Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum
Relic Discussion => Artillery => Topic started by: John D. Bartleson Jr. on June 28, 2015, 05:59:56 PM
-
To all Interested,
The James Type I Projectile
A challenge to the pattern maker and to the molder, The James Type I projectile of the American Civil War was surely a unique piece of ordnance in the Federal arsenal. Patented by Charles T. James, his death would eventually be caused by the detonation of one of these shells.
I have marveled at the projectile’s complexity when compared to the rest of the projectiles in use by the Federal artillerist. The most interesting part of the shell’s design is its method of rotation and propellant gas check. This is achieved by a sandwich of canvas, tin and lead sleeves that surround the back half portion of the shell body.
I have pondered over the following questions concerning the casting of the inner most lead sleeve and solicit your thoughts, opinions or facts:
1. What design was used to form a reservoir for the molten lead being poured into the four (4) entry holes at the shell base; see the lead filled holes at figure 1?
2. Was the tin sleeve used to form the outer form for the poured lead sleeve?
3. What was used to keep the molten lead from escaping into the eight slots of the “cage”?
When adding your thoughts on these questions please use my reference numbers in reply. Thanks.
Kind Regards,
John
-
I've often wondered about that too. My feeling after thinking about it is after the shell is cast the center open area and the spaces between the columns/legs was packed with the black casting sand. Then the tin collar was fit over the shell and the small space between it and the legs was injected with lead. I think the ridges on the legs are not to prevent slippage of the sabot as often cited (although they would help with that) but in fact to hold the tin sheath equidistant from the legs so the sabot is equal in thickness. The notches in the ridges is to help the hot molten lead flow and fill all gaps. Once cooled the sand is removed and the greased canvas covering is applied to the outside.
So given the above, my guessed answers to your three questions are:
1) Casting sand packed to keep the lead along the periphery.
2) Yes
3) Casting sand packed in the interior spaces to keep the lead out.
-
Carl, thank you for your input to my queries. Next?
Regards,
John
If I might add, with regard to question 1 - remember that the lead sleeve is actually formed by pouring molten lead into the 4/5 holes in the base. Picture the pre-cast shell standing on its nose and placed n some sort of stand.
What shape Reservoir was placed on/over the shell base to contain the lead while it was flowing into the holes to cast the inner lead sleve? Illustrate if you like.
I would submit that the inside of the "cage' was formed by a sand core placed into the original cast of the shell body like the sand core that would form the fuze well and explosive chamber.
-
At one time I was an expert on writing styles. It is fascinating how this post differs stylistically from your others. If I did not know better, I might surmise that you were posting this for a fellow mortal too timid (afraid of ghosts perhaps?) to post it for himself. Ah, but what does a banshee know...
I will go see if I can find General James and ask him of this.
-
Dear Banshee,
I don't pretend to be an English professor, however, back to my original question. "I have pondered over the following questions concerning the casting of the inner most lead sleeve and solicit your thoughts, opinions or facts:" ::)
Kind regards,
John
P.S. I also use my real name on this Forum!
-
John,
What I described was meant to convey that the lead flowed into the bottom holes and then into the space between the tin and the packed black sand.
-
Carl,
Yes I did understand what youmeant. I elaborated a bit further in hopes to stimulate othes to add some meaningful comments.:)
Kind Regards,
John
-
Touche, but "ghost' is also a name for those who employ ghost writers. I consulted my Ouiji Board and sense an article forthcoming in a certain magazine...
Back on topic: I was unable to talk with General James as he is headless from the explosion at his workshop, but my dear friend Mr. Harper provided these sketches:
http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/mssc/ballsbluff/shells.htm
I have some tourists to give their money's worth on their ghost tours at Gettysburg so must be off now...
-
GofMM,
Thanks for the reference. I should have thought of that very popular illustration. The pertinent part is shown below but I can't determine enough detail to be sure of any manufacturing process steps. Given the height of the shells next to the pour and the shape of the enclosure, it appears the shell is sitting base down which makes no sense. My guess is that this was drawn from a verbal description and not after visiting the factory and thus is rife with inaccuracies. I'd sure like to see an example of that 24-inch James shown next to the man in the bottom left corner of the full image (not shown below; see link)!
-
They must've employed Oompa Loompa's there. I have this print. Here is a slightly better shot of the lead pouring pic:
-
Ghost writer,
thanks for the Harper's enlargement. Do you have the story? (Caption: Shells and Their Manufacture – (See page 764 [for related story])?
Kind Regards,
John
Mike... great copy of the lead pouring. I suspect the top coller, where he is pouring the hot lead, is on the shell base.
Perhas other members can add more?
John again
-
John,
Here is the grand total contents of the article from page 764. Can't say it helps much.
I am glad I can contribute something to you in return for all you have shared with us.
Best regards,
Jon
-
Time to go hunt Port Royal and find one of the big boys!!! 27 inches tall!
-
wouldn't a patent explain the process in some detail ??
-
Thanks Jon, it is the first time I have seen the story..
Dave, yes the patents do explain the process. Difficult to process at times and even difficult to imagine. For example in one of the patents James uses "pasteboard" (cardboard?) to fill the open slots ofhe "cage". I don't belive he states outside or inside the open space between the cage ribs. I don't have any images that might show remains of any such form. I believe the word "loop" is actually the middle tin sleeve.
Regards,
John
-
The main thrust of my unusual change in posting was to gather input from the other members on the subject I posted. I am ready to share my real reasons. I was hoping that someone would finally figure out that you cannot ladle thick lead into a one eighth inch hole unless there is some sort of form, cup, container or reservoir of some sort so as to permit a constant flow of lead at once to all four/five holes or in the case of the larger 7 inch shell, the numerous notches on the base perimeter. The shell base must have had mold release dusted over it and the shell body heated to draw the lead down the holes.
Was the so called "tie ring" nothing but a casting aid. Was this the first shell in its caliber? Are there any other calibers that have this ring?
The following is a copy and paste from Patent #34,950 dated April 16, 1862:
“The mode of making the expansible packing , which I have practiced, and which I prefer, is to form the 'segments between the mortises f each or every alternate one with a projecting longitudinal rib i of about half the height of the depth of the groove. Over each of the mortises I lay a piece of pasteboard j, and .over the ribs I slip a hoop k, made of tinned iron, the said hoop being cut to admit of springing it into the groove,• the whole length of which it should occupy. After being thus prepared molten lead is ran into the spaces between the ribs land within the hoop k; the pieces of pasteboard preventing the molten lead from running into the mortises f, care being taken to prevent the molten lead from running out around the edges of the hoop by properly surrounding the whole structure for the time being. Tire molten lead will unite with the tinned inner surface of the hoop, so that when it solidifies in the: spaces' between the ribs the hoop will be held in place by a series of leaden staves extending between the ribs so that when the packing-ring is expanded into the grooves of the canno by the force of the explosion acting on the inside thereof the case and the shot which it carries will be forced to turn with it. To admit of running in the molten lead, holes 1 are made in the rear end of the case leading into each of the spaces between the ribs i.”
So James patent did tell most of the process. He mentions nothing with regard to casting the shell and its peculiar “bird cage” tail. So where does this lead? To lead one to study the details of their projectile collection and bring enlightenment to all who are interested.
Kind Regards,
John
P.S. Ghost, you were correct, there may just be a magazine article in the making. Jack has asked me to submit regularly to his effort. Should I refer to you as banshee or ghost in any acknowledgements?:)
-
I flit in and out of the mortal realm. Time is merely a dimension in my world, no longer a variable with which I contend. Thus my delay in responding my kind friend.
I look forward to perusing your article on General James' intricately crafted projectile. Jack is fortunate to have such a loyal minion to do his bidding in the quest for Truth. It seems I am not the only ghost lurking on these boards.
As for attribution, you are quite kind but those laurels no longer matter to me in my transcendent state. I must have missed, however, where in that revivified publication credit was given to those whose worldly possessions were shown within. Please do not feel obligated to transmute editorial principles for M.E.
-
Ha, you are something!.. If somone helps me with a project and he doesn't mind credit, I try to give it.
Actually the research is for my files and study, but I share with Jack to hopefully help make the magazine a success.
Wake up, time will pass yu by..
Kind Regards,
John
-
In follow-up on John's posting the patent information referring to the "pasteboard" used to keep the lead from entering the cavity when poured, I checked the interior of my 2.6" James Bolt for the Wiard that is not a battlefield recovery. Doing so I found what appears (and John agrees) to be the pasteboard remaining. Attached are a couple of the better photos.
-
Thanks Jon, the last image is pretty convincing. Not much left now except to discover how the lead was poured into the 4/5 holes.
All the est,
John
P.S. Does someone have a James lead sleeve that is in tact but off the shell? Woul you share images of it?
Thank you.
Regards,
John
-
By lead sleeve, do you mean what we usually call the lead sabot on these shells, or the sleeve insert for pouring? I have never seen the pouring sleeve nor a completely intact James sabot section. The lead sabot pieces are stuck to the side in some casews aided by wires and only come off in trapezoidal sections shaped to fit like "shutters" over the rib framed arches in the birdcage. If you would like to see one of these trapezoidal sections I am trying inarticulately to explain in words, I can post a picture of one later.
-
I want to see one on the inside. Yes it id the formed lead between ribs. Thanks Mike. I wanted to look onthe inside ofthe lead sleeve(sabot) to see which impressios ar let after the lead cools.
I am not sure how wide James cut the pasteboard. He ould have glued them in laceovr the cage slots to keep them from falling off when placed nose down in the form that stop leaks from the tin sleeve.
Not all sabots had the interlocking wire.
Regards,
John
P.S Is it m computer or is it difficult to type on here?
-
Mind if I drop into this conversation for a moment ???
As a plumber of the old school, I have poured many a lead joint to adjoin cast iron pipe fittings to pipe ends. Actually did two joints the other day, first time in a long time. Anyway, when lead is melted and is in it's liquid form, it is as liquid and fluid as water. Also, it is smoking hot. If pieces of pasteboard or cardboard were just stuck in-between the fins, unless they were oil soaked, they would burn up and the lead would not be contained. Plus, the density of the lead makes a lot of weight and I would think even if the pasteboard was oil soaked to keep it from burning and then stuck between the fins, it would push out due to the weight of the lead entering the area, unless some intricate device inside was holding them in place. I looked at my James with the sabot, and the fins are tapered, but in the wrong way to accept and remove the pasteboard after the lead would be poured. Plus, they are contoured and rounded, not easy to plug with a thick pasteboard. Nor was the lead close to the fin tapers inside. Then, like I started this post saying, the lead is not thick like honey or anything, it is like water. So any minute hole or opening between the pasteboard and the iron would let the lead just run right out resulting in a bad pour. And the worker would have to melt off what lead adhered to the iron and start over. A pain in the ass. The skill level to do all this would have to be very high... but then again., it boggles my mind the intricate casting of the James shell anyway..
If this drawn illustration and verbiage posted previously above wasn't in existence, I would of offered two other ways it could have been done;
Firstly, the easiest way to attach the lead would to be to not pour it at all. Sheet lead could have been cut to the perfect size, and just pressed in to the fins from the out side. Super simple, and I still like this idea, except for the lead in the 4 holes in the bottom, I can't explain that. . [ by the way, it would be extremely difficult to pour lead into those into those tiny little holes to fill the sabot area.] Plus, unless the cast iron of the shell itself was heated to a couple hundred degrees, liquid lead resorts back to it's solid form almost instantly, in one or two seconds. You have to work extremely fast with lead.
The second way I would approach this, if you want to believe the pour theory, would be to fill the whole inside of the finished cast iron shell birdcage area with casting sand, and fill it into the fin area also. One solid chunk of casting sand. . Then scrape away what area you want the liquid lead to go to adhere to and fill. Of course, there would be a 'sleeve' on the outside to contain the liquid lead. After the pour break up the casting sand inside to expose the cavity.
Anyway, this is an interesting subject. Hope we find it out eventually
-
Hello Dave,
I agree with you about the liquid lead going through the 4/5 holes in base.
Did you reathe excerpt from the patent that I posted?
I don't know howt thick the pasteboard was , however it is thee in Jon's 2.6 bolt.
Regarding your other well founded comments you just have to read the patent description. You yourself stated the details might be in the patent and they were.
Kind Regards,
John
-
Hello,
For reference on the 3.8-inch James shells the 'pour' holes in the base seem to be exactly 1/4 inch in diameter. Not every big but, assuming that is their purpose, they allow the filling of a space that is less than that in thickness so 1/4 inch is probably big enough. I have some no-doubt pieces of sabot that I recovered near Fort Pulaski and they aren't even 1/4 inch thick. So, as explained by Dave the plumber, the lead and shell would have to be quite hot to keep it fluid to flow through a narrow space and fill all gaps without cooling and blocking the flow.
My belief is as I stated earlier and Dave also provided is the use of casting sand to fill the center area and space between the ribs. I agree with Dave that pasteboard would be hard to use. I've cleaned a lot of 3.8-inch James with a number still having sabots on them and never noticed anything but lead on the backside of the sabot although I will contend it is hard to see much in there. It would seem to be very hard to remove the pasteboard from within the ribs as certainly it would adhere to the lead if it didn't burn up and there would still be some existing examples with pieces of pasteboard present.
The other option that I've not seen stated is that the holes are vent holes and not fill holes. The sabot could be cast on the inverted shell with some sort of casting device that is filled with lead until it comes out the base holes so they know the space is filled. The more I think about this the more I think it is the likely scenario.
Anyone got a James half-shell with the sabot still on it that might lend some insight?
-
Not sure what you are looking for, but here you go:
-
Mike I can't see much it s so dark. What I really want to see is in the inside og one of th lead pieces.
Carl, if you will rmembe I did agree with you about putting casting sand on the inside of the cage to fill the slots during the lead casting.
But as you read the excerpt,lit is plain that the cast core that formed the cage had been removed and that James used pasteoard to form the ouside, then fastened t 'loop' (tin sleeve), placed in a tightly held form to keep lead from leaking out of the tin t fill through base holes, hwvever he failed to mention what form used to pour the lead.
-
My lead sabot trapezoid pieces that were a nice gift from Carl some time ago are too gnarly on the underside to tell anything. I think the firing and immersion in salty water has made any evidence on the underside illegible.
-
Thank you Mike. That is too bad. a view of the inside would have shown
exactly where the lead flowed . it appears from looking at the narrow piece of cast iron that has the raised rib with the notches for the wire is where the lead covered. Presumably the space where the pasteboard was placed had no lead at all. Does that mean the lead pieces were like a picket fence held together by being fasten to the tin and restrained from separating by the wire.
There are so many shells without their sabot that surely the sabots are still out there, somewhere between the gun position and the line of troops. No one has detected them, it should knock you ears off.
All the Best,
John
-
John,
I think that the pasteboard was thin enough that when the lead was poured, there was a layer of lead over the pasteboard also, not just areas not covered by the pasteboard. The pasteboard I can see the thickness of, only appears to be maybe three or four the thickness of a piece of computer paper.
Jon
-
Jon,
The whole purpose of the lead is for it to adhere to the tin and with the two strips of encircling wire, is locked together as one unit. So as the propellant gases expand the the entire packing of canvas, tin and lead into the grooves of the Bore.
With regard to the "hot lead" it started to cool as soon as it attached itself to the tin and the cast iron body between the slots.
Regards,
John
-
Please excuse our ignorance and interruption. I hope the below pictures might help John, or if not him, at least help us identify what we have. Maybe it's relevant to John's query, but I'm not sure. Anyway, here they are.
These sleeves of lead were found by Forum member Ripcon, and were dug near Union artillery positions, in between Union guns and the enemy position. I was with him when he found them. We have never really known what they were for sure -- Civil War, modern, etc. Reading this very informative thread, I can't help but post them in hopes that it has SOMETHING to do with the James shell as there were James Type I guns near the location of recovery.
-
Not having ween the packing after firing I am not certain, however the last one has a lower edge similar to a piece of James. too thin to be part of other shells that I can think of. Someone help.
John Thanks for post.
-
The lead is one continuous sleeve around the shell's ribs although I've not seen one where the tin was removed all the way around so I don't know that there isn't a seam from an applied rather than poured sheet. This continuous lead covering can be seen in some dug non-fired versions where the tin rusted off leaving only the lead sheathing exposed. The sabot comes off in trapezoidal pieces as described by Mike due to the ridges on the top of the ribs causing thin spots that naturally allow the lead to easily tear providing consistent shaped pieces. It is much the same effect as the Mallet cavities in the CS balls.
Regarding what is written in the patents I would add that you have to be careful to assume what is written in the patent is what was used in the manufacturing. The manufacturer would certainly discover changes that help production but don't (hopefully) hurt the intended use of the product so they change the way the manufacture. This could have happened after the first 2 or 3 produced. I can certainly see where something as challenging as the James sabot would lead to changes learned on the shop floor.
-
Callicles, Thanks for helping with the photos of the lead sleeves. I've found about a dozen of these sheared lead sleeves in various contorted conditions. Most all of them are trapezoidal in shape. I'm asking myself - "If these aren't James type I lead sabot pieces, then what else can they be???"
-
Carl, sorry I assumed you were through making comments. I agree with you about changes made in patents to suit the manufacturer and there are many examples of this.
I felt the only change they wold have made is to have left the sand core that formed the cage in place in order to eliminate the pasteboard. That was why I wanted to see the inside of one of the lead pieces, had the sand been kept in place there would have been minor outlines of the gas inlet ports. use of the pasteboard wold have left no sign of these ports.
if they wanted the lead to adhere to the tin sleeve they would have had to pour the lead into the 4/5 holes on the base. There is no other way that I can think of once that tin sleeve is in position.
Now am trying to figure out the method of holding the lead over the holes while it poured down into the remaining spaces.
Regards,
John
-
callicles,
Can you carefully unfold the lead in the top photo and perhaps reveal the inside providing it is not weather worn. and then photograph it laying flat. Tjhanls.
All the Best,
John
-
But John it is a relic and the shape is from its use in a moment of history! You wouldn't want the relic to lose it's history would you? :-\
-
I guess no comment.
John
-
John, I will contact Ripcon and ask him. I will try to see if he can make pictures of the underside first without physically changing it. Thanks.
-
callicles, Looking again at the first image of yours it does appear to be made up of pieces stuck together.
As of right now are we even certain that it is from a James? I may just be a hunk of material..lead? for the Civil War or no? I guess you can't peek inside and see what the side opposite the camera shows.
Regards,
John
-
John and all,
I spent the 4th with RipCon and family cooking out, and had a wonderful time. The hamburgers were superb! While there, I took pictures of the backsides of some of the sleeves of lead under discussion on this thread. Thanks, RipCon!
Since there are a lot of pictures I will post them in two or three posts, here goes:
There appears to be some sort of a substance trapped in the twisted lead. To my eyes (and to RipCon's) it resembles hard rubber or a charcoal-like substance. We both believe the substance is indigenous to the lead and not added or formed later.
-
More:
This is probably the best view of the substance attached to the lead.
-
This picture of backsides of other lead specimens does not contained the actual substance, but it appears that the residue of the substance remains smeared on the lead surfaces after all these years.
-
However, I must add this: Ripcon reminded me while he flipped burgers on the grill and while fire-works exploded around the neighborhood that I had found the below item "near" the vicinity of his sleeved lead items. He was correct. 25 years ago I, indeed, found this relic near the above pictured lead sleeves. It was suggested to us that the below pictured item is a base to a Wiard canister round (if you look close you can see the letters forming the word "BASE").
But let me add that these lead sleeves pictured above, and the item below, were found near a Union artillery battery, where 4 of the cannon in battery were "James rifles" and two cannon were 6-pounder guns.
So, I don't want to confuse the issue of the James discussion by possibly posting up portions of a Wiard while suggesting the lead sleeves are James items. RipCon and I just don't know, but offer all this for y'all's review and for our better understanding of what we actually have.
But I do hope we have contributed something to you guys, even if misplaced. Thanks!
-
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.
-
someone sent this one to me. who?
John
no idea what the stuff is. But it doe not come from the projectile.
-
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!!!
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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:
(http://i1147.photobucket.com/albums/o556/Sitherwood/Forum_Images/James_Sabot_Seam_zps8cfumq64.jpg)
The base view showing the 4 fill or vent holes as white lead dots:
(http://i1147.photobucket.com/albums/o556/Sitherwood/Forum_Images/James_Base_zpsn4nvqnxb.jpg)
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:
(http://i1147.photobucket.com/albums/o556/Sitherwood/Forum_Images/James_Sabot_Inside_zpsva7rtgz3.jpg)
A closer look to try and show a closer look at the lead from the inside of the cage:
(http://i1147.photobucket.com/albums/o556/Sitherwood/Forum_Images/James_Ribs_zpsycr2kxmz.jpg)
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.
-
thank you Carl. I don't think I see any pasteboard on yours. Worn? Not used?
Regards,
John
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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 :)
-
Members are certainly entitled to their opinions. In the past we have been starved for official references now that we have one we question it. I have said all along that some sort of Reservoir was used to surround the base and plug the center to pour the lead into and I believe the collective weight of the lead would force it down through the holes, especially if dusted with mold release. Perhaps David's mixture is thicker that that used in the sabot.
Regards,
John
-
John,
Thinking about the process, the filling of the void between the tin and ribs required three things:
1) Liquid tight space to fill which we know was the made by tin and something (sand/pasteboard/something else).
2) Hole to pour in the lead.
3) Hole for air to leave as lead went into the space.
The more I've thought on this I think the answer is a mix of the holes being for filling verses venting. Perhaps 2 of them filled the void and 2 vented it. Afterall, the space is small and it wouldn't take a large fill hole. The lead can be kept quite fluid to flow well by heating the shell. Then a quick dip in water once full and it'll cool and the filling device can be removed so the 4 sprues can be cut off on the bottom. That's my final guess.....I think...
-
Thanks Carl, that is about it. Remember the area surrounded by the tin sleeve was not air tight so the lead would fill by gravity until it backed up out of the holes. Hopefully we have all learned a little more about this fascinating shell.
Kind Regards,
John
-
John,
I think at fill time the sleeve would have to be air tight. Lead is quite fluid when melted and it would escape much of any hole. My guess is they had something to hold the sleeve tightly against the shell body while filling. You just don't ever see lead smeared on the iron which I would expect if not air tight and something leaked.
-
Carl, the extract from the patent you will find that the shell with tin sleeve in position is placed into a form t6o keep it tight, but it is still not air tight. Any lead that seeps out hardens almost immediately. See Jon's photo of the seam, some lead has leaked out and appears to be filed down.
Regards,
John
-
Here is a picture for you John. I hope it helps. It is of the remains of a 3.8in James shell the bomb squad got their mitts on, leaving a view of the inside of the lead sabot.
-
I see some delamination on the lead panel on the left side. is that corrosion or part of the inside "sleeve" that kept the lead from the inner part of the shell?
-
Carl, An excellent piece. Can you re-shoot as a jpeg and at a higher resolution you might want to consider a three shot panoramic view starting at left real closeup but show completely from top to bottom.
Any idea why the three ribs broke off so cleanly? Interesting in that it shows the top and bottom wires to assist in keeping the lead and tin in one piece.
Thanks very much, any chance of them finding the rest of the shell?
Kind Regards,
John
P.S. the left panel is a good question. A well focused shot might give the answer.
-
John:
I think you are referring to the picture I posted, not Carl. As I mentioned in the post, a bomb squad did this to the James shell. In other words, they blew it up. About 80% of the shell was recovered afterward, but unfortunately it is not in my possession, nor any other forum members, to re-photograph for you.
-
Mike, my apologies. I didn't even look and thought it was Carl responding to my previous posts.
So there is absolutely no possibility of borrowing it long enough to re-shoot it?? It is such a magnificent frag. Did you get to see it in person? Or did someone send you the image? I am trying to determine why the three ribs broke so perfectly and the left panel has my curiosity.
Kind Regards,
John
-
Someone sent me the picture. It appears that the bomb squad folks shoved the charge up inside the ribs and that's why it broke them that way. The underside of the powder cavity was also blown open leaving the nose and fuse intact.
-
So there is no way to get images at a higher resolution. Nose with fuze either??
John
-
I just emailed you all the different photos I have of it. There are 7 showing the various pieces. That's all that is available at this time, but if at a later date it becomes available for closer inspection and I am aware of it, I will let you know.
-
not normally attracted to fragments, but its such a neat piece. I keep studying it, and just can't see how it got formed inside( course thats the question) my only thought was a series of rectangular barrier( unknow conposition) held in place with the wires mentioned above. but would be terribly labor intensive to place a ring of them around the shell
-
Was your question how was the lead formed or how the birdcage was formed??
As far as the lead is concerned, go back to the beginning of this post and read the excerpt from James patent. The 'bird cage' was formed with a sand core in the same manner as the explosive chamber. you can also see the image showing the workers in an assembly line.
Kind Regards,
John
-
Not really a question but just comment. I did miss the line where not all have the wires. seems a very labor intensive shell
-
alwion,
Labor intensive?That is a possibility, however with an assembly line where one person does one step in the process in the manufacture. Labor was cheap, perhaps someone can tell us what the finished James cost? The Hotchkiss and the Dyer was also wire wrapped. I believe all the factors that made up the design of the James were unique in their end product. To bad it didn't survive.
Kind Regards,
john
-
John, I may have some information on the cost of the shells at home from books, but am in Indianapolis. Will check when I get back home in a couple days. Jon
-
There are some good Civil War monuments in downtown Indy. From the North, take the Martin Luther King Blvd exit...
Seriously, there is a museum with an ordnance rifle inside one of those monuments on the main drag downtown.
-
Yep good museums and monuments. Hit the one with the ordnance rifle you mentioned Sunday minutes before they closed (only open Fri thru Sun). Staying downtown about a block from their BIG monument. Everything seems to be within easy walking distance. Final day of sightseeing tomorrow.
-
well Jon's only 45 ,minutes away from me lol
-
Wow, this discussion has become solidly the 2nd most replied to topic on the forum. People like the James shell!
As an interesting (to me at least) side, I was over at my mother's house this evening and looking through a bunch of old stuff some of which was mine and I found a bucket of shrapnel from a long time ago. And sitting right on top was a nose piece to a James with the fuse on one end and the bottom of the slider sticking out the bottom. Nice shape too!
And no Mike I'm not going to cut it in half so it's educational! ::)
-
Carl,
Post an image of your James nose frag. A fitting ending to this post.
Regards,
John
-
Not so fast, John. After considerable expense of time and some treasure, I have arranged to buy the fairly recently blown up James shell posted above. It will be a week or two, but I will post your pictures when I get them.
-
Mike, that will be great. I would just like a hi-res of the one posted already by email.
Regards,
John
-
John,
Will do. Will have to get it next time I am over there. One day I need to go through the buckets and boxes to see what else in the way of neat frags, etc. might be there.
Amazing that what was once just an annoying frag thrown in the box but is now a neat find and will find a place on the shelf. Plus I think the James shells had a very low explosive rate as it seems to me that I've found more James shells than James frags. Mr. C. T. James would probably want to disagree with me I am sure. ;)
-
Perhaps someone has performance data on both type I and II James . They evidently did well at Fort Pulaski GA.
John
-
John,
will be a few day delay in getting back to you on James shell pricing in CW. Got back home yesterday and now heading to mother's now to check on storm damage I was unaware of (and no one called me about!) Power & phone restored after 4 days and no serious damage to her home is all I know at this point.
Jon
-
I am sorry Jon, I do hope any damage is minimal.
-
John: My understanding is that the they fired a lot of James there but in fact they didn't do all that well considering their caliber. What I seem to recall reading is the 30-lber Parrott was the workhorse that really tore up the brick. But I may be remembering that incorrectly.
Jon: Good luck with what you find!
-
Carl, I was under the impression that the 7 inch James was used.
John
Quote from #8 Report of Engineers":
"55. On the 21st of February, the first vessel with ordnance and ordnance stores for the siege, arrived in Tybee Roads. From that time until the 9th of April, all the troops on Tybee Island, consisting of the seventh regiment Connecticut Volunteers, the forty-sixth regiment New York Volunteers, two companies of the Volunteer Engineers, and, for the most of the time, two companies third Rhode Island Volunteer Artillery, were constantly engaged in landing and transporting ordnance, ordnance stores, and battery materials, making fascines and roads, constructing gun and mortar batteries, service and déptôt magazines, splinter and bomb-proof shelters for the reliefs of cannoniers off duty, and drilling at the several pieces:
56. The armament comprised thirty-six pieces, distributed
24 GEN. GILLMORE'S REPORT.
in eleven batteries, at various distances from the fort, as shown in the following table:
1. Battery, Stanton, 3 heavy 13-inch Mortars, at 3,400 yds.
2. Battery, Grant, 3 heavy 13-inch Mortars, " 3,200 "
3. Battery, Lyon, 3 heavy 10-inch Columbiads, " 3,100 "
4. Battery, Lincoln, 3 heavy 8-inch Columbiads, " 3,045 "
5. Battery, Burnside, 1 heavy 13-inch Mortar, " 2,750 "
6. Battery, Sherman, 3 heavy 13-inch Mortar, " 2,650 "
7. Battery, Halleck, 2 heavy 13-inch Mortar, " 2,400 "
8. Battery, Scott, 3 10-inch Columbiads, " 1,740 "
Scott, 1 8-inch Columbiads, " 1,740 "
9. Battery, Sigel, 5 30-p'dr. Parrott, " 1,670 "
Sigel, 1 48-p'dr. James, (old 24 p'dr.) " 1,670 "
10. Battery, McClellan, 2 84-p'dr. James, (old 42 p'dr.) " 1,650 "
McClellan, 2 64-p'dr. James, (old 32 p'dr.) " 1,650 "
11. Battery, Totten, 4 10-inch Siege Mortars, " 1,650 "
57. Each battery had a service magazine capable of containing a supply of powder for about two days' firing. A depot powder magazine, of 3,600 barrels capacity, was constructed near the Martello Tower, which was the landing-place for all the supplies.
58. For a description of the manner of unloading the heavy ordnance upon an exposed beach,—remarkable for its heavy surf,—and of the means adopted for transporting it, by the labor of men exclusively, over a swampy and unsafe road, to the several batteries, located at points varying from one mile to two and a half miles from the landing-place, I refer you to the report of Lieutenant Horace Porter, chief of ordnance and artillery, hereunto appended."
-
John,
I wasn't saying they didn't use James at Fort Pulaski. What I said was:
"they fired a lot of James there but in fact they didn't do all that well "
It was a case of how effective they were as a reply to your earlier comment of:
"They evidently did well at Fort Pulaski GA."
But that said, after doing a little research, I stand corrected:
General Gillmore reported in his after-action assessment of the siege by his artillery, “Good rifled guns, properly served can breach rapidly” at 1600–2000 yards when they are followed by heavy round shot to knock down loosened masonry. The 84-pounder James is unexcelled in breaching, but its grooves must be kept clean.[67] The 13-inch mortars had little effect.[52] The new 30-pounder Parrott Rifle had made a major impact on the battle. The rifled cannon fired significantly further with more accuracy and greater destructive impact than the smoothbores then in use. Its application achieved tactical surprise unanticipated by senior commanders of either side.
-
Carl,
I see we both have read Gilmore's siege of Fort Pulaski. Most were the 7 inch solid shot.
John
-
To All,
Three of my questions were never answered or commented on:
" Was the so called "tie ring" nothing but a casting aid. Was this the first shell in its caliber? Are there any other calibers that have this ring?"
-
John,
I don't remember seeing that question on the Tie Ring but I guess it wasn't answered because unless someone has discovered something recent about it the answer is not known. This was discussed at some length in the fixed shell discussion on another thread and there was nothing firm on what the intention of it was. Maybe someone knows but I don't.
Also, I looked for that James nose piece I mentioned earlier in this thread so I could get your images and found it. Turns out I should have looked closer at it as it was actually the nose of a Hotchkiss shell with the iron west point percussion fuse. It was just in good condition and the shape very similar to a James so I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Sorry about that.
-
Thanks Carl. The purpose of the ring is not discussed in any of the patents that I could find.
So is the one 3.0 inch the only caliber with the tie ring. Later 3.8s do not have the ring. Thanks again for checking the nose piece again.
Kind Regards,
John
-
John,
That I've ever seen or heard, the ring is only on the 3.8-inch caliber. There are people here with far more exposure and experience than I so maybe someone can give a better answer.
One variance that I noticed that is part of what we've been discussing here is the holes in the bottom. Those only seem to be used on the smaller calibers up to and including the rifled 12-lber projectile. After that a series of notches on the outer periphery show up to serve as the fill or vent holes. I wonder which came first and why big needed something different than small or vice-versa.
-
Carl,
Perhaps the notches are like some of the mysteries of the Bible, we will probably never know. Maybe it was for a design that did not come to be. However, if we had someone to post a side view of the notches in closeup, well focused we might be able to arrive at some conclusions. Help! please.
Kind regards,
John
-
John,
They are on all the normal production larger James projectiles. For a good clear image few are as good as Jack Melton so check out an example on his website:
http://civilwarartillery.com/hap/page126.htm
You can clearly see them on the bottom edge of the shell (see below). There are no holes in the base.
-
Thanks Carl,
I knew the notches were on the 7 inch James I but never had a "look down" to see how the notches connected with the exterior of the cage ribs and slots. We need a shot of a non-battlefield specimen to be able to see, clearly, how they connect. Perhaps we could determine if the slots were an aid to forming the lead, if used. Does the 7 inch use the same combination of lead tin and canvas or just tin and canvas?? I don't believe i have seen a patent specificfor the 7 inch.
Kind Regards,
John
-
John,
Here is another view of the notches of a 7" Bolt. My 7" Shell has holes like the 3.8" pieces instead of notches. I have emailed you other and larger photos by email. My 6.4" Bolt has notches. My 4.62" Shell has holes.
Jon
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c19/jonpatterson/7in%20Bolt-6b_zps9urkzksl.jpg) (http://s24.photobucket.com/user/jonpatterson/media/7in%20Bolt-6b_zps9urkzksl.jpg.html)
-
Jon,
Right on, many thanks. The 7 inch bolt appears to have only one step to receive just the tin and canvas. No Lead??
The notches on the perimeter of the base looks as if they come straight in then angle inward, so why have notches if lead isn't used. Maybe I am just not seeing it like it really is. Can you add further comments on this?
Kind Regards,
John
P.S. Have you figured out why the shell has holes and the bolt has notches?
-
To all,
Jon just emailed me and stated there are the same number of steps in the top and bottom of the cage, so it will use the same as the 3.8 inch version, that is lead, tin and canvas. Thank you Jon.
Regards,
John
P.S. Looking from the rear of a rifle towards the muzzle, is the rifling right hand, clockwise? If so, then I submit that the slot angle assists in forcing the sabot into the grooves of the bore.
-
has there ever been a book written about General James' life that anybody knows of ??
-
To All:
While I await an answer to my previous question, will someone share an image of a pristine, unfired James projectile. I would like you to confirm the presence of the remains of the pasteboard (cardboard) that James claimed to use in his lead sabot casting process. In an unfired condition it should b present as seen inside the slots. Thank you very much.
Kind Regards,
John