James shells

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Excellant elimination Pete.
John

[Pete George]

  Thank you for the compliment, John. I do try to be diligent in my research, and in my analysis of the research-results.

Regards,
Pete

[CarlS]

Regarding Pete's question:
      what else other than James could the Ames-made projectiles in those calibers be?
I would offer that it was typical war time capitalism and they were making goods to sell to the Confederacy.  It was Reads, Mullanes, etc.   

[CarlS]

Since this thread is about James shells and foundries, I thought I'd share this and see if anyone knew if what I surmised was the case.  I have a James Type-II shell from one of our forumites that looks to be non-battlefield or an early pickup at least.  The iron is very smooth and has no surface rust on it and appears to have never been wet.  The sabot appears to have endured the effort of someone who tried to hack it off and succeeded in the lead outside the grooves but most of the lead there is still in place.  The current owner asked me to remove that lead so that the shell body would be fully visible to show the fins that held the lead sabot.  The first picture below is one side of the shell that I've yet to remove the lead on showing how it looked; clean and no dust showing.  The 2nd image is the grooves between the fins without lead and a yellowish dust all over.  This is where my question arises.  Note that the grooves seem to be lined with a fine clay powder much like a baker lines a cake pan with flour before putting in the batter so it doesn't stick. There is a decent amount in each groove that wasn't visible until I started removing the lead.  My question is:  Was this done so the lead doesn't stick to the iron and allows the lead to slide more easily forward in the grooves and outward when fired?  I can't imagine what other reason it would be there for and am hoping someone has an answer.

Filled with lead:


Lead sabot pieces removed:

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Dear carl,
      What a wonderful discovery.  I believe you are the first to discover this unique feature. As you suggested, the powder allowed the cast on lead sabot to slide forward on the forceing cone tail piece, cam outwards and engage the rifling.  The powder was probably a mould release agent used in casting plants.
       Below is my rendering of the Type II James.
Regards,
John

[Roy A]

I have the page with the pictures, but no mention of location is made on that page.  Its a very small workshop possibly the same Long Island one where they had the accident that killed Gen'l James.

The picture page has a footnote referring to "Shells and their Manufacturing" on page 764.  This is Harper's Weekly of November 30, 1861.

Is there any further information regarding this accident? I grew up on Long Island and never knew about that.

[scottfromgeorgia]

 On 16 October 1862, at Sag Harbor, New York, Charles James was conducting a demonstration of his projectiles to a group of foreign military officers. A workman tried to remove a cap from one of the shells with pliers and the projectile exploded. The workman died instantly and James died from his wounds the next day, 17 October 1862.

[Dave the plumber]

     I went to where the accident occurred. There are  houses all over there now, and no 'historic marker ' or anything to mention the accident there

[relicrunner]

In an answer to "Garret" about a James shell from Stones River, I saw a 3.8 James bolt from Stones River posted on dealer's website this week...

[Garret]

Thanks for the info about the Stones River shell.  On that note I've recently seen a flood of 3.8 James shells and bolts on dealer's websites lately, with Harry's site having some pretty nice ones. 

[natdigger]

You can add Perryville and Murfreesboro to the list of battlefields. Perryville had 27 3.8 in guns there.

[misipirelichtr]

Not that the Park Service is always accurate with information in their displays, but they have a 3.8 James in a display titled "Artillery used at First Manassas" at the visitor center there.  Saw it this week

[jonpatterson]

Relicrunner and Pete,

While doing some light reading while my Dallas Cowboys were getting whooped today, I ran across the article "C.T. James' Guns & Projectiles" by Konrad F. Scheier in the Fall 1987 issue of "The Artilleryman" magazine. On page 10 the article states "Ames also got at least 228 contracts for James projectiles, and at least 185 of these were for seige and seacoast gun sizes. Documentation is sketchy for the total numbers produced." The article had been discussing contracts for rifling old guns and making new ones as referenced in "Executive Document 99". Hope that helps.   

Jon

[CarlS]

The park service does have two brass James rifles on top of Little Kennesaw Mountain here at the Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield.  I'm still waiting for someone to dig a shell or frag to a 3.8-inch projectile.  Surely the Confederates didn't have that rifle there and never fire it?  And I'm sure the part wouldn't have such an oversight. 

[FortDonelsonRelics]

You can add Fort Donelson to the list - 3.8 inch James, 3.8 inch Shot bases, and 3.8 inch Hotchkiss with James rifling all from the same battery