Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum
Relic Discussion => Artillery => Topic started by: emike123 on March 26, 2017, 09:33:38 AM
-
I picked up this shell at the Baltimore Show. The 1993 Dickey and George lists it as a rarity 10 CS 2.9" "Broun Body" Long Read Commond Shell. To my knowledge I only recall seeing one for sale previously, and it walked into the Marietta Show years ago and was Hoovered up by a forum member. These are found exclusively around Atlanta and this one was fired from a 2.9" Parrott rifle.
-
One interesting feature of this shell is that it must've had a large gas bubble in the iron at the shell's nose. I am guessing that in flight a thin iron cover over the bubble melted away exposing this large hole next to the fuse hole. The aerodynamics must've been interesting along with the sound it would've made in flight.
-
Or some yank tried to shoot it out of the air!
-
Looks like from the flair of the sabot it might have been fired from a 3-inch gun. Perhaps the think cast iron skin broke off on impact which would explain how it got out of the arsenal with that big of an air bubble. I would think that one would not even pass a CS quality inspection for fear of pre-mature detonation since it is next to the fuse hole. Really neat shell.
-
What quality control? This 3 inch Mullane (or Tennessee sabot) shell was dug out of the main impact area of Malvern Hill by a father-son team that together have dug about 600 shells since the 1970s. Look at that monstrosity! Not only were there no holes ever drilled for the center bolt and pins, it is close to 1/2 inch shorter than the complete versions (see Mike W.'s posting about the two Mullanes he just picked up) meaning the molten iron never filled out the mold cavity. And yet it was packaged by the Richmond Arsenal and sent to the front lines. The amazing thing is it flew about as well as the other CS projectiles fired that day, and but for the failure of its paper time fuze, might have laid low some of the blue-coats.
Conclusion - when the pressure was on, the ordnance inspectors looked the other way while the armies used anything that was immediately available. Even rejects from the junk box of Samson & Pae, like the example pictured below, who I have evidence produced this pattern, and the Macon Arsenal that almost certainly cast your nose-challenged 2.9 inch Read-Parrott sometime between June and August of 1864. Obviously, there is more to say about all of this. I'd like to see a couple of close-ups of the base and sabot.
-
3" Shell quality control:
-
The "Broun Body" Reed shown in the Dickey-&-George 1993 book has a very obvious thick wide bourrelet at the top of the shell's cylindrical body, but no bourrelet at the base (like the body of a 3" Broun shell). Emike, I don't see a bourrelet on the shell you posted. But you say it is a Broun Body Read. Is there a bourrelet on your shell that is so faint that it doesn't show in the photo?
-
Yes
-
Emike, thanks for answering. Even when viewing the enlarged version of your shell photo, I could see no trace of a bourrelet at all. But I did notice your shell appears to have the same sabot as the 2.9" Broun-Body Read.
About the casting flaw bubble next to its fuzehole:
Pardon me please, but I have to say your guess "that in flight a thin iron cover over the bubble melted away exposing this large hole next to the fuse hole" is impossible. Iron melts at something like 2,500 or 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit.
Which brings me to my answer about the alleged wide-open casting flaw airbubbles getting passed by a Confederate Ordnance Inspector. Nope... the bubbles were covered by a thin shell of iron. They were not externally visible. When the fired projectile strikes the ground, the impact crushes the thin iron which covers the bubble, exposing what was until then a non-visible casting flaw. Or, in the case of Mike O'Donnell's Mullane/Tennessee-Sabot shell, firing blast crushes the thin iron covering the airbubble(s).
Extra-close inspection will reveal the broken edge of the thin shell. For anyone desiring proof... in my own collection I have a 3-inch Hotchkiss basecup, which has a 1.5"-wide-by-.5-inch-deep Frisbee-shaped airbubble at the center of the basecup's rounded exterior. That surely would not have been passed by a US Ordnance Inspector. The broken edge of the covering iron "shell" is clearly visible.
I've also owned an 18-Pounder Solid-Shot (a RevWar one) which had a ping-pong-ball-sized casting airbubble that got exposed when the ball struck the ground. Again, the broken edge of the covering iron "shell" can be seen. (Some of you who've visited my house in the past may have viewed that ball in-person.)
I've also got a 2.9" Read shell's exploded base, with a big "Frisbee" airbubble where the lathe dimple used to be. The shell could not have been lathed if the bubble was visible there when the shell was connected to the lathe. In other words, if the airbubble was visible, the lathe dimple would be in the bottom of the airbubble. But the lathe dimple is absent.
We know that when casting-flaw air bubbles were visible, and thought to be large enough to potentially cause a problem when exposed to firing-blast, the hole was patched with lead. I'm sure some of you guys have seen examples of that.
For additional proof, if any is still desired, see the photo of a sawed-in-half 3" Hotchkiss Percussion shell in the Melton-&-Pawl booklet, on the left side of page 13. For those of you who don't have the booklet, go to civilwarartillery.com and select "Field Projectiles" and then "Cross Sections," then scroll down to the sawed-in-half 3" Hotchkiss Percussion shell. The photo clearly shows a HUGE and ENTIRELY INTERNAL oblong-shaped airbubble across nearly the entire bottom of the nose section... which passed Inspection because the airbubble is covered by a thin shell of iron.
Regards,
Pete
-
Yes, I have a solid shot with a casting flaw (hole) in it. It has been patched with a blob of lead....
-
The upper bourrelet is admittedly difficult to see in a photograph, but readily apparent when looking at the shell in hand. Here is another photo of the nose showing the upper bourrelet, but if you still cannot see it, you will have to just take my word for it that it is there.
-
The upper bourrelet is admittedly difficult to see in a photograph, but readily apparent when looking at the shell in hand. Here is another photo of the nose showing the upper bourrelet, but if you still cannot see it, you will have to just take my word for it that it is there.
Usually when I get a ball or shell that has been "filled", it has been filled with Bondo or once with sheetrock mud.
-
Thanks for that detailed response, Pete. Here is another 10 pounder Read-Parrott with an air bubble in the bottom which was the top of the pour. The maker's (Samson & Pae) were aware of the problem and hit it with a chisel first to check. The same was true of your (Pete's) 10 pounder Read-Parrott dug at Salem Church with the "C" stamped. Maybe that was the case with the 3 inch Mullane pictured earlier in this blog but it looked like an incomplete casting. This 10 pounder I show here with an "H" stamped on the shoulder was actually a 3 inch Read-Parrott made by S & P during Nov.-Dec. 1862 for the 3 inch Navy Parrotts borrowed by the Army. It is well documented. Remember Tucker William dug one at Banks Ford.
The second shell pictured below is what I thought a Broun-Parrott looked like. Two bourrelets, large and small. The only 1864 Broun shell with one bourrelet I am familiar with was their 3 inch replacement of the Read. From the close-up of emike's nose, it looks like the bourrelet is a build-up around the mold seam. Overall, it still looks like a 2.9 inch Read-Parrott to me.
-
The upper bourrelet is admittedly difficult to see in a photograph, but readily apparent when looking at the shell in hand. Here is another photo of the nose showing the upper bourrelet, but if you still cannot see it, you will have to just take my word for it that it is there.
Usually when I get a ball or shell that has been "filled", it has been filled with Bondo or once with sheetrock mud.
LOL! AGREED!
-
To all interested parties - this most engaging discussion brings up an important 'event' or development in the four year history of Read-Parrott shell production by the Richmond foundries - the decision to begin swadging their wrought iron sabots. In a March 31, 1864, letter to Col. Gorgas, Broun stated: "The 10 Pdr. Parrott (is made here) always with wrought iron and swaged sabot." (Girardey Papers, Citizens File). The Arsenal commander wrote this in response to a memorandum sent by Mallet operating the Laboratory in Macon. Mallet had suggested that copper should be used to fashion all 10 pdr. Read-Parrott sabots. They were already using copper in Georgia (see the 10pdr. from Atlanta area posted by emike - it was typical). Col. Broun explained his decision to stay with iron: "If the brass cup is turned too thin, it is liable to be deformed in transportation so as not to enter the gun. A quantity of ammunition was returned to the Arsenal by the Army of Northern Virginia for this reason." And so, until the last cannon barked at Appomattox, the Richmond Arsenal issued 10 pounders with iron sabots. All of the brass-sabot Read-Parrotts dug in VA were made in Georgia with a small quantity coming from Alabama.
This brings up a few interesting questions but here I want to focus on dating the switch from hand-fashioned and punched sabots exclusively limited to 1861-62, to actual swedged sabots which were introduced at the start of 1863. If you examine the base view of the 3 inch CS Navy Read-Parrott in my previous posting, you will notice an obvious flaw in its construction. This was not battle damage as similar construction problems are seen in a number of late 1862 S & P sabots. The first photo below is a base view of another 3 inch NAVY Read-Parrott where the metal is also separating. This projectile appears to be unfired. Ordnance vouchers for Nov. 1862 reported Samson & Pae's production of 193 "3 inch Navy Parrott shells" followed by an additional 135 in December. The second pictures below shows what happened to many of those flawed sabots after they were fired. It was dug in the Chancellorsville/Fredericksburg theater. It is clear they did not have good quality rolled iron which they overlapped and hand-worked when shaping it in a traditional "former."
There must have been complaints or somebody smart associated with the Ordnance Bureau came up with the idea of swadging them, thereby sizing the sabot for the proper windage and impressing the three grooves all in one movement. On Feb. 27, 1863, the top Ordnance officer at the Richmond Arsenal requested: "Please furnish to Samson & Pae,... 2 feet cast steel, 3 inch round or square, for the purpose of making tools for manufacturing cups for Parrott projectiles." This was the beginning of "swadging" in Richmond and provides us collectors with a benchmark for readily dating any unmarked 10 pdr. CS Read-Parrotts. The difference is very noticeable. A good example can be seen with the sabot on the obvious S & P shell pictured below dug by a local boy at Gettysburg. Note the frequently seen letter "C" stamped in a shallow groove lathed on top of the mold seam at the shoulder - typical of contemporary S & P Read-Parrotts. It has a beautiful swadged iron sabot. What an improvement. One month later, Samson & Pae billed the Bureau for "2 forms & blocks for 10 & 20 pdr. Parrott shell cups" for the new "Ordnance Works" at Salisbury, NC. Again, a couple of months later, they billed for making a few more cup dies which I suspect went to Adolphus Rahm and a couple of other active foundries.
-
Woodenhead:
Please open your 1993 edition of D&G and turn to page 251. (If you do not have a copy close at hand, that is an unacceptable answer!) That is certainly the same kind of shell I posted above. I freely acknowledge the limitations of the pictures I was able to produce, but the sabot is identical down to the lathed away "lube and safety groove" above the copper ring and the absence of a lower bourrelet above that. The length, width, nose (ogive) profile and upper bourrelet width are the same. And as regards the "mold seam buildup" contrivation, even in the example of a nicer specimen shown in D&G the top bourrelet fades to nothing on the right side of the picture.
Finally, I am not sure which picture above of yours you thought was instead this shell shown on page 251 of the 1993 D&G, but all yours look different from that one in the book to me -- like for starters a totally different sabot type, a copper fuse adapter and a more elongated ogive (nose section).
-
Thanks for the additional information. Mike, you were correct - I had not looked at the "Broun Body" shell on page 251, Dickey/George. I've been trying to figure out who made the various Deep South shells dug in VA. Many of those are copper-saboted Read-Parrotts, somewhat similar to your example. I had hoped that if I could determine the style sent by Macon Arsenal to Atlanta in 1864, then I could match them up with similar copper sabot Read-Parrotts from Cold Harbor, Bermuda Hundred, etc. Invoices and receipts available on the fold3.com website show Macon supplied thousands of 10 pounder Read-Parrotts to the embattled Army of Tennessee during the Atlanta Campaign. Far more than any other foundry. On April 26, 1864, shortly before the fighting began, Macon's superintendent Richard Cuyler wrote to Col. Wright at the Atlanta Arsenal: "...am in receipt of your requisition for 300 10 pdr. Parrott shells. I have just sent about 1,600 of them (to Atlanta or VA?) and have none remaining on hand." Then, Cuyler provided us with a glimpse of a new pattern prescribed by Richmond in early 1864. Macon's chief continued: "I am not casting any more at present for the reason I am not satisfied the kind we have made heretofore according to last drawings from Richmond do not make good practice. They are entirely too long & must capsize in their flight. Macon's Cuyler registered his complaint with Col. Gorgas in Richmond, and asked "if it would be better to make them like those made at Augusta, which were well spoken of." (i.e., copper sabots)
From excavated examples backed up by additional research, it seems likely that the 10 pounder Parrott pictured in "the last drawings from Richmond," was the "Tredegar Parrott" seen on Dickey/George (1993) page 247. Just as with the official Mullane drawings sent to all the Arsenals in Feb. 1862, every active arsenal was notified of new patterns around March-April 1864. Many variations were made with each arsenal reconfiguring the designs according to their own predelictions - most with a wide bourrelet (or enlarged nose) at the top and a narrow bourrelet at the bottom. As was the case with the earlier 10 pdr. smooth Read-Parrotts, a cone-shaped iron sabot was prescribed by Broun and employed by the VA foundries. Rigid, with little exposed bearing surface, it was the worst sabot put on a 10 pounder Read-Parrott during the war. Superior copper sabots were used on the limited number made in the Deep South. Apparently, your nose-flawed Read-Parrott that started this blog was Macon's response to the changes introduced in early 1864. This style is not found in VA. Is it frequently found around Atlanta? Is there another copper-saboted Read-Parrott without the bourrelet that has been excavated in quantity around Atlanta?
At the same time the "Tredegar Parrotts" were introduced, an official replacement for the standard 3 inch Read was announced - the long 3 inch Broun shell with rounded nose, single wide bourrelet at the top and cast-on copper band sabot. Evidently, these two new patterns represented the Richmond Arsenal's response to severe criticisms from the field of the current projectiles. The timing of their release corresponded with the last of the copper fuze plugs put into Rifle projectiles. Both the 10 ponder and 3 inch patterns were quietly withdrawn after about one month. The too-long 3 inch Broun shell was replaced by a shorter version just as copper fuze plugs gave way to wooden plugs. According to Macon, the flawed "Tredegar Parrott" was superseded by drawings showing the previous smooth-sided Read-Parrott introduced in 1861. Not surprisingly, Col. Broun neglected to mention this screw-up in his postwar writings and their relative rarity caused them to be considered variants.
The first 3 pics are views of the same shell from Kerksis collection. Maybe Dubose. Anyone know what the number represented? I photo'ed during late 1980s right after an 18-wheeler brought much of the DuBose/Kerksis collection to Gettysburg for sale. The last 10 pdr. Read-Parrott was handed to me by Tom Dickey when Pete and I began work on Thunderbolts. It looks like an earlier product of the Macon Arsenal when they were still using copper fuze plugs. Is this style frequently found around the Atlanta Campaign?