Bormann Fuze 90 Degree "Pie Slice"

[alwion]

woodenheads question( and callicles) are my confusion. to me woodenheads looks like less than 90 degrees. I figured it was measured from the 6 o'clock position to the 9 oclock position, , his looks to be about 80. I originally read the CS ones had an extra time mark, and were closer to 45 degrees, but so many I looked at were not 90 ( right angle), but couldn't quite see the extra mark( corrosion sometimes) but were not 45 degree either. wheres the cutoff line. Liked the answer on the height being thicker for the burn thru, makes sense 

so where does variation end and CS start?

the leftover usage by the CS definitely confuses the issue

if this started me collecting fuses, someone will be in trouble!!!!!!!!!

[Woodenhead]

Sorry for the confusion. I thought the wedge included the raised areas on both sides of the slot. Here are two good documented Virginia Bormanns where the entire raised area appears to be less than 90 degrees. The first is in a 24 pounder fired across the Rappahannock River during Chancellorsville. The other was part of a cache buried near Centreville as the Confederates withdrew in March 1862.

There remain many questions about all aspects of the South's shells and fuzes. Unlike the Federals, the CS War Department building containing most of their ordnance records was burned in April 1865. Our modern reconstruction of that information is evolving and still a matter for passionate debate. If we had all the answers, you could just look everything up in a book and there would be no need for this blog.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Steve, middle row, second fuse from the left in your group photo appears to show the 90 degree wedge on the face of the fuse.

6lbgun, Vicksburg campaign, 1863

John, the lack of a precice question is due to my ignorance, but I'll try again:
Ans. I certainly did not mean to imply that you are ignorance, my poor memory just lost the central question. I apologize.

1.   I was under the impression that ONLY Confederates manufactured the gasket rebate modification;
Ans. I believe both sides would have seen the need to secure the gasket in the bottom fuse well rebate to keep the gasket in position and keep it out of the fuse threads.

2.   I was under the impression that Bormann fuses with the 90 degree wedge were ONLY manufactured by Yankees;
Ans. From what I have seen in the images I have that the ‘wedge’ was cast on both U.S. and C.S.

3.   Therefore, I was confused why I would find a Confederate manufactured case-shot shell with a Yankee manufactured fuse;
Ans. How do you know that it isn’t a U.S. fuse?

4.   What will I learn? Based on 1-3 above, if I section the shell and see no rebate, combined with a 90 degree wedged Bormann, I might can assume it was fired by Yankees.
Ans. I think that Woodenhead has really found the way to Identify a C.S.-by its thicker fuse.  You can measure by radiograph or cut the shell and fuse in half and measure. The only I have – did the U.S. also determine they had a fuse problem and also cast theirs thicker?

I was told a couple years back that it is possible that the Confederate shell was captured by Yanks, then inserted with their own fuses, or Rebs inserting captured Yankee Bormann fuses into their own shells.
However, my "assumptions" about all this may be wrong, therefore leading to a flawed question that demands an impossible answer. But that's why I'm posting here. I want to know what better educated folks know about this topic, and if that means I'm wrong -- well
that's what I need to know.  Thanks all
Comment: Like my replies, all theory with little documentation.
If you look at the condition of  fired fuses they are so deformed to make it impossible to apply a fuse wrench. U.S. Bormanns are set with white lead in its threads also making it difficult to remove, let alone the danger of unscrewing the fuse.
     If the C.S. had bought Wright’s fuse casting machine and used it, then there  would be no difference in fuse design after 1863.
Woodenhead’s references appear to ‘checkmate’ all our assumptions.
Regards,
John
-60-

[callicles]

Attention: I wrote this while John, Woodenhead and Alwion were posting theirs.

Woodenhead,

Thanks for posting. Lord knows I'm not good in things mathy, but the wedge there looks more like something around 65-70 degrees, not 90 degrees.
As regards the rebate, I was under the impression that the reason for creating it was because the Confederates were trying to figure out why so many
shells were exploding prematurily. One theory (I was told) was that they thought the the firing blast flame was intruding past
the fuze's threads, or that the firing shock was causing a seam inside the fuse to split, allowing the flame to ignite the powder cavity prematurely.
The creation of the gasket rebate was an attempt to thwart this (though I don't think it stopped the problem). Only CS manufactured shells
made after 1861 have this modification. It has not been noticed in any Yankee manufactured Bormanns. This research was conducted by
Pete George (and Dickey, I believe) and based largely on the Augusta GA cache (back in the 80s).

All this is based on well educated guesses, I suppose, for nothing is 100%. Yet, a strong corellation seems to exist. The problem with
this topic (Yankee Bormann fuse in CS Bormann shell) is that it is so closely related to the rebate issue and, eventually, whether
or not Bormann fuses were installed into the shell at the arsenal. And it may be that it is impossible to discuss the 90-degree wedged
Bormann fuze without resolving those other issues. And that's okay, I want to hear every conceivable theory and idea.  Again,
it is important to my research, and may help me decide whether or not I need to section my shell. I certainly did not want to cut the thing
in half if there was newly developed theories or findings about this type fuse.  I'm trying to become educated on the front end!

[callicles]

Thanks John, but I'm not here to argue with Woodenhead -- or you for that matter.  I'm a self proclaimed uneducated person in regards to this topic and am looking for honest, educated opinions to help me figure something out, not to "checkmate" or be "checkmated." If I were "checkmated" then I'm no better off than before posting -- but, then again, maybe I'm unable to see the issue correctly (which is highly probable).

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

callicles ,
     I am running out of thoughts on thi fuse.  We have discussed and presented our thoughts on just about every aspect of this simpe little fuse.
     I suggest that members so interested on the subject should 'search' all our preious posts on the Bormann, copy and paste them into a Word document so you can see and compare ALL comments.
Respectfully,
John

[jonpatterson]

John,  Welcome back. I hope your recovery is going well.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thankyou jonpatterson,
   I least I am our of the hospital andoff the blood thinner. I am still fighting the CML Lekemia ananemia. I am doing okay and enjoying being back o the Forum.
   Ascollectors and would be historians, we delve into ACW that our Federal governmnt has long since laid to rest.
Kind Regrds,
Joh
P.S. Is anyone having problems with time lag and lost letters while typing?

[Woodenhead]

To all concerned parties,
Did not the 1862 CS Ordnance Manual call for leather washers under the Bormann fuzes. And as I recall, Col. Broun who compiled the publication said that he copied the 1861 U.S. Ordnance Manual. Has anyone looked there? I would think the use of washers during the entire war under Federal Bormann fuzes is well documented. I haven't looked into that aspect but maybe some of you'all have. It seems the washers would be thin enough to not require a change to the fuze well. Maybe we should be paying more attention to the extra thickness of the CS Bormanns themselves. Was there a regulation thickness for the Federal Bormanns? No doubt the Rebel fuzes vary considerably but I have photographic proof that an effort was made to add material to the top shortly after the early 1861 problem with the powder trains burning thru the tops.
The two attached Bormanns are in CS 2.9 inch Parrotts (probably case) made by Tredegar for the state of Virginia during the spring of 1861. Virginia contracted with the Ironworks for 5,000 Parrott shells including these with Bormann fuzes for the 13 Parrott Rifles the purchased in New York during 1860. The powder trains of both burned thru the top. I have seen others. I believe these are examples of the fuzes made in the North and supplied to Tredegar by Cooper & Pond. It is well documented. Thousands came from this source. By May 1, 1861, Tredegar was making their own Bormann fuzes with extra material piled up on the top grotesquely distorting the numbers. They are also found in the noses of these 2.9 inch CS Parrotts made as part of the same order.   

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

WH, I can confirm that the C.s. OrdnanceManual was copied from the U.s. one.
If the U.s. used Wright's fuse casting machine then the thickness was fixed.
Jn

[Woodenhead]

To Callicles,
Your effort to use excavated artifacts to reveal the details of forgotten history is commendable. It has been my life's work with the books I've been involved with. Having said that, please don't cut anymore shells unless they are in horrible condition. The artifact itself is a document. Is it not possible to plot your finds on a map and thereby determine who fired what? The truth is - I know of no absolute experts among the collecting community. Everybody still learning. I happen to know a lot about field artillery projectiles from the Virginia theater but next to nothing about the big shells. Like the question of whether Lee or Longstreet lost Gettysburg, there are disagreements in this hobby about some of the basics. The shells and fuzes in question were made by many different contractors and government arsenals. Maybe some of the CS Bormanns look like the Federal. Perhaps some of the Federal shells had the extra recessed area. The best we can do is to listen to the opinions of those who have studied and handled these things, and go from there.

To Everyone else,
Enclosed is another 2.9 inch CS Parrott shell believed to be among the 5,000 made by Tredegar for the state of Virginia during the spring of 1861. This is well documented. Unlike the two examples I presented earlier that burned thru the top, this Bormann has obviously had the top built up in response. During March and April, Tredegar was telling some customers they would have to wait for the fuzes to arrive from the North. It is obvious from their Sales Book that Tredegar was making their own Bormann's by May 1st as they shipped out thousands during that month and there was no longer any delay. The pictured item was not a one-of-a-kind fuze. I have photographed a couple of others in the same CS Parrotts. I assume they also went in 6, 12, 24 pdr., etc., sphericals. It appears that the Ordnance Bureau soon had new Bormann molds or dies made with flat surfaces but thicker than before. This is why they project from the shells and might explain deepening the fuze well.
I hope this discussion isn't giving anyone a headache.
WH

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Woodenhead,
  Thank you for such a thorough research and posting. I had a 9" case shot with a Bormann in use.
Regards,
John

[callicles]

Woodenhead,

Thank you so much for your advice and learned opinions.  You have given me a lot to think about.  Your level of knowledge and ability to communicate that
knowledge is very commendable.  I will take your advice and not section the shell.  I hope to be able to call on you again for more opinions when I get
stumped (which is rather often)! Again, thanks.  You will make a great contributor to this forum.  Keep up your research!

[alwion]

sold from a dealer site, thought it pertained to this discussion, Boreman gasket which appears to be made from a coated cloth. additional pictures and the fuse at  http://www.virginiarelics.com/pc5334.htm

[alwion]

90 degree pie slice, but either a thicker fuse, shallower well in the shell, or not seated well..    raised why up like a CS, maybe there is no way to tell for sure with all the variations. I'm enjoying the ideas of this thread, but there seems too many variations for me to absorb