3in Absterdam Bolt

[emike123]

As shown on page 70 of 1993 D&G & page 238 of the harcover version of Melton & Pawl

I have been trying to catalog my projectiles and this is one I just photographed for the database.  For my purposes the pioctures don't have to be publication quality, and the extra time that takes is overwhelming considering the numbers I am trying to catalog, but still I hpe a few of these will be of interest and maybe spur a new discussion like the last one unwittingly did.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Mike,
  Below is the family of U.S. Absterdam shells and fuzes, minus its bolt.  Perhaps this will add to the discussion on the Absterdam projectrile.
It should be noted that the upper band on the shell with the brass sabot was shown on the patent drawing but not usually found that way.
Best Regards,
John

[Garret]

Just adding to the discussion with a question.  How many Absterdam projectiles have people seen that have been battlefield recovered?  The story goes that some were used at Petersburg toward the end of the war.  What's the deal on that? 

[Pete George]

  Despite claims to the contrary which you'll see occasionally on Ebay, no Absterdam projectiles of any type saw use in civil war combat.

  That being said, one over-cleaned, fuzeless Absterdam 3" Type 2 shell was claimed to have been found at Petersburg ...with its sabot neatly "halfsectioned" to reveal how it was attached to the shell's iron base.  As I say in my 1993 book, if its provenance (dig location) is true, I believe it was from the slightly-postwar artillery projectile testing which was conducted on the then-empty fortifications.

  Jack Bell's "Civil War Heavy Explosive Ordnance" book says some 4.5" Absterdam shells have been dug at Petersburg.  Personally, I believe they too are from the postwar testing there.  The one shown on page 116 in Bell's book is definitely from Fortress Monroe, not Petersburg ...because it shows severe saltwater-iron effect just like the one I bought from Tom Dickey, who told me about the discovery of them in that Seacoast-Defense fort's moat.  They were unfired.  That fort was never captured, being occupied continuously by the yankees all through the war and afterward.  We know that artillery projectile testing was also done there.

Regards,
Pete

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

I thought the ones with lead sabots and lead bands were used and found to be defective. Weren't they in a conflict with Dyer?
Regards,
John

[alwion]

Once again showing that the guys shared( stole ) ideas. I wasn't familiar with this shell w/o the upper band, and my 1st thought was it looked like a Dyer. Everyday i check here, and evey day I learn something:) If I could only remember it all  lol

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

You can copy and download anything on here.
John

[alwion]

I ment sharing of ideas between inventors and manufacturer's of shells. The design seems very similar to each other in concept:)

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

      I am not sure we will ever learn of the dialog betwen the inventor and the manufacturer.  Some of that was surely verble.  The idea of the patent was to register an inventors idea and or concept to keep others from using it legally.
     From the patent idea the inventor would have dialog with his engineer and draftsman so a blueprint could be drawn up for the machinist to follow or a pattern maker to make a wood pattern for the foundry to cast the invention. Then if everything was acceptable, the item would be let to a manufacturer.
     All along the way from patent approval to the end product there is an exchange of ideas and other technical intercourse that we may never learn of or locate documentation for.
     But as a minimum you can open a Word document and make a scrapbook of Ideas exchanged and images posted to illustrate the text and gather in a few weeks what has taken some years to learn.
Best Regards,
John aka Bart 

[alwion]

I got what you were saying now, sorry too many other non related things on my mind. wish I could copy and paste them too, or forget some of those thoughts. Do you find early patent info to be pretty vague compaired to todays detailed patents. I have read some, and seem like the early ones allow alot of leaway in interpretation, or is that because I'm only reading parts of them? That one on blakley cannon said alot of very specific info on the tubes, and then added something like "and compatable shells" which seemed to cover alot of area

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

I get the impression that once the cannon was made and or the rifling declared that a shell would naturally follow even if designed by someone else. The language is sometimes difficult to follow, at least by me.
John

[mccaul]

Most patents are deliberately made vague to limit competition and allow the inventor to take someone to court if they try to manufacture something similar.  Even today this is true, as patents try to cover as much ground as possible.  Consequently, the words "or any similar ....." are frequently used.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thank you Ed, it is good to see you again.
Regareds,
John aka Bart

[alwion]

Ahhh Legalese.  Just love it . Not many really fluent in that language;)

[emike123]

Pete, did you forget this groundburst nose section I have from the Battle of Selma?  Maybe post war Yankee Occupiers went back to the battlefield and fired these rounds there too?  Or maybe this late war battlesite saw their use.