3.67 Inch Read Shell, blind

[CarlS]

Child of the 60's!  I bet you have a lava lamp in your TV room too!

So the things I was thinking were flanges are not raised?  I guess it just looks that way as that is the solid part of the side and the spaces between them cover the slits and are the part to expand into the rifling.  Correct?

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

To all,
   so the question remains - in the larger shell, are the raised ribs just a bearing surface or part of the rotation and gas check system? If only a bearing surface then the shell has no rotation to stabilize  it  during flight. It would appear that the two shells have really different systems, whereas the smaller 3.6 clearly has that of the James system. Were they really two shells made or patented by two different persons?
surely someone in our illustrious group knows the answer!!
Kind Regards,
John

[jonpatterson]

Carl and John,

The flanges, an area of the sabot that measure about 4" tall by 1.7" wide ARE raised. However, they are RAISED only about 1/16th of an inch or less above the non-raised surface. The flanges/raised areas are aligned with the vents in the base. The flanges do not appear to be raised more at the base as compared to closer to the nose. However the surface condition is rough and the shell has been coated, so doesn't help in making 100% accurate determinations.

The flanges are not angled, so would not fit into rifling. Unlike the Delafield, the leading edge of the flange is squared off not pointed/triangle shaped.

Attached are a couple photos to perhaps better show this. One taken from the nose end and one from the base, but at an angle.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

A thought on the engineering of the raised rib or flange.   being made of cast iron like the rest of the projectile how would it "stretch" high enough to even enter the grooves of the bore?? Or do I miss seeing something that my low vision does not see?
Regards,
John

[jonpatterson]

John,

The flanges are made in the thin metal sheet that wraps around the lower portion of the shell as also is present on the 3.62" shell. I should have pointed it out better.

Jon

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Jon, ah well, an important thing to know. The entire metal sheet is blown into the bore grooves and the rest of it becomes the gas check
I had not seen the larger version before Jon posted it and did not realize that a thin sheet of metal surrounded the shell base.
The raised portion is neither a bearing surface nor to enter the groove directly, but designed to enter the bore grooves precise but to provide a channel for the propellant gasses to enter and raise the this metal sheet.  Neither size probably did not have a means to prevent the sabot from spinning around the shell body. So is this the answer or not??
John

[jonpatterson]

Neither size probably did not have a means to prevent the sabot from spinning around the shell body.

In the patent for the form of the 3.67" shell (Patent number 18707) it illustrates and speaks of "lugs (a) or projections from the edges of the belt (sabot) being so arranged as to prevent any displacement during rotation..."

So I would expect some variation of that to be employed in the larger shell, though not obvious on my piece, perhaps due to the coating on it.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Jon,
   you know I don't see the tabs on the 3.6 I had to prevent spinning.
John

[jonpatterson]

Not obvious if present on mine either.

[divedigger]

mine neither

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

D.D. Where did your sehll come from?
John

[divedigger]

I traded a 10" ball for mine at a show in Charleston but the thought was that it came from Ft Monroe

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Pete will you say where yours came from that is in your book?
John

[Pete George]

The Dickey-&-George book says where the one in the book's photo was found... the location info is given below the photo, on the right... Fort Monroe VA.

Regards,
Pete

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thanks Pete,  I should have looked.   So all of the known ones came from Fort Monroe, VA.
Regards,
John