C.s. 6.4 inch Re-saboted Mullanes;

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

To All Interested;
      I have drawn two images from Abbot's Plates from the Seige of Richmond.
Does anyhone have either of these projectiles in their collections?  I have never seen one before and would like to have some hi-res images of them.
Thank you,
John aka Bart

[emike123]

John:

There was one sold at the Adamson Auction.  Here is a link:  http://jamesdjulia.com/auctions/catalog_detail_shots.asp?Details=55879&sale=184

You may need to register to see it.  I had to log in there.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thanks Mike,
   No, it opened just fine.  Who is James Jujlia?  did you I.d. the fuze?
Regards,
John
P.s. why would the rebs have a need to re-sabot them, if that is the correct term?

[emike123]

James D Julia is the auction house that auctioned off Michael Adamson's large collection several years ago.  They have left the pictures on their website which is a nice reference.

The fuse appears to be a CS watercap of the type with the raised ring around the watercap insert.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Mike,
Is it possible to see the entire collection that was auctioned?
John

[CarlS]

John,

The auction is #184 and is the October 3rd-6th, 2005 auction found at:
      http://jamesdjulia.com/catalog_archive.asp
It is about 3/5th's of the way down.  But you'll need to register to see the whole archive.

Here is a sample of some of the stuff that you can see without registering:
      http://jamesdjulia.com/auctions/div_catalog_184_sh.asp
As you can see, there was some really nice items there.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thank you carl.
   Anyhone that would pay those prices need their head examined.
John

[Pete George]

John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> Why would the rebs have a need to re-sabot them, if that is the correct term?

  I would say a "more-correct" term is convert.  Those converted shells were Read iron-sabot projectiles, manufactured in 1861.  It was discovered that the Read sabot did not perform well in Heavy Caliber cannons, and also would sometimes damage the cannon.  So, apparently sometime in early 1862, the Confederate Ordnance Department in Virginia converted those 6.4"-caliber Read projectiles by applying a Mullane/Tennessee-sabot directly on top of the the Read iron sabot.  Also, some 6.4"-caliber Tredegar lead ring-sabot shells were similarly converted ...but the lead ring-sabot was removed, of course.  According to Jack Bell's book, "Tredegar" is the name for the other shell shown in your diagram.  No Read shells are known to have the "divided" bourrelets seen on SOME of the Tredegar 6.4"-caliber shells.  Personally, I would call these "Read/Mullane Conversion" and "Tredegar/Mullane Conversion" shells.

Regards,
Pete

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Hello Pete,
    Thank you for the information about these, I think, rare projectiles.  Can you post us some images of them?
Regards,
John aka Bart

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Pete,
    Don't you have an example of this projectile that you could post for themembers to see?
John

[Pete George]

  Sorry, Bart, although I've owned a couple of of those Mullane/Tennessee-sabot Conversion projectiles in the past, I don't currently have any.  So, to fulfil your request, I did a websearch, but was unable to find a photo of one, anywhere on the internet.

  They are "listed" in Ridgeway's internet relic-archive, but no photos of them are there.

  The good news is that there are photos of the 6.4" Tredegar-to-Mullane and 6.4" Read-to-Mullane conversions in Jack Bell's book, on pages 421 and 422.

  If I recall correctly, photos of them are also in the 1972 Kerksis-&-Dickey book on Heavy Artillery Projectiles.

Regards,
Pete

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thank you Pete, perhaps someone will come forward with some good images.
Regards,
John

[Dave the plumber]

 Can't help you John, I do not own one  [ yet !! ]

[emike123]

Carl is going to run it (the one from Jack Bell's book) for me as its too big for me to handle.  I'm sure he'll be happy to post pictures of his handiwork when he's done