Those Pesky Little X's

[Pete George]

  Treadhead/Doug, I have a lot of info and comments to contribute to this discussion.  That amount of info will necessarily have to be split into several posts -- each of which will take some time to compose and type.  (They won't be appearing all-at-once.)

To all of this forum's readers:
  Please believe me that I submit the info (and comments) very strictly in the spirit of discussing various theories "in a gentlemanly manner in hopes of arriving at a solution" (as John Bartleson urged all of us).  In places, I'll have to shoot down some of the theories which have been proposed by other posters, but I do so only with the intent of providing facts to solve the riddles.

Treadhead/Doug wrote:
> Is there any evidence that they ever “fixed rifled ammunition?

  I'll begin by answering that very important question, because it is crucial to my proposition that 3"-caliber Dyer sabots had crossed tinned-iron straps for attaching a powderbag (known as "Fixed" ammunition).

  The answer is Yes. "fixed" ammunition for rifled cannons existed ...and, was used in massively significant quantities.

Here's the rock-solid proof:
  Wood-sabot Canister ammo with deep grooves for tying the powderbag onto the sabot was typical for rifled Field Artillery cannons ...and existed for multiple calibers of rifled cannons.  Examples are the wood-saboted canisters for 2.6" Wiard rifle, 2.9" Parrott rifle, 3.0" Ordnance rifle, and 20-pounder Parrott rifle.

Treadhead/Doug wrote:
> That is that rifled projectiles are normally loaded in a two-step fashion.  First the powder bag is loaded and
> rammed, then the projectile.  The reason for this is unlike the smoothbore guns where the windage is fairly
> large and the bores smooth and free of edges, the rifled gun has very little windage and sharp curved [rifling]
> edges to interfere with the loading process.  Its just too easy to have the flimsy wool bag that holds the powder
> to bind-up and jam the projectile in the rifling before the round is seated in the back of the tube.

  The massive use of "Fixed" rifled-cannon canister ammo, throughout the war from 1861 to 1865, conclusively proves that a rifled-cannon's lesser windage and rifling-grooves did not interfere with the loading of Fixed ammunition.

  Some readers may now be thinking, "Okay, canister Fixed-ammo was used very extensively in rifled cannons, but what about shells and bolts?

CWArtillery wrote:
> Do we know if powder bags were ever attached, i.e. fixed, to any shell besides cannon balls?  And I mean 'know' not 'think' or 'assume' because that's what we've always heard.  I don't recall any evidence of it.

  In addition to Treadhead/Doug's mention of having seen on-paper documentation of "Fixed" Hotchkiss shells, please notice that some varieties of Archer 3" and 3.3"-caliber shells have a very distinct "tie-ring" groove as part of their iron base.

  Also, some unfired Mullane/Tennessee-sabot shells have been found in extraordinarily well preserved condition, having a tie-ring groove in their wood "shock-absorber" ...and even some with twine remaining in that tie-ring groove.  (Please note, I don't mean twine between the shell's iron base and the sabot's top.)

Sidenote:
  Alwion asked about the so-called "Tie-Ring Base" James projectile.  Alwion, that name was discarded after historical-document research proved that the apparent tie-ring's actual purpose was for attachment of a hemispherical iron cup.

  I'll write some more posts regarding the various models of 3" Dyer shells, and the crossed tinned-iron straps on some of their sabots, will be posted when I have the time needed to assemble the info and type it into posts.  It's coming soon.

Regards,
Pete

[alwion]

Please keep in mind I have no idea how valid this concept would be, but lead is a soft metal and workable several ways. A candle mold keeps popping into my mind. Picture this, shell upside down, a "tin can" pushed down on the sides making the form for the sides. pour in the lead. A cup shaped plate for forming the large concave in the base, pushed into the top as the lead cooled, with some straps to pull it out or hold it in place till after it was all the way cooled. sometimes the straps would come off with the plate, sometimes not, but would be alot cheaper than a regular cast or milled mold and easier to make. Wouldn't have to be too extensive a mold for lead. plate could be stamped in a press. I'm probably way off track. I don't have one of these to look at, but since they don't seem to have an actual function for the shell, maybe it was for the manufacture somehow. Shoot maybe someone 150 years ago just said ( lets givum something to puzzle over  lol

[Treadhead]

Before I post a few counterpoints to Pete’s response, I’d like to point out that this all started in response to a post by speedenforcer urging us to post more.  To speedenforce I now pose the question, does this satisfy your request & “are we having fun yet?” 

Pete you a unique knowledge and style all your own.   I’m appreciative of the opportunity to shared thoughts and observations with you and the other members of the forum.  I only post so that I can learn more.  Every point that is made, I go back and look at what I've collected in written reference and visual evidence so that I may reevaluate my thoughts. 


Pete posted: Treadhead/Doug wrote:
> Is there any evidence that they ever “fixed rifled ammunition?<
I believe my contention is, and has been from the very first response in the “Name this sabot” post where this thread really began has been the where was some limited evidence “fixed” rifle ammunition.  When I was quoted above,  I was paraphrasing another members question so I could give more details.  The editing of that quote as presented above somewhat misrepresents my position.  I realize that it was only using the quote to springboard the conversation so no worries.   


Pete makes a very good point when he uses certain rifled canister ammo as an example.   The canister ammo referenced in that post all have a few similar characteristics.   They all have a very defined wood sabot with a tapered shape with multiple tie off points.   They are all very early war designs.  And they are all make no effort to allow the canister round to take to the rifling, like the Dyer canister, or prevent the round from taking the rifling, like the Hotchkiss canister.  They’re simply made them like they always made them in the past for the smoothbores.  The presence of the well-defined wooden sabot is very important in shaping and holding the powder bag in place.  The tapered design allows you to keep the fabric tight and pulls it away from the rifling and the base of the projectile.   It also gives you a sturdy base work against when tying off the bottom of the powder bag once loaded to keep it as tight as possible.  The last two points I believe are very important when we address whether the powder bag could interfere with the loading of a rifled projectile.  If your enemy was in canister range, that meant that you were in rifled musket range.  I certainly get the motivation that someone would want to be able to load the canister round as fast as possible.  Also remember that canister ammunition was only a small percentage of rounds used on the battlefield.  The full wooden sabot used in the above examples were not used on any projectile designed to take to the rifling.  They simply would have interfered with that action.

The examples of the Archer and Mullane shells were also given.  In the case Archer class projectiles.  They were basically rifled projectile concepts forced into production by necessity.   At the time they were designed, rifled artillery was in its infancy and the American artillerymen had absolutely no combat experience to tell whether a concept would or wouldn’t work.   Smoothbore ammunition was fixed.  It only makes sense that one would use that example when designing the first rifled projectiles.  There were many flaws in the Archer projectiles design, it only took a little combat experience to make that perfectly clear.

Mullane shells: That's great information on the wooden shock absorber.    I’ve never really seen a good enough picture of the wooden base to speak to it.  That’s the first time I heard about the twine fragments.  John’s drawing posted recently I found very informative.  The reason I post is to hear facts just like that one.  The Mullane is also an early to mid 1862 design.   The design proved intimately unsuccessful and as far as I know, the later Read and Bourn projectiles, which were attempts to improvement on the Mullane experience, show no signs of an attempt to “fix” a powder bag. If there is, please post it.  That would be great.  As a side note, the small wood disc wouldn’t have been able to provide the anchor point or the stability mentioned on the full wooden sabots attached to the canisters.

Of the hundreds of thousands of rifled projectiles used in the war, the examples given above are only a small portion produced and are mainly early war designs.  They may have been used from 1861 to 1865, but many projectiles were used longer than they should have been out of necessity.  That does not “conclusively prove” they were free from issues.   


 Doug   

[alwion]

Hey Pete we never take offense, so never feel obligated to appologize. I'm self taught, and my best book called it a tie ring James. You updated my book when I got it from you in many places, but maybe this info was after lol  makes me 19 years behind the current info

My idea for using a fixed bag, and adding powder for extra distance is based on large caliber shells used in viet nam. shells had no charge, they would add full bag/1/2 bag/etc to change distance. My uncle had to "dispose" of the left over 1/2 bags (which the piled and shot till it blew up, was "such fun")

so I understand fixed charge on canister, you wanted it to go so far all the time. any other shell could have a minimum charge affixed, and add a lb/ 5 lbs or whatever . If you knew the info(which they did) and could gauge the distance ( i'm sure some gunners were very good at that), your accuracy could be very good for distance. course thats what almost made it a science since elevation , wind ,etc came into it

I would think anything you could do ahead of battle would speed up the firing rate. premeasured charges would definitely help speed things up

[Treadhead]

The second part of my reply to Pete’s post is specifically to the loading process and the Dyer projectile.

Pete wrote:
“The massive use of "Fixed" rifled-cannon canister ammo, throughout the war from 1861 to 1865, conclusively proves that a rifled-cannon's lesser windage and rifling-grooves did not interfere with the loading of Fixed ammunition.”

I guess this is a point we’ll have to agree to disagree on.  I addressed some of this in the preceding post, (two post back) but I’ll try to put my doubts on the no interface in the loading process into words.

The best analogy I can think of is to illustrate my point is a zipper on a coat or sleeping bag.  The zipper doesn’t prevent us from putting on a coat. You can do so numerous times successfully, especially if you take your time.  But that one time you’re in a hurry and you don’t take the time to pull the jacket taunt before you zip it up. The zipper catches the loose fabric on the sides and jams.  It’s happen to all of us. 

When I look at the Dyer sabot in the barrel of a 3-inch Ordnance rifle, I can see this same issue with fixing a Dyer shell.  I’ve attached a drawing to illustrate this idea.  The relationship of the rifling to the base of the Dyer sabot is drawn to scale.   There are numerous pinch points and tight fitting tolerances were loose fabric could conceivably get caught.   And like the zipper, get jammed. *

*A full wooden sabot would help a great deal with this issue by keeping the wool powder bag taunt, but it couldn’t be used without effecting the action of the packing. (sabot)

The next point I’d like to elaborate on is the written references I posted concerning fixing rifled projectiles and connections to the Dyer shell itself. 

French, Barry & Hunt; The 1864 Field Artillery Tactics. Page 8
“The ammunition for rifled guns is not “fixed,” and the projectile do not have a sabot.”

The statement “The ammunition for rifled guns is not “fixed,” is not from some obscure reference.  This is a manual written by the top artillerymen in the Army of the Potomac, and for artillerymen.   William Barry was the man responsible for organizing the artillery branch of the Army of the Potomac into the powerful fighting force it was.  He also was McClellan’s Chief of Artillery on the Peninsula at the time the Dyer shell was receiving its baptism of fire.  Henry Hunt was the Chief on Artillery for the Army of the Potomac for the remainder of the war.  A time (mid 1862 to Spring 1863) when the failings of the Dyer shell greatly impacted the effectiveness of the primary rifle cannon in that army.  I can think of no more credible source of information on the topic “fixing” of rifled ammunition than a published statement indorsed by these two men.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Farquhar_Barry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Jackson_Hunt

Grandchamp, The boys of Adams’ Battery G. Page 27
“The rifle required two actions to be loaded; Number Five first had to bring a linen powder bag to Two which had to be rammed home before Seven brought the round up.”

There was a reason crews were trained to load rifled ammunition in a time-consuming two-step fashion.   And a reason French, Barry & Hunt clearly stated what they did.  Each of us can come to our own conclusion as to why.

These are some of the reasons I see to debate is question.  I will also add that I can see merit in argument that the “X” ‘s are an anchor point for experimenting with fixing a Dyer shell.  If there one thing I know about soldiers, they don’t always like to follow the manuals and SOP’s.  It’s human nature.  I did that myself.   I’m looking forward to more information of the postproduction modifications to the Dyer sabot.

Doug

[Pete George]

Treadhead wrote:
> French, Barry & Hunt; The 1864 Field Artillery Tactics. Page 8
> “The ammunition for rifled guns is not “fixed,” and the projectile do not have a sabot.”

  The French/Barry/Hunt document's title says "1864 Field Artillery Tactics" which, in logic, means tactics specified to be in effect for the year 1864.  Previous specifications tend to get changed due to combat-experience.  I think the FBH document's statements would be more relevant to this discussion if its title was "1861 Field Artillery Tactics."  The crossed tinned-iron straps on 3" Dyer sabots were in use during 1861-62, not in 1864 (except for a very few lonely leftovers).  For the sake of discussion, I'll accept that the use of Fixed iron-body Rifled-cannon shells had been phased out by 1864, the time of the FBH 1864 Tactics document.

  Also, the quoted statement from FBH's 1864 Tactics pretty clearly is referring to rifled-cannon's iron shells, not Canister, because rifled-cannons' iron shells DO have a sabot ...just not a wooden sabot, which Canister does have.  Field recoveries of unfired Canister at 1864/65 sites show that "tie ring" wood-saboted rifled-cannon Canister continued to be used through the end of the war.

  Has anybody here ever seen a Field-caliber Rifled-cannon Canister with a wooden sabot which did not have a tie-ring groove?

  Why do the labor of cutting the tie-ring into Canister sabot if no powderbag was going to be fixed to the sabot?

  Please note, even the postwar Krupp canister (with a copper band-sabot) has a tie-ring groove on its wooden sabot.

The 3" Dyer sabot had two distinctly different problems:
1- "shattering" into pieces, due to brittleness.
2- detaching from the shell's iron base upon firing.

  I believe the 3" Dyer sabot's "shattering" problem was caused by the use of a high-zinc-content alloy on his 1st-model 3" shells.  Metallurgists classify Zinc as being a hard and "brittle" metal.  The 2nd-model 3" Dyer sabot's alloy contained less zinc, and was therefore softer ...thus being more able to expand into the rifling without shattering.

  Relevant to that statement, consider the 4.5" Dyer, which apparently did not come into existence until 1862.  I think it is noteworthy that the 4.5" Dyer's sabot was made of pure lead, not a zinc-&-lead alloy ...and it did not have the "shattering" problem.

  That being said... after Dyer diminished the amount of zinc in his 3" sabot, it was shown to still have the problem of failing to adhere to the shell's smoothly-rounded iron base upon firing.  So, for the 2nd-model, he changed the shape of the shell's smoothly-rounded base.  It would now have two raised iron ridges in the shape of an X across its center, and the base's sides would now have a 3/8th-inch-wide groove.  Both of those new features were intended to help the sabot resist being spun off the shell by the violent twisting effect of the cannon's rifling upon firing.

  I do not see how soldering some 1/32nd-inch-thick straps onto the sabot's bottom strengthens it.  A much less laborious way to strengthen the 3" Dyer sabot's theoretical weak point would be the cast it with a low-convex dome at its center.  That is what Sir Bashley Britten wound up doing on his 1861-Patent projectile's sabot, to correct problems with his 1860-Patent sabot.

  Let me point out some major evidence that the crossed-straps' purpose was NOT to "strengthen the sabot."  They are never seen on the sabot of 3rd-model Dyer 3" shells (the version with the pointed nose).  The earliest reported combat use of the 3rd model is August 1862 ...at the battle of Cedar Mountain VA, according to Harry Ridgeway's relic-archive data.

  If the straps were important for strengthening the sabot, why were the straps never put on the 3rd-model's sabot?

  I believe the answer to their absence is that the yankees had discontinued the manufacture of "Fixed" shells for rifled cannons by June/July 1862, when the 3rd-model first began to be manufactured.

  Unlike other 3" Dyer sabot which show "longer" straps (see photos at the end of this post), I own a specimen whose straps are quite short, because they were very neatly cut off, flush with the sabot's surface.  I think those straps were cut off due to an mid-1862 order to discontinue the use of Fixed rifled-cannon shells.  That would reconcile the apparent contradiction between the very clear use of "Fixed" rifled-cannon shells (Archer, Mullane, Dyer) in 1861/62 and the 1864 Artillery Tactics document's statement by French, Barry, and Hunt.

  I agree with Treadhead/Doug that Archer tie-ring based shells may have been just an early-war (1861) experiment.  But no Field-caliber Mullanes were produced until 1862  ...and they were still being mass-produced at the end of 1862, and they definitely had a tie-ring on their wood "shock-absorber."  In addition to the "pristine-condition" Mullane specimens having it, which I mentioned previously, please note that that tie-ring is shown in the diagram on page 140 of the McKee-&-Mason book.  It says "wooden spacer, powderbag tied on."  Does anybody here think McKee-&-Mason just "made up" that description ...or is it more likely that they'd seen the tie-ring groove in the wood on an unfired Mullane in real-life?

  Here are some photos showing the 1st-model 3" Dyer's plain iron base, and the 2nd-model's sabot-retention X ridges and 3/8th-inch-wide groove.  I'll also post a photo showing a 3" Dyer sabot with "longer" straps, which reach well-outward from the center of the sabot's base, even touching the sabot's rim.  If they are only applied to strengthen the sabot's "weak" center, there's no need for them to extend outward well beyond the center, where the soldering is located.  But they do.

  Let me say again, I am only posting the evidence to help the group conclusively resolve the mystery.  I hope I've done so in a gentlemanly manner.  As my sig-line in a previous version of this forum said, "Other people's interpretation of the evidence may vary from mine."  We are trying (as a group) to re-discover the missing Historical Facts.  For me, there's nothing more to it than that.

Regards,
Pete

[Pete George]

Update:
  I just now got an email from a fellow forum-member about a "very early pick-up" 3-inch Mullane/Tennesseee-sabot shell, which has its wood tie-ring-for-Fixed-ammunition "shock-absorber" almost completely intact.  The only thing missing is part of the lip above the tie-ring groove in the wood.  Being brittle old wood, some of it has chipped off due to rough handling over the years.  This shell is reported (on an obviously quite-old tag) to have been found at the Antietam battlesite, which occurred in September 1862.  If true, this shows that Fixed shells were still beng used at that point in the second year of the war.  Also, we have the same unfired Mullane tie-ring wood shock-absorbers evidence from the summer-1863 battle of Big Black River in mid-1863.

  Here's a photo of the Antietam early-pickup specimen.

Regards,
Pete

[acwbullets]

Great thread guys!

Has anyone seen the tin straps on the bottom of the 3" Dyer canister round. I have seen a few sabots and non of them exhibit the straps on the bottom. I took Doug out a few years ago to the Dyer canister ravine. We found some canister that was used at a very long range. Pretty neat when you think about the distance. Do you still have that pointed Dyer nose fragment Doug?

I have noticed on a lot of water recovered Dyer shells that there is a piece of tin sticking out of the top of the sabot where it meets the shell. Does anyone know what this is for? To me it looks like a small piece of sheet metal (low quality tin) was stuck to the bottom of the shell.

[Pete George]

  Yes, I own several Dyer 3" Canister sabots which have the soldered-on crossed tinnned-iron straps.

  My previous posts in this discussion have been lengthy and complicated, so I deliberately did not go into the subject of the thin sheet-iron "cup" located between the 3" Dyer's iron base and its sabot.  its purpose is described on page 143 of the 1993 Edition of the Dickey-&-George book.  "The 3" Dyer sabot was attached by casting it upon a thin tinned-iron covering which had been compressed over the rounded base."  Like Sir Bashely Britten before him, Dyer discovered that lead does not want to "stick" to iron.  Britten solved that problem by "galvanizing" his projectile's iron rounded iron base ...and in 1855 he got a British Patent for his method.  Dyer apparently decided not to violate Britten's patent by blatantly copying Britten's sabot-attachment method, and instead came up with an alternative, namely the pressed-on galvanized iron sheetmetal cup.

  I have several 3" Dyer shell bases (from exploded shells), on which the thin sheet-iron cup is clearly visible between the shell's "main" iron base and the sabot.

Regards,
Pete

[alwion]

I hope someone is making hard copy of all Petes info. Where else would we learn so much

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

     A statement has been proclaimed that fixed ammunition (shell and powder charge fastened together) was used in the ACW rifled cannons.  In this regard I have made the following observations.  The following projectiles had no provisions for attaching a powder bag:
Absterdam pattern 1 & 2; Archer; Armstrong (actually Woolwich System); Armstrong lead covered; Blakely, Boekel; Britten;  Brooke; Broun; Butler; Carkeet; Dahlgren; Delafield; Elsworth; Emory; Eureka; Hotchkiss; James pattern 1 & 2; Parrott; Pattison; Read; Read Parrott; Sawyer; Schenkl; Selma; Stafford; Thomas and Whitworth.
      So this renders down to the field caliber Mullane which is at question and the Dyer using base cup type sabot. Why only two types of projectiles that may or may not have been fixed ammunition out of the entire inventory of U.S. and C.s. projectiles.   
     Why only these two?? The drawing I posted of the Mullane was drawn from Mason & McKee’s manual, not from a field projectile.
     Perhaps Pete has the answer we are looking for that only two projectiles were fixed ammunition?
Best Regards,
John

[emike123]

Looks like somebody got to that eBay dude with the Mullane with the wood sabot.  I see a couple guys tried to get him to end it early.  I guess one must've finally come through with an offer he couldn't refuse:

Anyway, some good pictures for those interested:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130630708997

[Treadhead]

ACWBullets, the day you took me out digging was simply awesome.    Of course I still have the Bullet Nosed Dyer nose fragment.  Along with every other piece we collected that day.    The best part was in the middle of all those bullets, fragment & Dyer canister “tootsie rolls” was when we dug up that old kids tin toy pistol in the deep woods.   It was too small to be an actual gun, but the first second we saw that familiar shape pop out of the dirt, you had to think, it could be real?     I owe you one for that day!

[Treadhead]

To all,

I’d like present a few thoughts then get down to the focus of the post, Dyer shell and tin straps on the next post.   All the other stuff is pretty board and has many points and counterpoints.  Some of the points seemed to have strayed a little while trying to make a point:

The Mullane:  Great pictures and at the right time.  Too cool!  I didn’t fully recognize that the Mullane had provisions to tie on a cartridge bag.    As I stated before, I hadn't seen a good enough picture to judge for sure.  One thing I don’t understand is the reason for this statement:

<“anybody here think McKee-&-Mason just "made up" that description”> 

Who made it a point to question McKee and Mason?  It’s a great source. Just like several other modern day books I have in my collection.   The James Tie-Ring shell was also mentioned.  I have contemporary sources that state the tie ring base was for a powder bag.  From my perspective, it so happened that the National Commander of NSSA (a few years ago) who’s gun crew I served on and I had already talked about the difference in loading rifled guns.  What do you when you have two very creditable sources that seem to conflict, you look for more info to decide.  Both James & Mullane.  Isn’t that why we post?

Fixed canister with wooden sabots.
These were pointed out as evidence of rifled projectiles that were fixed.  True, I didn’t give these much weight in my original statement.  And I’ve kind of asked myself why not? I certainly know of them.  At least to me, the examples given aren’t rifled projectiles and much as they’re older style projectiles used in a rifled gun.  There’s no problem having to use a little muscle to force down a canister round that didn’t load smoothly. Most canisters were designed to smash down during set-back and break apart in scattershot fashion when it leaves the gun.   How much damage will you do while banging them home?  It’s another issue if you have to “ram” timed shell or case shot with force.  You run the risk of damaging or dislodging the paper fuse or the scenario nobody wants, the stuck percussion shell.   (pick lots for that one) Ultimately this part of the discussion thread on the Dyer shell comes down to the implications of fixing a powder bag on a projectile (to save just a few seconds)  to a projectile designed for long-range deliberate precision gunnery.    Taking your time in rifled gunnery was greatly urged by General Hunt and others.  These canisters mentioned above are a general area fire defensive rounds. I simply see them in a different class of projectile than the Dyer shell.

Pete I appreciate the time and effort you’re making on this post.  You do not know how much respect I have for your work.  I myself, put a great deal of emphasis on written primary source facts and tangible physical evidence.  Lets spend a little time presenting our points of view and posting some hard reference for the group.  Spending time presenting arguments as to why the other guy is totally wrong, or asking open-ended questions just doesn’t work for me.  I don't know the answer to the tin straps, I only know there's a lot of things I see that lead me to question their purpose.


Doug

[Pete George]

Treadhead/Doug wrote:
> One thing I don’t understand is the reason for this statement:
> <“anybody here think McKee-&-Mason just "made up" that description”> 
> Who made it a point to question McKee and Mason?

  Apparently, you are unaware that Mac Mason has been reported (by reliable sources) to have simply "made up" names for various bullets in his bullet book.  That is why I made the comment which you quoted.

  The reliable sources who've said Mac "made up" information in his book lived here in Richmond, where Mac lived, and worked alongside him at Governor's Antiques, when Mac worked there.  They said he laughed about his making-up of names for bullets during his conversations with them at Governor's.

  Two prominent examples of bullet names which do seem to have been "made up" (out of thin air) in the McKee-&-Mason book are the Belgian and the Prussian minies.  Insofar as I'm aware, no Historical documentation of any kind has ever surfaced (even now, 40+ years later) which could explain Mac's linkage of those minies to Belgium and Prussia.

  Please note, those two are not nearly the only examples of apparently-completely-unfounded info in the McKee-&-Mason book.  So, in view of that, and Mac's reported laughter over making up some things which are written in his book, I felt it necessary to ask the forum members if anybody here felt the book's description of the Mullane Tie-Ring wooden shock-absorber was also "made up."

  Let me say plainly, it is not my intention to "defame the dead."  Unfortunately, Mac has passed away and cannot now confirm or contradict those reports for us.  You asked a perfectly reasonable question about my comment, which I felt obligated to answer with a full explanation of it.

  Doing so has used up my remaining energy for tonight.  Aster I get a good night's rest, I'll respond to other things in your post (such as the James Tie-Ring-Or-Not issue, which will also require me to write a detailed explanation).

Regards,
Pete