Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum
Relic Discussion => Artillery => Topic started by: John D. Bartleson Jr. on September 25, 2015, 02:30:10 PM
-
To All,
I have always known this blind shell as a Read as I picked up a sample from Fort Monroe in the 60s. Doesn't it have the approximately the same principle as James? Any comments or good quality images would be nice to post on this thread. Thank you.
Regards,
John
-
John,
Attached are photos of both the 3.67" Read Experimental Blind Shell (D&G page 277) and its bigger brother the 5.82" Read Experimental Blind Shell (Jack Bell, page 340). I take no credit for the photos, they are from Harry Ridgeway's listing of the shells when I purchased them.
Yes, I believe their design is related to James' designs. Both the Reads and James’ work (or not) on the premise that the pressure created by the firing of the cannon will be sufficient to force a thin sheet sabot wrapped around the shells into the rifling. I think the holes in the 3.67" and the slots in the 5.82" were too small to allow enough pressure in to expand the sabot as needed.
For those wishing to join the ELITE group of us owners of a Read Experimental Shell, Master Collector Mike has one of the 3.67" shells for sale on the retail side of the website. This commercial was offered without consideration or payment from Mike. ;D
-
Great images Jon, thatnks for your comments. I never even considered that the slots in the James would be too small, interesting thought. Come on guys, lets make this a long and interesting post.
-
John,
I meant the slots (around the base perimeter) of the 5.82" Experimental Read being too small. I think James figured it out and added the birdcage etc. to make sure there was plenty of room for the pressure to enter to expand the sabot. Just my thoughts.
Jon
-
Thank you, I caught my error in your email.
Regards,
John
-
The odd thing about the 5.82-inch Read is it appears to be cast with splines to take the grooves of the cannon (like a Delafield or the lead sabotted Dyer on the other thread) so the vents wouldn't really be to help the gun take the rifling. They appear to me to aid in closing out the windage to ensure maximum seal as they are located in the areas that would be between the cannons grooves. Would that be accurate?
-
Are they pre-engraved ribs or has it been fired and those are rifling marks? I can't see it that well.
Kind Regards,
John
-
To my eyes, the 5.82" Read's splines/flanges are parallel with the projectile's axis, not slanted. So it would seem that they have nothing to do with rifling.
Respectfully,
Pete
-
Bearing surfaces then?
John
-
Does appear that way Pete. I agree. In which case the thin metal would really have to expand outward a long way to take any rifling as they would have to expand outward past the bearing surfaces. I would think the metal would tear before it went that far. And as John said the slits appear way too small to allow enough volume in to expand the metal. Brooke seems to have address that issue with his so called "Milled Base" projectile:
http://civilwarartillery.com/hap/page93.htm
Plenty of surface area to push the thin wrought iron outward.
Neat shells Jon. Thanks for sharing. I've always seen these in the book but not given the their due attention to understand them.
-
To All,
Will everyone tell where their specimen came from and perhaps we can arrow down if they ever went into service?
Mine came from Fort Monroe from a mid 60s cache that was discovered during some electrical work buried under a CONAC building. They were turned over to the Yorktown EOD team who may have checked them and turned them over to the Fort's museum. I email to Jon that the cache was destroyed but after further though I don't believe they were as they were inert.
The patent date is 1857 so perhaps they were sent to Fort Monroe for testing and failed and were buried along with Hotchkiss, Schenkl, Parrott, Dalhgren, Brook and several of this Read blind shell.
Kind Regards,
John
-
The one in Jack Bell's book is also listed as from Fort Monroe so perhaps that is the only source. Neat history.
-
Pardon my absence from the conversation.
To answer questions or confirm observations made:
Carl: The splines/flanges are more like embossed than pre-engraved as they are of minimal difference in height to the remainder of the shell’s sabot. The shell is unfired.
Pete: You are correct the splines/flanges are parallel with the projectile’s axis. Or as I would have said, perpendicular to the base.
The air vents/slits are approximately .3” by 1.4” The sabot metal is very thin, but has been coated and thus not sure of its actual thickness. The thinnest measurement I got was .07”.
The shell I have is the one from Jack Bell’s book and is listed as the only one known.
-
I had one of the 3.6 inch blind shells and is shown is the misc. section, page 127 and the radiograph on page 128 of my book.
Regards,
John
-
Here are a couple pictures showing the base vents and a side view of the flanges. No, I don't have psychedelic backdrops for my photos, some got that way when I was playing with the contrast so the vents would show better.
-
Child of the 60's! I bet you have a lava lamp in your TV room too!
So the things I was thinking were flanges are not raised? I guess it just looks that way as that is the solid part of the side and the spaces between them cover the slits and are the part to expand into the rifling. Correct?
-
To all,
so the question remains - in the larger shell, are the raised ribs just a bearing surface or part of the rotation and gas check system? If only a bearing surface then the shell has no rotation to stabilize it during flight.??? It would appear that the two shells have really different systems, whereas the smaller 3.6 clearly has that of the James system. Were they really two shells made or patented by two different persons?
surely someone in our illustrious group knows the answer!! :)
Kind Regards,
John
-
Carl and John,
The flanges, an area of the sabot that measure about 4" tall by 1.7" wide ARE raised. However, they are RAISED only about 1/16th of an inch or less above the non-raised surface. The flanges/raised areas are aligned with the vents in the base. The flanges do not appear to be raised more at the base as compared to closer to the nose. However the surface condition is rough and the shell has been coated, so doesn't help in making 100% accurate determinations.
The flanges are not angled, so would not fit into rifling. Unlike the Delafield, the leading edge of the flange is squared off not pointed/triangle shaped.
Attached are a couple photos to perhaps better show this. One taken from the nose end and one from the base, but at an angle.
-
A thought on the engineering of the raised rib or flange. being made of cast iron like the rest of the projectile how would it "stretch" high enough to even enter the grooves of the bore?? Or do I miss seeing something that my low vision does not see?
Regards,
John
-
John,
The flanges are made in the thin metal sheet that wraps around the lower portion of the shell as also is present on the 3.62" shell. I should have pointed it out better.
Jon
-
Jon, ah well, an important thing to know. The entire metal sheet is blown into the bore grooves and the rest of it becomes the gas check
I had not seen the larger version before Jon posted it and did not realize that a thin sheet of metal surrounded the shell base.
The raised portion is neither a bearing surface nor to enter the groove directly, but designed to enter the bore grooves precise but to provide a channel for the propellant gasses to enter and raise the this metal sheet. Neither size probably did not have a means to prevent the sabot from spinning around the shell body. So is this the answer or not?? ???
John ::)
-
Neither size probably did not have a means to prevent the sabot from spinning around the shell body.
In the patent for the form of the 3.67" shell (Patent number 18707) it illustrates and speaks of "lugs (a) or projections from the edges of the belt (sabot) being so arranged as to prevent any displacement during rotation..."
So I would expect some variation of that to be employed in the larger shell, though not obvious on my piece, perhaps due to the coating on it.
-
Jon,
you know I don't see the tabs on the 3.6 I had to prevent spinning.
John
-
Not obvious if present on mine either.
-
mine neither
-
D.D. Where did your sehll come from?
John
-
I traded a 10" ball for mine at a show in Charleston but the thought was that it came from Ft Monroe
-
Pete will you say where yours came from that is in your book?
John
-
The Dickey-&-George book says where the one in the book's photo was found... the location info is given below the photo, on the right... Fort Monroe VA.
Regards,
Pete
-
Thanks Pete, I should have looked. So all of the known ones came from Fort Monroe, VA.
Regards,
John