the powder bag, and the charge
95 is drawn into its proper position for being fired (see Figure 4). In some cases I make the vent through the travelling piston, as seen at f, Figure 4, and thereby fire the charge. In some cases again I attach detonating powder to the powder case, and explode it by a plunger or wire passing through the travelling piston ; g is a guide or support for facilitating the insertion of
so the charge.
And having now described the nature of my said Invention, and in what manner the same is to be performed, I declare that I claim,—
First, fitting a cupped ring of copper or other similar metal round the base of projectiles for ordnance, in manner and for the purpose herein-before 35 described.
Second, fitting a concave disc of copper or other similar metal to the rear end of projectiles for ordnance, in manner and for the purpose herein-before described.
4 A.D. 1863.--N° 3087.
Specification.
Blakely's Improvements in Projectiles for Ordnance, 4-c.
And, third, loading and firing ordnance by the means and in manner herein-before described and represented in Figures 3 and 4 of the accompanying Drawings.
In witness whereof, I, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, have hereunto set my hand and seal, this First day of June, One thousand 5 eight hundred and sixty-four.
T. A. BLAKELY. (L.s.)
LONDON:
Printed by GEORGE EDWARD EYRE and WILLIAM SPOTIISWOODE,
Printers to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty. 1864.
5 AU 64"

Each member may draw their own conclusions.
With the Best of Intentions,
John aka Bart
« Last Edit: February 11, 2012, 05:50:41 PM by John D. Bartleson Jr. »

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: New picture of two uncommon shells
« Reply #19 on: February 11, 2012, 08:13:52 PM »
Below is the "Blakeley" stamp that Pete mentioned. Notice the misspelling of Blakely. However, this doesn't indicate that it is a Blakely design in accordance with Blakely's #3087  patent.
John

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: New picture of two uncommon shells
« Reply #20 on: February 11, 2012, 09:21:12 PM »
  Thank you for posting the text and relevant drawings from a British patent by Blakely, numbered 1863-#3087.  It does not appear to be the British patent by Blakely that I read 19 years ago ...which described a sabot held in place by an "angular post" to prevent slippage on the projectile's iron body when the sabot engaged the cannon's rifling.  My book's comments from that time (1993) mention the patent containing a section titled "Abridgment of Specifications" ...but that phrase does not seem to be anywhere in the document you posted.  Perhaps it is not a "full length" copy.

  Or, perhaps the "angular post" description is in one of Blakely's other British artillery-related patents, such as 1863-#305 or 1863-#1286.

  I know US patents are now search-able online.  So, while typing this reply, I checked for British patents online, and found a website for searching for them by number.  Unfortunately at the present moment that website's Search "is currently down for scheduled maintenance" and will not be available until Monday morning.  When it is again operational, I will use it to search for the other Blakely patents.

Regards,
Pete
« Last Edit: February 11, 2012, 11:04:36 PM by Pete George »

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: New picture of two uncommon shells
« Reply #21 on: February 11, 2012, 09:35:25 PM »
Pete,
You are most welcome. Anything to oblige. However, I did notice that you quoted Blakely's Patent #3087 on page 93 of your book??
Regards,
John
P.S.   I aswsure you that the Blakely 3087 is a completge copy of the patent.  If anyone would like a copy let me know. Oh yes, I prefer to describe the sabots posted by Mike as a "dovetail, male".
« Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 08:52:51 AM by John D. Bartleson Jr. »

alwion

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
    • Email
Re: New picture of two uncommon shells
« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2012, 11:04:16 AM »
I'm loving this post and the shells. Facinating stuff, i've been back several times a day to read the updates. does anyone have an conjecture as to how they managed to pour the cast iron onto the sabot without at least surface melting the lettering?. Technically, it would be easier than trying to cast the wedge into the iron because of the angle. I looked up the melting points
Brass  1710 
Cast Iron, gray  2150 - 2360
Copper  1983
I'm not sure, but if you let it start to cool after melting, especially if it was alloyed with some copper, might have then been  cool enough not to melt the brass? the melting points were closer than I thought

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: New picture of two uncommon shells
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2012, 02:39:53 PM »
Good info on the  melting points. I wonder if any shell base fragments have the high relief letters on them?
John

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: New picture of two uncommon shells
« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2012, 09:45:55 PM »
  The British Patents website's search-function )which I mentioned in a prior post) is now operational again ...but it says British patents before 1890 are not yet available.

  Also in a prior post, I said the phrase "Abridgement of Specifications" was in the Blakely patent I read in 1993 -- but that phrase is not in the text of Blakely's patent #1863-3087 posted above by John D. Bartleson Jr.  Also, the posted text of that paptent says "I some-times fix on to the rear end of the projectile a concave disc of copper or other
15 similar metal, as represented at b, Figure 9"  ...but there is no Figure 9 in the patent-drawing posted.  (That drawing says "Fig 1 C".)  Therefore, in view of the absence of the "Abridgement of Specifications" and Figure 9, it seems clear that the posted patent is notthe "fully-complete" version of Blakely's patent #1863-3087.

Regards,
Pete

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: New picture of two uncommon shells
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2012, 09:08:30 AM »
Pete,
The drawings are in the original but since we cannot post PDF formatted files I left them off..
John

alwion

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
    • Email
Re: New picture of two uncommon shells
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2012, 10:33:33 AM »
sometimes I try copy and paste off of information I want, then onto a new word doc. If that works I can then post the pictures online. might or might not work

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: New picture of two uncommon shells
« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2012, 06:49:57 PM »
  In a prior post in this discussion-thread, I said the TEXT of Blakely's (British) patent #1863-3087 posted John D. Bartleson (fed to him by Jack Melton) specifically says "Or instead of the cupped ring I some-times fix on to the rear end of the projectile a concave disc of copper or other similar metal, as represented at b, Figure 9."  I asked why there is no Figure 9 (drawing) in the supposedly-complete Blakely patent #1863-3087 posted by John. D. Bartleson Jr.  He replied "Pete, the drawings are in the original but since we cannot post PDF formatted files I left them off."

  I've been insisting that the lack of the Figure #9 diagram, and lack of the phrases "Abridgement of Specifications" and "angular post" in Mr. Melton's version of Blakely patent #1863-3087 seem to strongly indicate it is an incomplete copy of that patent.

  Ultimately, John D. Bartleson Jr. did post some diagrams from Mr. Melton's version of that Blakely patent.  But none were the missing Figure 9 diagram.

  I've now found the captainblakely.org website's illustration of Blakely's patented disc-sabot projectile.  I'm attaching it to the end of this post.  It shows the patented projectile's iron base has an integrally-cast "angular post" (to prevent sabot-slippage upon firing) that I recalled reading about in the complete version of that patent which I read while writing the 1993 D&G book.  You can view the captainblakely.org website's diagram on the Blakely Patents webpage, here:  http://captainblakely.org/BlakelyPatents.aspx

  My 1993 book shows a CS-made projectile which I named a "CS Blakely Plate-sabot Type 1" shell.  The base of that projectile has the integrally-cast square iron "angular post" ...which like Blakely's own copper disc sabot, had a corresponding square hole in the sabot's center (to fit around the iron "angular post").  But the CS-made projectile's sabot is more of a flat-topped Plate form than a rounded-top Disc, so I called it a Confederate ADAPTATION of Blakely's patented design.

  Also, as I've previously mentioned, two diagrams (Plate 5, number 39 and 40) in yankee artillery general Abbott's 1867 book show two other CS ADAPTATIONS of Blakely's patented "angular post" design.  Abbot's notes on his diagrams #39 and #40 say "Found [at CS] Naval Laboratory [in Richmond VA] - square iron projection and iron screw, copper cup [sabot]."

Regards,
Pete
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 07:53:15 PM by Pete George »

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: New picture of two uncommon shells
« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2012, 07:54:07 PM »
Pete,
   When the PDF was converted to Word,  Figure 2 became 9  there is no projectile firgure listed as 9.   The words you insist are supposed to be there just simply are  not there.  I will send you a copy of the patent so you can see for yourself.
We really need to have a PDF posting capability on here to eliminate problems such as these.  My drawing , I thought, is an exact rendering of the line drawing you posted above.  There just is not any angular post or any other thing other that the bolt and washer  holding the sabot on.
Respectfully,
John aka Bart
P.S. I must take exception to the use of "Jack Melton's version"   and the tern being "fed" to me; I requested the patent from Mr. Melton.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 08:09:30 PM by John D. Bartleson Jr. »

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: New picture of two uncommon shells
« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2012, 09:32:13 PM »
  In the captainblakely.org website's Blakely Patent Projectile diagram, look closely at the center of the projectile's iron iron base -- you will see an iron projection (which was square and flat-topped) that the attachment-bolt passes through.  But in your diagram, the projectile's iron base is entirely flat  -- no angular-sided iron projection at the iron base's center.

  Without the angular (flat-sided) projection, what prevents your diagram's sabot from simply spinning on the projectile's base when the sabot engages the rifling?

  Note also, if the projection on the Blakely Patent Projectile was round-sided, the sabot would merely spin on the projection, without imparting any rotation to the projectile's body.  That is why the projection HAD to have flat ("angular") sides.

  Although the iron projection in the wesbite's Blakely Patent projectile diagram is square, the patent itself used the term "angular post" in order for the patent to include an anti-sabot-slippage projection with four OR MORE angled flat sides ...such as a hexagonal post.  Blakely was a smart man, "savvy" about Patent lingo.  He didn't want some other inventor to be able to evade his patent simply by making the anti-slippage projection hexagonal instead of square.

Regards,
Pete
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 12:42:08 AM by Pete George »