Interesting artillery fuses

[Ward Reilly]

Hi all, looking for info or input on some fuses, starting with this one which I think may be a CS conversion of a US fuse:



Size as compared to an intact naval fuse:



Link to the rest of the gallery.

[Ward Reilly]

Hello to All...so, I couldn't find a way to send smaller pictures, so my son Jeff helped me put them on another site, so you can see them there without taking up huge amounts of e-space, here.

If you look at the rest of the pics in the gallery, some are unusual, and some are just cool, including a couple I traded with Ronnie Mc to get over the decades...like the hand-carved Bormann, and the Naval fuse an iron wire in the base for who knows what reason?

It's really the first fuse in the gallery that I'm excited about...many drill holes were added to what looks like a standard US Naval fuse, but it could also be a CS fuse completely, as they made many variants of naval fuses that were close to US variants. But I think it's a CS field adjustment of a US fuse...the exterior threads are filed or sanded down, and the rim also...it's also had a lead plug added to the bases...as a safety?...as a water plug?

Anyway, curious about opinions about this one, and a few others in this small gallery I've shared...one is a CS conversion of a US watercap, and one looks to be a CS conversion of a US Hotchkiss percussion, for use in a small ball...another is a US watercap that was squared at the top for some reason. (for removal with a wrench??)

Sorry it took me so long to share pics here...it's just that my camera, and even my iPhone pics, were too big to share directly here.

Best, from Ward Reilly

[joevann]

I looked at the gallery, and I would say your conclusions are right on the money.  The one with the wire looks like someone was trying to remove the paper fuze and the wire just got stuck.

[Ward Reilly]

Thanks, Joe...my first guess on the naval one with the wire, is a net or string weight for fishing, since Port Hudson is on the Miss. River, where this was found...the GOOD news? It's an 1858, one of the rarer year dates on Naval Watercaps.   :>)

[joevann]

Another good assumption.  I only have one of that date in my collection.  The earliest I have.  My guess on the one with the holes is that it was field modified to fit an unthreaded fuze hole and wouldn't go all the way in.  The holes were to insure ignition of the paper fuze by the propelling charge.

[CarlS]

(Was doing some maintenance on the forum and moved this to the artillery area as it's more appropriate there.)

Thanks for sharing this interesting topic and fuse.  It does very much look like a modified watercap.

[Ward Reilly]

Thanks, Carl...I should have put it here, to start with...(brain dead...pure artillery pics)...there are 4-5 other fuses in a gallery site, attached to the original post...Ward