Adding the sabot to the James Type I Projectile;

[CarlS]

Callicles,

Very neat and rare base.  Is it a 3.6-inch caliber?  You sure hit it a lot with your shovel while digging it up!  Sorry...couldn't resist! 

From the photos that substance inside the lead folds appears to me to maybe be wood?  Any chance it is?  Otherwise not sure what it might be.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

someone sent this one to me. who?
John
no idea what the stuff is.  But it doe not come from the projectile.

[callicles]

Thanks Carl.  You know, this is an older picture of the base, and the ruler is not placed very well.  I'll have to, at some point, go dig the thing out of my boxes of relics to check, but I'm thinking it will measure to 3.67, but that's just a guess, since 6-pdrs were there (I've edited my previous posts while you posted, mentioning this fact).

To your "wood" part in regards to the sleeve:  Don't know, but it was found in a plowed field.  To be honest, I thought it reminded me of two things: 1) charcoal 2) the rubber or leather gasket in a sectioned 12 pounder I have.  To RipCon, he felt it resembled very old, dried rubber.  As to me hitting it a lot with my shovel -- LOL.  Plows hit it over the years!!!  That's my story and I'm sticking to IT!!!!  Thanks!!! 

[callicles]

John,

It is my understanding that the pictures you have posted are incorrect juxtapositions of a Wiard and a James canister Iron Base.  The reason I say this is because I was told this on this site several years ago.  I notified the person who posted that picture up and he removed it.  I will try to find the posts for this site regarding this.

Relics pictured were found in plowed fields (fields plowed and under cultivation since the War).  Thanks!

[CarlS]

John:  Your image seems to be a 3.8-inch James canister base with a 3.6-inch Wiard canister body sitting on top.  Perhaps our resident canister resource or someone else can correct me but I'm not aware of any lead bodied canister other than the Wiard. 

Callicles: I am pretty sure from a 3.6-inch Wiard canister.  They seem to have been used in more than the 3.6-inch Wiard gun as I have one with James (3.8-inch) rifling on it from the Shiloh area.  Given the soft base cup they could easily expand to fit those calibers.  Since I can't see the side of your sabot I can't tell what rifling is on it which should tell you whether from James or rifled 6-lber.  As to your lead pieces, I would think from their shape that they are parts of the Wiard canister.  I say that because of their irregular shapes and my experience with James sabot pieces is they'll be trapezoid.

[Ripcon]

Could the substance in the lead sleeves be some kind of left over tar matrix that was in the Wiard cannister that packed the balls together?

[callicles]

Very good observation.  I refer everyone to post #43 on pg. 3.  The "residue" resembles the same we see on lead we refer to as case shot balls because of the residue of so called "matrix".  Again, post #43

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

I had a feeling that the canister was phoney but wanted to post the other base as it matched the other one with the word "base".   so we are back to square one on the James.
John

[CarlS]

Hello,

I have been planning to get these posted for a day now but never could get to it.  I'm not sure they'll help much but maybe a little.  These images are from a non-battlefield dropped (i.e. not fired) James from Bannerman's.  It appears to have come from outside as it has surface rust as you can see and is uncleaned.

This image shows the seam of the tin covering down the side.  Originally this was covered by greased canvas:


The base view showing the 4 fill or vent holes as white lead dots:


Looking at an angle into the base you see the insides of the rounded ribs and the white seen back behind them is the inside of the lead sabot:


A closer look to try and show a closer look at the lead from the inside of the cage:


My apologies for my images.  I don't have a manual camera to focus and this one will not focus deep into the hole between the ribs so it is a little out of focus.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

thank you Carl.  I don't think I see any pasteboard  on yours.  Worn? Not used?
Regards,
John

[CarlS]

I didn't see any evidence of pasteboard.  I need to find something that will let me see down in there better.  Would also like to figure out how to get some good in-focus images of the back of the sabot.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

To all,
   it appears that this posting has run its course.  Hopefully all learned a little more about the James shell.
I think all have learned that the sabot is formed of three layers of lead, tin and canvas That the lead portion is formed by closing off the slots either by pasteboard, as the patent suggests, or by leaving the black sand casting core in the rear of the shell after it is formed. that the shell is placed upside down and the tin sleeve is snapped forced around the shell and kept in position by placing the entire shell into a form to hold the tin in position and prevent it from leaking and that the lead is formed by pouring melted lead through the 4/5 holes in the base.  The manner in which the cup to hold the hot lead as it is allowed to seep down into the holes was not discussed.
Kind Regards,
John

[emike123]

I think the bottom holes were discussed some John.  The lead was poured into the projectile nose down as shown in the drawing, and Carl suggested the 4 holes were not filler holes, but vent holes that also served a second purpose of filling up from beneath to tell the pourer "enough."

I also agree this thread has probably run its course.  Who'd have thought there would be so much discussion on this so thanks for starting it.  We look forward to reading your article.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Mike,
I am not certain I understand your first paragraph.  The patent is explicit that the lead portion is poured from the 4 or 5 holes in the shell base.
Regards,
John

[emike123]

I think most people here, including one with a lot of experience with molten lead, think that the patent method of pouring through those tiny, roughly 3/16ths inch in diameter, holes was not practical in real manufacturing life and thus another method got employed as further evidenced by the sleeve and huge ladle being used by the James factory worked in the drawing.  My experience with molten lead is limited to making lead soldiers as a child, but based on that I tend to agree with Dave the Plumber and Carl. 

I'd be happy to go find my old lead soldier smelting pot and mail it to you or Jack to use to try pouring lead through such a small hole if you think it is at all feasible.  Some free counseling though is not to do it on your kitchen counters because I think the results will be inflammatory