Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum

Author Topic: Is this a common base for a Read shell?  (Read 10443 times)

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: Is this a common base for a Read shell?
« Reply #15 on: August 06, 2011, 04:12:22 PM »
John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> Can you give us a reading reference for the manner in which the CS Reads were cast.
> I find it difficult to locate that type of data.

  Many 1800s-era documents survive which tell in deep detail how cannons were manufactured ...often including drawings to show the procedure and methods.  Sadly for us projectile historians, it appears that very nearly no such documentation of artillery projectile-casting methods and procedures has survived.

  I know of no such documents which give DETAILS about casting Confederate cylindrical shells, such as Read.

  Dean Thomas has done us a valuable service by including info and diagrams from a pre-war US document about casting spherical projectiles (cannonballs).  See "Manufacture of Projectiles" beginning on page 31 of his book, "Cannons: An Introduction to Civil War Artillery."  (That book is available at the Thomas Publications website for a nicely inexpensive price.)

  At the end of post I'll include a computer-graphic diagram (drawn by Dave Poche), based on the pre-war document, which shows a "cutaway" view of the mold for casting spherical Solid-Shot.  Dave has added labeling to briefly explain the mold-seam, vent-hole, and mold filler-hole sprue.

  Because we lack civil war era on-paper documentation of details about casting cylindrical projectiles (like the Read), the info I've posted is based on my decades of close-up observation and deductive-reasoning analysis of the clues ...such as the location of the mold-vent remnant on a cylindrical projectile's body.  Also, you may recall my prior post about casting-flaw bubbles clustering inside the base of cylindrical projectiles, proving they were cast "upside-down" in a vertical orientation.

> Would that have been too high a location for a case shot filling hole?

  Yes.  A sideloader hole MUST enter the shell's cavity somewhere on the cavity's cylindrical sides.  The hole must NOT intersect the cavity's "ceiling," nor go into the shell's fuzehole.  On Aquachigger's Read shell, the vent-hole mark/remnant is located "up" the side of the shell's nose, a significant distance above the upper bourrelet.  At that location, if it was a sideloader hole's plug, the hole would intersect the fuzehole or the cavity's "ceiling."

  There are a few Sideloader Reads whose sideloader-plug is at the very bottom of the nose, where the plug's edge touches the upper edge of the bourrelet.  That is "low" enough on the nose to not intersect the fuzehole or the cavity's ceiling.

  Lastly, there seem to be NO civil war CYLINDRICAL shells known which have an iron sideloader-plug.  That makes it extremely unlikely that Aquachigger's Read has an iron sideplug.

> Do you find it odd that no one seems to have any shells with the casting sprus(sp) still attached and left
> at a foundry site or nearby river or creek?

  There's a good reason why projectiles with the casting-sprue (mold filler-hole sprue) still attached are not discovered at Foundry sites, or rivers near foundry sites.  The presence of a casting-sprue means the shell's body is "unfinished."  Shells come out of the mold with:
a casting-sprue,
mold-seam "flashing,"
casting-burrs,
a crudely-formed fuzehole, which needs to be reamed out and threaded,
and (usually) a slightly "oversized" iron body, which needs to be lathed down to the proper diameter.
  Therefore, "the unfinished projectiles are usually NOT stored at the foundry, but instead quickly get shipped to a metal-finishing facility, for completion of the projectile-production process.
  There ARE some shells which were found with the casting-sprue (mold filler-hole sprue) still on them.  Specifically, they are "raw" (fresh out of the mold) 3-inch Read shells that were found "unfinished" at the bottom of an old filled-in well, located on the property of the civil war era Atlanta Machine Works.  They'd been sent to that metal-finishing facility to have the sprue(s) removed, their crude fuzehole reamed and threaded, and their bourrelets be lathed down to the proper (approximately 2.92") diameter.  When Atlanta fell to Sherman's army, the Machine Works' personnel didn't want to get caught with "war material" on the property, so they dumped the unfinished shells down the well.

> Do you know of any collector having a Bormann casting machine?

  I am not aware of any Bormann-fuze production equipment being still in existence.  If somebody else knows of such a thing, please speak up.

  Don't forget, you'll need to click on the Solid-Shot casting-mold diagram (below) to see the large version of it.

Regards,
Pete

[attachment deleted by admin]
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 04:14:32 PM by Pete George »

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Is this a common base for a Read shell?
« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2011, 06:46:13 PM »
Thank you Pete,
     The diagram you have added for all to see has been around since warren Ripley wrote his book.
I was hoping you had something on the conical projectiles.
     In Aquachigger's last image I really could not tell what the partly round object was and seeing your Read plate on page 258 of your 2nd. Edition book I thought perhaps it might have been some dark colored oxidized lead.
     I thought perhaps casting locations that may have been overrun or just went idle at the end of the war may have had unfinished cast bodies laying around abandened.
        wouldn't it be great to discover a Bormann casting machine?
Take care,
John
« Last Edit: August 07, 2011, 07:38:46 AM by John D. Bartleson Jr. »

Aquachigger

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • Email
Re: Is this a common base for a Read shell?
« Reply #17 on: August 06, 2011, 08:41:07 PM »
Well , when I originally took this photo thinking I was looking at mold sprue's. Maybe they are just where the projecting piece was just knocked off (is that what is called a "lathe dog"?). The two verticals are Mullanes and the two horizontals Reads. I just noticed that the mold sprue on the original Read is almost identical to the one in Pete's book on page 257.

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: Is this a common base for a Read shell?
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2011, 01:37:42 AM »
Aquachigger wrote:
> Maybe they are just where the projecting piece was just knocked off (is that what is
> called a "lathe dog"?).

  Yes... the projecting piece, whose outline is rectangular, is what was called a lathe-dog ...or alternatively, a lathe-chock, or a lathe-chuck, or a lathe-stop.  (Its name depends on the individual Machinist you are talking to.)  Its purpose was to keep the projectile's cylindro-conical nose from slipping in the lathing-clamp which gripped it and the lathe was spinning.  That's why the projection was sometimes called a "chock" or "chuck."  A drill's chuck is a related term.  (Machinists' terminology is kinda arcane.)

  Usually, after the lathing (and fuzehole reaming and threading) was completed, the lathe-chock/chuck/dog was removed, by breaking it off the projectile's nose with a heavy hammer.  You can see the resulting rectangular-outline "scar" near the tip of the nose of two of the shells in Aquachigger's photo ...along with one whose lathe-chock/chuck/dog wasn't removed.

Regards,
Pete
« Last Edit: August 07, 2011, 07:25:51 AM by Pete George »

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Is this a common base for a Read shell?
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2011, 08:50:55 AM »
What is a lathe dog and its use?
John
   
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathe_dog