Adding the sabot to the James Type I Projectile;

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Carl,  I was under the impression that the 7 inch James was used.
John
Quote from #8 Report of Engineers":
    "55. On the 21st of February, the first vessel with ordnance and ordnance stores for the siege, arrived in Tybee Roads. From that time until the 9th of April, all the troops on Tybee Island, consisting of the seventh regiment Connecticut Volunteers, the forty-sixth regiment New York Volunteers, two companies of the Volunteer Engineers, and, for the most of the time, two companies third Rhode Island Volunteer Artillery, were constantly engaged in landing and transporting ordnance, ordnance stores, and battery materials, making fascines and roads, constructing gun and mortar batteries, service and déptôt magazines, splinter and bomb-proof shelters for the reliefs of cannoniers off duty, and drilling at the several pieces:

56. The armament comprised thirty-six pieces, distributed

24 GEN. GILLMORE'S REPORT.

in eleven batteries, at various distances from the fort, as shown in the following table:

1. Battery, Stanton, 3 heavy 13-inch Mortars, at 3,400 yds.

2. Battery, Grant, 3 heavy 13-inch Mortars, " 3,200 "

3. Battery, Lyon, 3 heavy 10-inch Columbiads, " 3,100 "

4. Battery, Lincoln, 3 heavy 8-inch Columbiads, " 3,045 "

5. Battery, Burnside, 1 heavy 13-inch Mortar, " 2,750 "

6. Battery, Sherman, 3 heavy 13-inch Mortar, " 2,650 "

7. Battery, Halleck, 2 heavy 13-inch Mortar, " 2,400 "

8. Battery, Scott, 3 10-inch Columbiads, " 1,740 "

Scott, 1 8-inch Columbiads, " 1,740 "

9. Battery, Sigel, 5 30-p'dr. Parrott, " 1,670 "

Sigel, 1 48-p'dr. James, (old 24 p'dr.) " 1,670 "

10. Battery, McClellan, 2 84-p'dr. James, (old 42 p'dr.) " 1,650 "

McClellan, 2 64-p'dr. James, (old 32 p'dr.) " 1,650 "

11. Battery, Totten, 4 10-inch Siege Mortars, " 1,650 "

57. Each battery had a service magazine capable of containing a supply of powder for about two days' firing. A depot powder magazine, of 3,600 barrels capacity, was constructed near the Martello Tower, which was the landing-place for all the supplies.

58. For a description of the manner of unloading the heavy ordnance upon an exposed beach,—remarkable for its heavy surf,—and of the means adopted for transporting it, by the labor of men exclusively, over a swampy and unsafe road, to the several batteries, located at points varying from one mile to two and a half miles from the landing-place, I refer you to the report of Lieutenant Horace Porter, chief of ordnance and artillery, hereunto appended."

[CarlS]

John,

I wasn't saying they didn't use James at Fort Pulaski.  What I said was:
     "they fired a lot of James there but in fact they didn't do all that well "
It was a case of how effective they were as a reply to your earlier comment of:
     "They evidently did well at Fort Pulaski GA."

But that said, after doing a little research, I stand corrected:
General Gillmore reported in his after-action assessment of the siege by his artillery, “Good rifled guns, properly served can breach rapidly” at 1600–2000 yards when they are followed by heavy round shot to knock down loosened masonry. The 84-pounder James is unexcelled in breaching, but its grooves must be kept clean.[67] The 13-inch mortars had little effect.[52] The new 30-pounder Parrott Rifle had made a major impact on the battle. The rifled cannon fired significantly further with more accuracy and greater destructive impact than the smoothbores then in use. Its application achieved tactical surprise unanticipated by senior commanders of either side.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Carl,
   I see we both have read Gilmore's siege of Fort Pulaski. Most were the 7 inch solid shot.
John

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

To All,
   Three of my questions were never answered or commented on:
"  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?"

[CarlS]

John,

I don't remember seeing that question on the Tie Ring but I guess it wasn't answered because unless someone has discovered something recent about it the answer is not known.   This was discussed at some length in the fixed shell discussion on another thread and there was nothing firm on what the intention of it was.  Maybe someone knows but I don't.

Also, I looked for that James nose piece I mentioned earlier in this thread so I could get your images and found it.  Turns out I should have looked closer at it as it was actually the nose of a Hotchkiss shell with the iron west point percussion fuse.  It was just in good condition and the shape very similar to a James so I jumped to the wrong conclusion.  Sorry about that.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thanks Carl.  The purpose of the ring is not discussed in any of the patents that I could find.
So is the one 3.0 inch the only caliber with the tie ring.  Later 3.8s do not have the ring. Thanks again for checking the nose piece again.
Kind Regards,
John

[CarlS]

John,

That I've ever seen or heard, the ring is only on the 3.8-inch caliber.  There are people here with far more exposure and experience than I so maybe someone can give a better answer.

One variance that I noticed that is part of what we've been discussing here is the holes in the bottom.  Those only seem to be used on the smaller calibers up to and including the rifled 12-lber projectile.  After that a series of notches on the outer periphery show up to serve as the fill or vent holes.  I wonder which came first and why big needed something different than small or vice-versa.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Carl,
   Perhaps the notches are like some of the mysteries of the Bible, we will probably never know. Maybe it was for a design that did not come to be.  However, if we had someone to post a side view of the notches in closeup, well focused we might be able to arrive at some conclusions. Help! please.
Kind regards,
John

[CarlS]

John,

They are on all the normal production larger James projectiles.  For a good clear image few are as good as Jack Melton so check out an example on his website:
      http://civilwarartillery.com/hap/page126.htm
You can clearly see them on the bottom edge of the shell (see below).  There are no holes in the base.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thanks Carl,
   I knew the notches were on the 7 inch James I but never had a "look down" to see how the notches connected with the exterior of the cage ribs and slots. We need a shot of a non-battlefield  specimen to be able to see, clearly, how they connect. Perhaps we could determine if the slots were an aid to forming the lead, if used. Does the 7 inch use the same combination of lead tin and canvas or just tin and canvas?? I don't believe i have seen a patent specificfor the 7 inch.
Kind Regards,
John

[jonpatterson]

John,

Here is another view of the notches of a 7" Bolt. My 7" Shell has holes like the 3.8" pieces instead of notches. I have emailed you other and larger photos by email.  My 6.4" Bolt has notches. My 4.62" Shell has holes.

Jon

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Jon,
    Right on, many thanks. The 7 inch bolt appears to have only one step to receive just the tin and canvas.  No Lead??
 The notches on the perimeter of the base looks as if they come straight in then angle inward, so why have notches if lead isn't used.  Maybe I am just not seeing it like it really is. Can you add further comments on this?
Kind Regards,
John
P.S. Have you figured out why the shell has holes and the bolt has notches?

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

To all,
   Jon just emailed me and stated there are the same number of steps in the top and bottom of the cage, so it will use the same as the 3.8 inch version, that is lead, tin and canvas. Thank you Jon.
Regards,
John
P.S. Looking from the rear of a rifle towards the muzzle, is the rifling right hand, clockwise?  If so, then I submit that the slot angle assists in forcing the sabot into the grooves of the bore.

[Dave the plumber]

has there ever been a book written about General James' life that anybody knows of ??

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

To All:
   While I await an answer to my previous question, will someone share an image of a pristine, unfired James projectile. I would like you to confirm the presence of the remains of the pasteboard (cardboard) that James claimed to use in his lead sabot casting process. In an unfired condition it should b present as seen inside the slots.   Thank you very much.
Kind Regards,
John