Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum
Relic Discussion => Artillery => Topic started by: rommack on May 02, 2017, 12:58:01 PM
-
I recently dug this 3 inch high sabot Read Bolt at Port Hudson. It is the first of this type I have dug. Thought you guys might enjoy a picture of just how bad the base flaked when it was fired. It also shows a good view of the way the sabot attaches underneath the base knob.
Ronnie
-
like it
-
That's a nice find Ronnie!!
-
Rare son-of-a-gun! Is that sabot attachment the type where the copper is cast around a square post?
-
Carl, The best I can tell is the sabot is cast around the base of the knob . I can not make out any square post to the base.
-
On some of the Read shells the upper part of the recess around the base knob is of a square shape to prevent the sabot from slipping. It looks that way from your image but I can't tell for sure.
-
I believe you are correct, Carl... it's a "square-post" baseknob Read, as shown on page 255 in the Dickey-&-George 1993 book. As expected on this "cleaned" projectile, the rust-encrustation is missing from the exposed corners of the square post, and present on the flat sides of the post.
Regards.
Pete
-
Is it possible to tell if it had a lathe dimple in the bottom? That would help date its manufacture. In Virginia, there were no lathe dimples until mid-Feb. or early March 1862. It doesn't appear precision lathes were used by Deep South foundries until April 1862. Identical 3-inch Read bolts were sent to Virginia in early 1863 and are primarily found at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. I believe most or all were made in Alabama. The sabots were placed in the sand molds and the hot iron carefully monitored as it was poured.
Woodenhead
-
There is a Lathe Dimple in the base. This Bolt would have been fired in May or June 1863 at Port Hudson. Ronnie
-
Thanks. I like these bolts and the matching shells because they are true Read projectiles. Dr. Read had the mold patterns and sabot stamping dies made to his specifications while visiting Quinby & Robinson in Memphis during Dec 1861 and Jan 1862. He was there as a civilian agent of the Ordnance Bureau's Mobile office ordering cannon carriages and associated items. There are multiple invoices showing he had Quinby make the patterns and a side note says they are to be taken elsewhere to produce his shells. Other correspondence shows he personally arranged production in Mississippi and Alabama. Beginning in February 1862, they were made in 3 inch, 3.3 inch and 3.67 inch calibers. With their pronounced base knobs forcing the propellant charge laterally into the interior of the high-band bearing surface, driving it hard into the rifling grooves, they were the best Read shells ever made! And yet, it seems pretty obvious his work was completely ignored by Richmond where they mass-produced the horrible Mullane shells, instead. When Richmond finally recognized the value of the copper cup sabots in August 1862, they once again ignored Read's carefully crafted design and instead copied Parrott's cone-shaped version with a base-chipping top and far more limited bearing surface designed to be driven forward into the rifling grooves. A true Read like yours had a rolled copper sabot formed in a die. Many of the Virginia Reads used rigid cast copper cups. Evidently, there was no central brain trust at the Richmond Arsenal paying attention to such mundane matters that were of critical importance to the soldier on the front line. When you read the letters of Cmd. John Brooke, he has nothing but distain for the Army ordnance officers associated with the Arsenal. Brooke completely separated the design and production of CS Navy projectiles. Dr. Read suffered the indignity of being at the Montgomery Arsenal to set up their workmen with his patented patterns when drawings arrived from Richmond of the new regulation projectile for field artillery - the copper disc Tennessee shell. It is no wonder he disappeared from the CS radar screen after that, hopefully enjoying a well deserved retirement in Tuscaloosa.
So Rommack, pardon the overkill discussion, but I feel a little tingle somewhere personal whenever I see one of Dr. Read's own. There is no question in my mind that ammunition boxes filled with these superior projectiles in 1863 on those two bloody ridges - Seminary and Missionary - would have turned the thing around. Today, we'd be pulling down a different set of statues.
Note on the photos: the back view among the previous 3 pics had no lathe dimple. The off-center hole is a air bubble. The 3 inch bolt, sent now, was dug in VA with no lathe dimple. That indicates they were made no later than the spring of 1862. Note the jar-lid shape of the missing sabot. These projectiles from several Deep South foundries remained in storage in early 1863 to be sent to Port Hudson and Virginia because the Army of Tennessee's artillery was ordered to obtain their projectiles from the Georgia arsenals. The final full color base view shows a typical 3-inch Read shell fired during the May 1864 Wilderness. Like so many VA Reads, the sabot is cast brass milled down to thin out the bearing surface. Like so much of their field ammunition, there is hardly a trace of rifling in the sabot. What a screw-up.
-
Mike,
Wonderful information. Thanks for taking the time to share with everyone.
I do, however, object to the "mass-produced the horrible Mullane shells" comment. Now I must admit that like an Archer they weren't the most ideal round to be firing if I were a soldier but as a collector I'm glad they made them! I really like collecting field caliber Mullanes.
I can't wait until the book comes out. It will provide a wealth of information. Thanks again. I hope to see you in Richmond.
-
Wow ! What great information . This is the first one of this type Read I have seen from Port Hudson, someone else might have dug one that I don't know of. I hope to find another one in this area as I am sure they fired a number of these bolts. Ronnie
-
Great information, Woodenhead! Does the information you provided above apply only to "square" post Reads or does it apply to any Reads with lathe dimples? The reason I ask is that I found a 3" Read and just wanted to know if your information might apply to mine so that I could add your information to the description of mine. Thanks!
-
Hi Carl,
Yes, if I was speaking from my own point of view, "lovely" would have been the proper adjective. Right now I have two beautiful 3-inch Mullanes on hold from Harry Ridgeway. One is a flush-bolt type, the other a long Mullane with part of the wooden dowel remaining. Only $600 each. Seem to me they sold for $1,000 or more about 10 years ago. I'm not complaininjg!
I have had the pleasure of digging three Mullanes in VA. One was a perfect flush-bolt type from Chancellorsville. Another came from a CS 1862-63 winter camp at Fredericksburg. It is located along Mine Road passing thru the rear areas of the fighting. It was the highest ground where the CS Whitworth(s) were stationed and I had found VA buttons around some obvious hut sites. While looking for more with Pete George, I hunted a shallow ravine on the adjacent hillside. I got a blasting reading and looked down to see the nose of the most perfect 3-inch Read shell sticking out of the leaves. Already a shell lover, I could hardly get my breath as I searched some more and immediately dug a Dyer and a Mullane. Pete was hunting about 50 yards away and I knew he would want to see these shells right away, so I interrupted him and showed him the ravine and shells.
Needless to say, he was about as excited as we diggers ever get - you know, somewhat glassy-eyed and hands twitching. He plugged in and jumped into the ravine just below where my 3 shells had just been found. He was a very good friend, the 'best' really, but even friendship has its limits. It was like I had confided that my girlfriend/wife was especially good in the sack and he jumped under the covers. Without hesitation, I blocked his progress. He looked somewhat confused when he removed his earphones but accepted my declaration of ownership of all the ground within 30 yards. Maybe the relic Gods punished me because afterwards I found nothing else of note.
I have so many pictures I can't resist sending a few more. I believe this was one the 3-inch Mullanes made in Alabama in early 1862 after the drawings arrived from Richmond in Feb 1862. At that time they were making equal numbers of bolts and shells and a limited number of both were sent to Virginia for the Peninsula Campaign. The Montgomery Arsenal was a bit confused but announced for the time being they would make both Reads and Mullanes. Dr. Read's instructions for his 3-inch shells called for copper fuze plugs. Example have been dug in Deep South sites with this same plug I believe to be drive-in. The Horse Soldier has one of these Mullanes for sale right now for about $700. Original sabot and bolt intact and nice copper fuze plug but repair has been done on the iron body. The three pics included do not show that shell but it is the same type.
-
To Callicles,
There is no connection between the obvious wedge cuts in the Port Hudson 3-inch Read bolt and the later square post sabots and those marked "Blakely," Look at Read's original patent drawings and the written description. He called for those wedge cuts in 1856 to help secure it from rotating independently and also to limit the crimping of the wrought iron when it was struck into the cup form. Remember, all official Read sabots were supposed to be iron until the inventor declared the switch to high copper brass at the end of 1861. Quite a few of the later Read sabots made by others were also shaped but the wedge cuts on ones like the Port Hudson bolt are right out of his patent drawings. Read suggested the option of holes in the upper sabot for the molten iron to pass through and secure the cup and these are also seen on some Reads and Read-Parrotts. Of course, these cuts and holes were more important for his heavy projectiles like the 24, 32 and 42 pounder rifle shells he already had the Deep South foundries making in 1861.
An examination of correspondence between the arsenal commanders and invoices suggests the square posts and most of the innovations seen in the Deep South field projectiles came later from Raines and Girardey at Augusta. During the winter of 1863-64 they conducted extensive studies of the performance of fuzes and field projectiles at their Sand Hill range. They even tested the Virginia 3-inch Reads and Broun fuzes. There are many field reports of Augusta's experimental sabots, shells and fuzes from places like Charleston and Chattanooga. No similar interest was ever demonstrated by anyone at the Richmond Arsenal. Col. Broun ignored their reports and personally stopped the excellent Girardey percussion fuze (about 15 cents each) from being used in the Virginia theater while he slowly developed his own Broun concussion fuze (more that a dollar each) which worked no more than half the time. Field tests showed the Girardey effective more than 90% of the time. The Girardey was ready for widespread distribution at the start of 1863. Broun's fuze was first issued in the spring of 1864. Once Gorgas became aware of Broun's incompetence, the Broun fuzes were quickly withdrawn and the Girardey employed. If only we had used them at Gettysburg. I am planning an article for Jack along the lines of "How Col. Broun Lost The War."
The enclosed photo shows a 2.9 inch Read-Parrott dug by Harry Ridgeway in the Shenandoah Valley. Probably an 1862 site rather than 1864. Note the 3 holes in the iron sabot allowing the iron to pass thru. This was included in Read's 1856 patent. When Dr Read was setting up the Deep South arsenals to make Reads in early 1862, he mentions that he has been asked to do the same for the Parrott projectiles.
-
Thanks Woodenhead!
Since I'm not completely knowledgeable on the topic - not sure I understand the "square post" or "wedge cuts" aspects - I post below the 3" Read bolt I recovered (Vicksburg Campaign) with its sabot (sabot was found many yards away) for clarification. I would like to use some of your information in the description you posted for it in my display, but I certainly don't want to add information that does not apply to mine. Do you mind telling me how mine fits in to your discussion?
The only things I know are that the sabot is an uncommon tall version, low-convex top and probably made in Selma. Its 12 lands and grooves with left-hand twist was probably fired from a Confederate manufactured rifle. The projectile's base knob is torn off. (All this information was given to me by Pete George after he looked over the very bad pictures I sent to him, so I am grateful to him for that knowledge. I have what Pete said in written notes I made, so it is possible I misrepresented what he actually told me. I hope not)
Anyway, thanks and I hope you guys don't mind me posting the pics here.
-
were the two holes in the sabot for pins like a mullane?
-
Not sure about pins. It has been suggested to me that the copper sabot was likely cast into the projectile's body by use of some sort of counter mold.
-
First of all, the sabot on the last pic I posted, the 2.9 inch Read-Parrott dug by Ridgeway, is copper. We have not seen those holes in iron sabots of field caliber ammunition.
To Alwion, the two holes in that copper Read sabot (most I have seen have 3 holes) are not for separate pins like a Mullane. Read illustrated and described these as an option in his patent write-up. Read wanted the molten iron to pass thru and lock the sabot in place like a bolt. He was mainly thinking about the big projectiles. Read also described and illustrated the wedge cuts which would serve a similar purpose and also limit the tendency of the die-struck wrought iron to crimp. Remember, all Read sabots were supposed to be iron until the end of 1861 when the inventor formally announced the switch to copper. The bulbous iron base knob is missing from that latest dug Read. Big base knobs were also part of Read's patented design as they helped force the propellant charge laterally into the high-band sabot, thereby forcing it into the rifling grooves. These basic principles were ignored by the geniuses in Richmond. This, despite receiving samples and drawings from Read in late 1861. This despite an official memorandum from Col. Gorgas sent to all the arsenals in October 1861 announcing that the Read projectiles was to be officially adopted as the Army standard. I find all of this, and the many implications, both interesting and tragic. At the same time Dr. Read was busy in person setting up the Deep South foundries with what I would argue was the best field-size projectile of the war, North or South, the Richmond guys decided upon the terrible Mullane. This had dire consequences for the overall effectiveness of the CS field artillery and the likelihood of success by men in the field!
So, that last Read with the separate sabot was a true Read shell, like the previous example. Dr. Read had that mold pattern in Memphis and the die for striking your sabot. Those holes were added by direction of Read who set up the foundries in Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi with his patterns. That sabot you dug is what a true Read sabot should look like. Everyone I have seen, and I have seen and photo'ed many, took the rifling grooves beautifully. Compare that sabot to the typical VA Mullane or Read sabot. Its not even close. Without a good spin from the rifling, distance firing with effect was impossible. The CS artillery would have been better off firing 6 and 12 pounders. At least they bounced.
No great quantities of field caliber Reads like yours were made during the war because many of the foundries were soon shut down by the Feds. Also, there was clearly no appreciation of the quality of those projectiles arranged by Dr. Read. The other foundries looked to Richmond for guidance. When the fighting intensified in the west during late 1862 and 1863, the armies were directed to get most of their shells from the Georgia foundries. Finally, Col. Raines realized something was terribly wrong with the field projectiles after extensive testing in late 1863. He reintroduced Read's high band copper sabot and tried many other improvements.
There's more to his story and we'll get into it in future postings. Enough for now.
Woodenhead
About the pics - here are two shells I dug that have typical VA sabots. The flush bolt Mullane from Chancellorsville was fired and has no trace of rifling. Even if it took the grooves, look at the narrow edge it presented for contact. The 3 inch Read I found at Fredericksburg hunting with Pete George. I believe it was fired because it was one of 3 salvaged shells. Not a trace of rifling on its thick cast copper sabot. Now, imagine both of these had your Actual Read sabot instead, as they should have. My God, D. H. Hill was right! The army was sabotaged by the ordnance people in Richmond.
-
Thanks for the info . I find the above sabot to be terribly interesting, which means a shell with one will probably be way out of my budget:}
-
Not necessarily. I have seen these regularly at shows and shops for a wide range of prices - usually based upon condition and location. No one, it seems, treats them as anything other than another 'damn' Read. Only readers of this blog have any understanding of the fact that they are true Reads set up by the good Doctor himself. They are usually priced accordingly and now-days those prices can vary a lot. So keep your collector eyes open and I believe you'll get a deal.
Enclosed are photos of two of Dr. Read's "own" that I photographed at the Horse Soldier a couple of years ago. Look at those wonderful high-band copper sabots. They were from Corinth or some place in that area. I believe they are both 3.3 inch which was the standard field Rifle in the western theater during 1861. They gradually shifted to the 3 inch caliber. These shells were displayed with a bunch of mid-level to junk shells and priced accordingly. Note the huge air bubble in one of them which obscures what would have otherwise been Read's pronounced base knob. Probably means it was among the early batches made around spring 1862. It appears from the vouchers and other records that the production of Read's field patterns by the Deep South foundries had stopped completely by early-to-mid 1863. I will be buying these when I have had my fill of Mullanes and Read-Parrotts made by Samson & Pae.
-
I have two 3.3" shells that have the knob in the pictures, were the two holes hidden under the knob then and not visible?
-
Made in advance, the die-struck copper sabot was positioned in the sand mold and then the molten iron poured in with the nose down. The founders expertly monitored the temperature of the iron, allowing it to cool sufficiently as it approached the sabot to ensure minimum melting. The two holes, three holes, wedge cuts or simple round interior (I've seen all of these on those early Reads) had already been punched when the basic sabot was struck into its "jar-lid" shape (as opposed to the Read-Parrott's cone shape). His 1856 patent called for some serious striking "by the use of male and female dies under a stamping press, which could be so arranged as to cut the discs and punch the necessary apertures all at one operation." I wonder if it is accurate to call those solid cast copper sabots seen in so many of the Virginia Reads "Reads" at all? The original patent suggested optional "apertures" including four "wedge-shaped" cuts equally spaced around the opening "to facilitate turning in and flattening." He further recommended the addition of a series of smaller holes "through which the molten cast metal may pass in founding, thus forming large rivets by which the cylinder (i.e., sabot) may be made to adhere firmly." Again, he had heavy projectiles in mind when he wrote the patent.
Read concluded with "a simple round central opening would suffice."
If you don't mind, I'll copy some of the unpublished material from Thunderbolts to further explain what happened.
Dr. Read's six year-old patent design was closely followed when several Deep South and Tennessee foundries commenced the production of his field-caliber projectiles in late 1861 and early 1862. That happened because Read arranged the contracts and had the first of the sabot-stamping dies made and installed himself. While visiting the Memphis foundry of Quinby & Robinson (a.k.a., "The Tredegar of the West") on December 5, 1861, Dr. Read personally oversaw the fabrication of "two patterns for Read's 3 inch Rifle shot," and one for the matching "shell." (Quotes from vouchers.) In addition, he had "one small wrought iron mandrel for 3 inch Read stamped." A "mandrell" was a cone-shaped fixture that fit over the projectile's nose to impart the turning motion of the lathe. It is clear from a third entry on the same voucher (i.e., "Patterns for Read's 32 pounder sabot"), that the "patterns" he ordered for the 3 inch projectiles included sabot-stamping dies as the descriptions and costs were nearly identical.
Hurriedly written at the bottom of the voucher was a revealing note by Quinby's partner and foundry superintendent - Robinson.
"The above bill of articles was made by order of Dr. J. B. Read and taken by him to other places for the purpose of facilitating him in having his shot and shell cast."
Now, this is current writing to summarize the story. Read returned to Ala. and contracted a north-state foundry to make 3 and 3.67 inch Rifle shells from wrought iron. That was the only sabot material prescribed by his patent. After a couple of weeks, the foundry backed out of the arrangement because of difficulties obtaining or working with the iron sabots. Read informed the other foundries that from now on, all Read sabots were "to be copper, or its equivalent of strong brass at least two-thirds copper." Dr. Read returned to Memphis in January 1862 and oversaw the production of another "six sets [of] Read's Stamps and Dies."
There is a sad story here for those with feelings for the South. Here, the new Confederacy had a world renowned projectile inventor employed by the Ordnance Bureau and his work was ignored by Richmond. I know we're all not supposed to be judgmental in this modern era, but "Damn, Boy!" (That's Tom talking from shell heaven) it mattered. One patriotic Rebel who was fully aware of all of this was Capt. Hoplite Oladowski who was a local ordnance liaison working across the Department of Florida, Alabama and Mississippi. In the course of distributing guns and ammunition in early 1862, he had opportunities to test the Reads and compare their performance to the other projectiles currently being mass-produced - the Archers, Burtons and CS James - all bolts, no shells. It wasn't even close. Oladowski, Gen. Bragg's future Chief of Artillery, shouted from the rooftops about the superiority of the Reads but no one listened. When Leeds & Co. of New Orleans replenished the stocks expended at Shiloh in April 1861, they sent more of the worthless Archer, Burton and James bolts to the LA batteries. In a April 21st note to Oladowski, Leeds explained "As yet, we have no orders for any projectiles of that kind (i.e., Reads), for field guns."
-
I intended for these pics to accompany my last post. The 3 inch Archer bolt with the sabot was apparently made by in New Orleans by Leeds & Co. during April 1862. They are the only Archers made anywhere that were lathe turned with dimples. Their last Burtons also had these dimples. New Orleans was captured by Farragut's naval force at the end of the month. Government vouchers confirm Leeds had produced several thousand of these since late 1861 along with lesser numbers of Burton and James bolts. Most were 3.3 inch caliber. These three poorly performing patterns were primary among those fired by the struggling Southern army at Shiloh. None of those found on the battlefield had lathe dimples which reinforces the April 1862 date for the introduction of the precision lathes to the Deep South. In Virginia, it appears that such lathes were adopted when Tredegar began the mass-production of the 3 inch Mullanes in mid-February 1862.
-
Have dug these shells stopper Hudson and at Vicksburg seems they were only bused in these two areas