Adding the sabot to the James Type I Projectile;

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

 The main thrust of my unusual change in posting was to gather input from the other members on the subject I posted.  I am ready to share my real reasons.  I was hoping that someone would finally figure out that you cannot ladle thick lead into a one eighth inch hole unless there is some sort of form, cup, container or reservoir of some sort so as to permit a constant flow of lead at once to all four/five holes or in the case of the larger 7 inch shell, the numerous notches on the base perimeter.  The shell base must have had mold release dusted over it and the shell body heated to draw the lead down the holes.
      Was the so called "tie ring" nothing but a casting aid.  Was this the first shell in its caliber? Are there any other calibers that have this ring?
   The following is a copy and paste from Patent #34,950 dated April 16, 1862:
“The mode of making the expansible packing , which I have practiced, and which I prefer, is to form the 'segments between the mortises f each or every alternate one with a projecting longitudinal rib i of about half the height of the depth of the groove. Over each of the mortises I lay a piece of pasteboard j, and .over the ribs I slip a hoop k, made of tinned iron, the said hoop being cut to admit of springing it into the groove,• the whole length of which it should occupy. After being thus prepared molten lead is ran into the spaces between the ribs land within the hoop k;  the pieces of pasteboard preventing the molten lead from running into the mortises f, care being taken to prevent the molten lead from running out around the edges of the hoop by properly surrounding the whole structure for the time being. Tire molten lead will unite with the tinned inner surface of the hoop, so that when it solidifies in the: spaces' between the ribs the hoop will be held in place by a series of leaden staves extending between the ribs so that when the packing-ring is expanded into the grooves of the canno by the force of the explosion acting on the inside thereof the case and the shot which it carries will be forced to turn with it. To admit of running in the molten lead, holes 1 are made in the rear end of the case leading into each of the spaces between the ribs i.”
   So James patent did tell most of the process.  He mentions nothing with regard to casting the shell and its peculiar “bird cage” tail.  So where does this lead? To lead one to study the details of their projectile collection and bring enlightenment to all who are interested.
Kind Regards,
John
P.S. Ghost, you were correct, there may just be a magazine article in the making. Jack has asked me to submit regularly to his effort. Should I refer to you  as banshee or ghost in any acknowledgements?

[Ghost of Mac Mason]

I flit in and out of the mortal realm.  Time is merely a dimension in my world, no longer a variable with which I contend.  Thus my delay in responding my kind friend.

I look forward to perusing your article on General James' intricately crafted projectile.  Jack is fortunate to have such a loyal minion to do his bidding in the quest for Truth.  It seems I am not the only ghost lurking on these boards.

As for attribution, you are quite kind but those laurels no longer matter to me in my transcendent state.  I must have missed, however, where in that revivified publication credit was given to those whose worldly possessions were shown within.   Please do not feel obligated to transmute editorial principles for M.E.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Ha, you are something!..  If somone helps me with a project and he doesn't mind credit, I try to give it.
Actually the research is for my files and study, but I share with Jack to hopefully help make the magazine a success.
Wake up, time will pass yu by..
Kind Regards,
John

[jonpatterson]

In follow-up on John's posting the patent information referring to the "pasteboard" used to keep the lead from entering the cavity when poured, I checked the interior of my 2.6" James Bolt for the Wiard that is not a battlefield recovery. Doing so I found what appears (and John agrees) to be the pasteboard remaining. Attached are a couple of the better photos.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thanks Jon, the last image is pretty convincing. Not much left now except to discover how the lead was poured into the 4/5 holes.
All the est,
John
P.S. Does someone have a James lead sleeve that is in tact but off  the shell?  Woul you share images of it?
Thank you.
Regards,
John

[emike123]

By lead sleeve, do you mean what we usually call the lead sabot on these shells, or the sleeve insert for pouring?  I have never seen the pouring sleeve nor a completely intact James sabot section.  The lead sabot pieces are stuck to the side in some casews aided by wires and only come off in trapezoidal sections shaped to fit like "shutters" over the rib framed arches in the birdcage.  If you would like to see one of these trapezoidal sections I am trying inarticulately to explain in words, I can post a picture of one later.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

I want to see one on the inside. Yes it id the formed lead between ribs. Thanks Mike.  I wanted to look onthe inside ofthe lead sleeve(sabot) to see which impressios ar let after the lead cools.
I am not sure how wide James cut the pasteboard.  He ould have glued them in laceovr the cage slots to keep them from falling off when placed nose down in the form that stop leaks from the tin sleeve.
   Not all sabots had the interlocking wire.
Regards,
John
P.S Is it m computer or is it difficult to type on here?

[Dave the plumber]

  Mind if I drop into this conversation for a moment  
    As a plumber of the old school, I have poured many a lead joint to adjoin cast iron pipe fittings to pipe ends. Actually did two joints the other day, first time in a long time.   Anyway, when lead is melted and is in it's liquid form, it is as liquid and fluid as water. Also, it is smoking hot. If pieces of pasteboard or cardboard were just stuck in-between the fins, unless they were oil soaked, they would burn up and the lead would not be contained. Plus, the density of the lead makes a lot of weight and I would think even if the pasteboard was oil soaked to keep it from burning and then stuck between the fins, it would push out due to the weight of the lead entering the area, unless some intricate device inside was holding them in place. I looked at my James with the sabot, and the fins are tapered, but in the wrong way to accept and remove the pasteboard after the lead would be poured. Plus, they are contoured and rounded, not easy to plug with a thick pasteboard. Nor was the lead close to the fin tapers inside.    Then, like I started this post saying, the lead is not thick like honey or anything, it is like water. So any minute hole or opening between the pasteboard and the iron would let the lead just run right out resulting in a bad pour. And the worker would have to melt off what lead adhered to the iron and start over. A pain in the ass. The skill level to do all this would have to be very high...   but then again., it boggles my mind the intricate casting  of the James shell anyway..
      If this drawn illustration and verbiage posted previously above wasn't in existence, I would of offered two other ways it could have been done;
   Firstly, the easiest way to attach the lead would to be to not pour it at all.   Sheet lead could have been cut to the perfect size, and just pressed in to the fins from the out side. Super simple, and I still like this idea, except for the lead in the 4 holes in the bottom, I can't explain that. . [ by the way, it would be extremely difficult to pour lead into those into those tiny little holes to fill the sabot area.] Plus, unless the cast iron of the shell itself was heated to a couple hundred degrees, liquid lead resorts back to it's solid form almost instantly, in one or two seconds. You have to work extremely fast with lead.
  The second way I would approach this, if you want to believe the pour theory, would be to fill the whole  inside of the finished cast iron shell birdcage area with casting sand, and fill it into the fin area also. One solid chunk of casting sand. . Then scrape away what area you want the liquid lead to go to adhere to and fill. Of course, there would be a 'sleeve' on the outside to contain the liquid  lead. After the pour break up the casting sand inside  to expose the cavity.
     Anyway, this is an interesting subject. Hope we find it out eventually

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Hello Dave,
   I agree with you about the liquid lead going through the 4/5 holes in base.
 Did you reathe excerpt from the patent that I posted?
I don't know howt thick the pasteboard was , however it is thee in Jon's 2.6 bolt.
Regarding your other well founded comments you just have to read the patent description.  You yourself stated the details might be in the patent and they were.
Kind Regards,
John

[CarlS]

Hello,

For reference on the 3.8-inch James shells the 'pour' holes in the base seem to be exactly 1/4 inch in diameter.  Not every big but, assuming that is their purpose, they allow the filling of a space that is less than that in thickness so 1/4 inch is probably big enough.  I have some no-doubt pieces of sabot that I recovered near Fort Pulaski and they aren't even 1/4 inch thick.  So, as explained by Dave the plumber, the lead and shell would have to be quite hot to keep it fluid to flow through a narrow space and fill all gaps without cooling and blocking the flow. 

My belief is as I stated earlier and Dave also provided is the use of casting sand to fill the center area and space between the ribs.  I agree with Dave that pasteboard would be hard to use.  I've cleaned a lot of 3.8-inch James with a number still having sabots on them and never noticed anything but lead on the backside of the sabot although I will contend it is hard to see much in there.  It would seem to be very hard to remove the pasteboard from within the ribs as certainly it would adhere to the lead if it didn't burn up and there would still be some existing examples with pieces of pasteboard present. 

The other option that I've not seen stated is that the holes are vent holes and not fill holes.  The sabot could be cast on the inverted shell with some sort of casting device that is filled with lead until it comes out the base holes so they know the space is filled.  The more I think about this the more I think it is the likely scenario.

Anyone got a James half-shell with the sabot still on it that might lend some insight?

[emike123]

Not sure what you are looking for, but here you go:

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Mike I can't see much it s so dark.  What I really want to see is in the inside og one of th lead pieces.
 Carl, if you will rmembe I did agree with you about putting casting sand on the inside of the  cage to fill the slots during the lead casting.
But as you read the excerpt,lit is  plain that the cast core that formed the cage had been removed and that James used pasteoard to form  the ouside, then fastened t 'loop' (tin sleeve), placed in a tightly held form to keep lead from leaking out of  the tin t fill through base holes, hwvever he failed to mention what form used to pour the lead.

[emike123]

My lead sabot trapezoid pieces that were a nice gift from Carl some time ago are too gnarly on the underside to tell anything.  I think the firing and immersion in salty water has made any evidence on the underside illegible.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thank you Mike.  That is too bad. a view of the inside would have shown
exactly where the lead flowed .  it appears from looking at the narrow piece of cast iron that has the raised rib with the notches for the wire is where the lead covered.  Presumably the space where the pasteboard was placed had no lead at all.  Does that mean the lead pieces were like a picket fence held together by being fasten to the tin and restrained from separating by the wire.
  There are so many shells without their sabot that surely the sabots are still out there, somewhere between the gun position and the line of troops.  No one has detected them, it should knock you ears off.
All the Best,
John

[jonpatterson]

John,

I think that the pasteboard was thin enough that when the lead was poured, there was a layer of lead over the pasteboard also, not just areas not covered by the pasteboard. The pasteboard I can see the thickness of, only appears to be maybe three or four the thickness of a piece of computer paper.

Jon