Port Hudson shell ID please...

[emike123]

Good catch Pete, my bad.

John, its the shell on page 295 of 1993 D&G, not 296.  I rushed to post the other because I did not want to get into a discussion of the different iron "posts" that support the two types of fuses (candlestick and brass percussion anvil cap).  If you want to see the percussion fuse iron post and brass anvil cap, they can be found on page 33 in Chuck Jones' fuse book you cited.  I do not know of anyone who has one cut in half so the picture I posted above is the best I'm afraid we have for now.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thanks Pete. It actually has iron body ribs underneath all that lead?   Is id a breech loader?   John

[Pete George]

  Yes, the Flanged Sawyer shells have iron ribs underneath the thin jacket of lead. You can view a Flanged specimen missing its lead jacket in Harry Ridgeway's archive, here: http://www.relicman.com/artillery/zArchiveArt.Sawyer.00.htm
Scroll down to shell A2006.

  All of Silvanus Sawyer's cannons were muzzleloaders.

Regards,
Pete

[Pete George]

John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> Will someone post photos of the percussion fuse, top, side, bottom views?

  In addition to the photos of the Sawyer Percussion fuze in Chuck Jones' book, you can view a blueprint-style "cutaway" diagram of that fuze, along with text explaining its construction and its functioning, on page 463 of the Dickey-&-George 1993 book ("Field Artillery Projectiles of the American Civil War, Revised & Supplemented 1993 Edition').

Regards,
Pete

[Dave the plumber]

        No safety device on the fuze, looks dangerous for transport and handling. Unless of course, the wafer was installed right before loading.
       Like John says, it would be dangerous ramming\ setting  the shell down in a barrel. They must have had a specific rammer with a hole cut out for the fuze so no contact would be made, as I gather many other types of percussion and paper time fuze shells would require

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Unless it was a breech loading shell.   Thanks Pete. Was your drawing made from a blueprint?  John

[emike123]

Here is a picture of the only surviving Sawyer gun, and as Pete said it is a muzzle loader.  Its in a cemetery in Minnesota.

More info on the gun can be found through this link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=twcQGSi1F7QC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=sawyer's+cannon&source=bl&ots=4Ckx_CtwF0&sig=53RB_B-8OTlf-VTl0QK5TAIJe80&hl=en&ei=PcTmTaLiBMa1twf-5YjXCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=sawyer's%20cannon&f=false

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thanks Pete and  Mike.  Only one surviving  Must have been a small amount in use..  John.

[emike123]

The larger caliber ones had a nasty habit of blowing up, 2 in the battle of Mobile Bay (after firing only a few rounds at Fort Powell) and another as noted in the linked book on the 11th shot at Petersburg.

Most of the known specimens in the field size come from Port Hudson, but I know some were used at Harper's Ferry too.

[Pete George]

John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> Was your drawing made from a blueprint?

  The D&G book's "cutaway" diagram of the Sawyer Percussion fuze was drawn by Tom Dickey's adult son (Tom Jr.) in 1980, with the informational details supplied by Tom Sr.  The "original" source of the book's diagram (and information) was Sylvanus Sawyer's patent for the fuze and the shell, US Patent #13,799 (dated November 12, 1855). The D&G book's diagram differs slightly from the Patent's diagram of the fuze because we preferred to show the shape of the fuze that got mass-produced and used in combat -- which differs slightly from the Patent's diagram. For example, in the Patent the fuze's top is much more "domed" and also quite a bit thicker than the "Production Version" of the fuze, which is what was used in the battlefield-found shells.

To view the Patent's diagram of the fuze, go here:
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat13799.pdf

Regards,
Pete

[Pete George]

Dave the plumber wrote:
> No safety device on the fuze, looks dangerous for transport and handling. [...]
> Like John says, it would be dangerous ramming\setting  the shell down in a barrel.
> They must have had a specific rammer with a hole cut out for the fuze so no contact would be made [...]

  I think the fuze's "safety device" was the thickness of the brass fuze's face.  As shown in Emike's photo (below), the fuze's face was approximately 3/16"-thick brass.  That is NOT thin, easily-dented sheetmetal.  Considerable impact-force would be needed to crush the 3/16"-thick brass down onto the anvil-plug's wafer primer.  Also, as the Patent diagram and D&G book's diagram show, there was a space between the iron anvil-plug and fuze's brass top -- it did not fit "flush" against the plug and primer.  Major (and "straight down") impact was needed for crushing the 3/16th-thick brass fuze-top inward to strike the anvil-plug. I do not think the cannon's rammer (which was WOOD-tipped) was capable of that much force. Nor, even dropping the fuzed shell on the ground.

  I've owned several Sawyer Percussion fuzecaps, and you can tell from handling one that you'd need a harsh "straight-on" strike from a steel hammer to crush it downward enough to contact the iron anvil-post. I doubt the cannon's wood-tipped rammer could do that. Note, the reason that the 3/16"-thick brass fuzecap in Emike's photo is in contact with the iron anvil-post is because it is a fired. impacted shell.

Regards,
Pete

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Pete, I would be more concerned with the brass cap stripping out the lead walls of the sabot than of the cap smashing inwards.  Regards,  John

[Dave the plumber]

       Pete,     I bet they put "the new guy" on the gun crew on the rammer anyway !!   [ Okay, take this here rammer and pound down the barrel on that there piercussin' fuze way down yonder!!]       
       And I bet all that lead probably sealed any lands and grooves and caused considerable pressure buildup and blew the barrels..........

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Yes, and I wonder how many got stuck in the rifling as it was rammed home.   John

[CarlS]

There is generally a reason shells are rare.  The manufacturer is most likely to be willing to make and sell the government as many as they are willing to buy.  Since it's rarely used you have to figure there weren't more purchased due to it being ineffective or some government black balling that kept Mr. Sawyer from getting more sales.  I would guess the former since as has been pointed out here the shell was likely not easy to load in the heat of battle and I've seen references that the lead casing absorbed the blast and lessened the shrapnel effect (which makes sense).