3in Absterdam Bolt

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thanks Mike,
   Does your ground burst have the below fuze in it? I realize the protective cap was not added to the production model.
Also, what shell is behind it?
John

[emike123]

Yes.  A fuse with a unique design and very cool.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Mike,
Can we see all of your Absterdams shells and fuses?
This one is sort of like the McEvoy igniter.  I wonder if that is where Absterdam got his idea?
John

[Pete George]

Emike123 wrote:
> Pete, did you forget this groundburst nose section I have from the Battle of Selma?

  No, I didn't forget about it.  It was discussed here in this forum in a thread begun by Bart on March 31, 2011.  In my opinion it is not part of an Absterdam shell, for two reasons.

  First... your groundburst's fuzehole (and 1.25"-body-diameter fuze) has 16-per-inch threading ...thus, neither its threading nor its diameter match any Absterdam shell's fuzehole.  It matches the threading and fuzehole-size in Eureka shells, which like the Absterdam have no known civil war COMBAT usage.  In the 3-31-2011 discussion, Bart asked about the fuze's threading, and you posted a photo of your non-dug Eureka/Arick shell with that fuze in it.  To refresh your memory, Bart replied "Mike, if my last post only has 14 TPI, then the one in your shell fragment will not screw into the 3" Absterdam Shell!!"

  Second... although I realize you feel the tip of the iron nose is broken off,  I cannot envision the shell exploding or impacting a hard object, with the impact/explosion chipping off the nose's tip, quite flatly, ALL THE WAY AROUND the fuzehole -- AND the shell's explosion breaking the flat-tipped nose into several frags.  In my opinion the nose's tip's flatness all the way around the fuzehole is due to manufacture, not breakage.

> 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.

  There are three possible explanations:
1- the yankees defeated the Confederates at Selma with the help of some Absterdam-fuzed Eureka shells (whose fuzehole is 1.25"-diameter) ...or uknown flat-topped shells (definitely not Hotchkiss flat-top), with the unknown flat-topped shell having the same 1.25"-diameter fuzehole with 16-threads-per inch as Eureka shells
2- postwar testing at Selma
3- the 16-threads-per-inch fuze and matching 16-threads flat-topped frags were not actually dug at Selma.

  In view of our esteemed friend Selma Hunter's testimony, my vote is for explanation #2.

Regards,
Pete

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Pete,
   It can't be #1 as you said there are no known combat use of  Arrick's Eureka projectile.
 But don't you show an early model Arrick Eureka fired sabot in your 93 book under that heading?
 John aka Bart
P.S. BTW do you copy every entry made in this Forum??

[emike123]

Thanks Pete.  Its an Absterdam fuse in a Eureka/Arick shell from Range Line Road or something similar in Selma.  I think I gave Bill the box marked with the location and the bullets that were in it.  It is a miracle that this got reassembled because I acquired the fuse and only subsequently noted the frags went together.  I remember the guy telling me, "take those too," and I am glad we did (Carl was with me).

Its interesting but here is what I have picked up.  We know postwar testing at Petersburg results in site contamination, some say post war dumping atop wartime dumping in the river at Milledgeville results in site contamination. and now postwar testing on the Selma battlefield results in site contamination.  No doubt there were forces occupying Selma well after the war.

John, you have a picture of my Eureka/Arick and fuse from the previous thread (also behind this frag).  My Dyer with Taylor fuse is on page 111 of Jones. my Absterdam percussion fuse is shown on page 110 (top), my Absterdam with the time fuse is shown behind the frag here and details of the fuse are shown on pages 110 and 111.  My 4.5" Absterdam is packed but is no different from the one shown in D&G and Bell.

Also, all these will be shown in another upcoming book or two and in addition to not wanting to steal their thunder, I don't have time to redo all the aspects of these shots.  However, by deduction, the shell the percussion fuse is in may be the only one not yet shown publicly in the various sources including this book and reference books.  So, lets narrow this request from a 4 hour job to a 15 minute one.  Let me know if that is the picture you want or if there are 1 or 2 others and I'll try to get on them.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Pete and Mike,
  Perhaps this image will help determine which shell has made the fragment. Also, it shows that two Absterdam brass sabot shells were fired, when? Where?  who knows? In my opinion, humble as it is, the frag nose flat is wider than either shell.
Including Pete's early model Eureka, I have image evidencd of a second one being fired at Hampton Roads but promised not to disclose where.
John

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Mike,
   No further images, just five more minutes.
For our records.
  Absterdam Percussion Fuze - Thread diameter - TPI

   Absterdam Time fuse adapter (like Taylor) Thread diameter - TPI

   Absterdam Time Fuse adapter (duo ignitors) - Thread Diameter - TPI
Best REgards,
Jon aka Bart

[emike123]

Here you go:

Absterdam Percussion Fuze - Thread diameter 1.032”  - 14 TPI

Absterdam Time fuse adapter (like Taylor) Thread diameter 1.053”  - 14 TPI

Absterdam Time Fuse adapter (duo ignitors) - Thread Diameter 1.244”– still 16 TPI

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Mike,
Thanks.  We know that the Taylor  brass and zinc will screw into the brass saboted Absterdam shell.  I am tryhing to figure out why he would make the duo ignitor fuse adapter that will not fit his shell??  The 1875 Eureka had not been patented yet. I am really confused now after Pete's comments and your measurements.
John

[Pete George]

John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> It can't be #1 as you said there are no known combat use of  Arrick's Eureka projectile.
> But don't you show an early model Arrick Eureka fired sabot in your 93 book under that heading?

  Yes, my 1993 book does show the one-&-only known specimen of an Early-model Arick-Eureka sabot.  The US Ordnance Department's first receipt of Arick's Eureka shells is dated Feb. 22, 1865 ...and their arrival in "the field" probably took at least several weeks (if not months) after their Feb. 22 reception by the Ordnance Department.  Being the only known specimen of an Early-model Eureka shell, it appears to be from a very small-scale "field test" at Petersburg.  Unfortunately, we have no way to know for certain whether that small test of Early-model Eureka shells happened in the last two weeks of the siege, or during the testing of other projectiles types there after the siege's end.

  For the sake of discussion, let's suppose that the very small-scale test of Early-model Eureka shells at Petersburg DID occur a couple of weeks before the siege's end on April 2, 1865.  Should that move Eureka projectiles out of the Postwar classification into the Civil War Combat-Used classification?

  In my opinion, no.

  My main purpose in including that only know specimen sabot in the book was to educate collectors about how things found "on a battlefield" are sometimes not what they appear to be.  If Andy Rice had not cut that exploded shell-base apart, we'd probably have never known its correct ID.

Regards,
Pete

[Pete George]

John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> P.S. BTW do you copy every entry made in this Forum??

  There's no need for me to do that.  The March 31, 2011 discussion (including all the diagrams and photos) is still viewable on page 6 of this forum's Artillery category.  I remembered seeing it, and was willing to spend the time needed to huunt through the hundreds of old posts to find that one.

Regards,
Pete

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Pete,
   Thanks for your added info on the Eureka, early model.  In case you missed my note, another one of thse sabots has been recently found in the hampton Roads area, probably from Fortress Monroe.
   You mentioned earlier that no known combat use of any Absterdam has been found.  Surely that does not include the lead sabotted ones with lead bands?
John

[Pete George]

John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> In case you missed my note, another one of thse sabots has been recently found in the Hampton Roads area, probably from Fortress Monroe.

  Because there was no Confederate military activity at all in the Hampton Roads area after early-1862, I believe we are safe to believe any Eureka or Absterdam projectiles or sabots from that area are not combat-related ...and are most probably from Postwar testing activity revolving around Fortress Monroe.  That is a more common occurrence than previously thought ...for example, I've owned a Butler projectile (strictly 1870s-&-later) which was dug in the Fort Fisher NC area.

Regards,
Pete

[CarlS]

Hello All,

It's been on my list of things I should do to create a list of helpful hints for users of the forum.  One of them addresses the question that John had regarding Pete copying the forum.  YOu can easily find old post by letting the computer do the work.  In the upper right hand corner of this and any forum web page is a search field.  Simply put in words or words and it will return all posts that match.  Note that putting quotes around a string of words causes it to search for that string.  No quotes finds any post with those words no matter how they are scattered in the post. For example entering:
       butler fisher
will find Pete's post in this thread.  But if you enter:
       "butler fisher"
it won't find it because the words aren't ajacent.  Hope this helps.  When things slow down a bit I'll put those hints together.