Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum

Author Topic: Blakely??  (Read 21952 times)

alwion

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
    • Email
Re: Blakely??
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2012, 12:24:47 PM »
Thanks Mike, I was modifying that post . Guess written documentation will be non existent. not many patents approved, let alone ones "in the works", and no records left. was afraid of that.

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: Blakely??
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2012, 02:49:45 PM »
Alwion wrote:
> 1. Were all the spellings the same on all sabots or were some calibers stamped one way, some another, maybe indicating arsenal of production?

  Insofar as I'm aware, the spelling on the marked sabots is always the same, "Blakeley".

> 2. Did the confederates even have a patent system for their designs?

  Yes, but only about 10 of the 200+ CS Patents are currently known to survive.  I've only seen one of those ten.

> 3. Has Blakely ever been seen stamped on a different style sabot than the 4 sided post? excluding obvious english shells

  No.

> 4. What field calibers have we seen this 4 sided post on? 2.5", 2.9,3.6,3.67,  any others?

> 5. What field calibers have we actually seen this name stamp on?

  Only 3.67"-caliber.

> 6. Has Blakely been seen stamped on the cloverleaf style shown in the other post, or is that another thing entirely?

  No.  I think that's an important point.  Many of the Selma Cloverleaf sabots have been found marked with Selma's "inspector" G-mark.  But NONE of the Confederate Blakely Plate sabots have ever been found with a G on them ...NOR any other marking except Blakely's name.

> 7 What caliber was the Blakeley cannon?

  According to the Hazlett, Olmstead, & Parks book, the Field Artillery calibers of Blakely rifled cannons are:
2.5"
2.9"
3"
3.5"
4"

  Additionally, the HO&P book says that a wartime Confederate Ordnance Department document's list of the propellant-powder charges for cannons in Confederate Army service includes a .375-inch Blakely Rifle.  Because there is no record of Blakely ever producing a 3.75-inch Rifle, I think it was a 3.5" Blakely with worn-out rifling which the Confederates had "re-rifled" (cutting new grooves into the worn bore) ...thereby increasing the bore's diameter to 3.75-inch.  There is also some evidence that other 3.5" Blakelys were re-rifled to 3.67"-caliber.  My theory is based on the fact that there are civil war doscuments showing that the Confederates did indeed do "re-rifling" of heavily worn cannon bores.  This explains the existence of UNFIRED Read shells whose diameter does not match up with the caliber of any known cannon.  For example, see the unfired 2.59" and 2.69" diameter Read shells in the D&G 1993 book.

Regards,
Pete

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Blakely??
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2012, 04:07:50 PM »
To All Interested;
      If I may get us bac on track with the question, ho patented the six flanged, grooved, milled or whatever discription is used to describe the second image with m question.
      Pete claims the Blakely patent #1286 as Bakely's patent for this shell when in fact the patent merely describes the rifling for the cannon, it mention of  the construcion, design or manufacturer. This is Pete's reference, not mine.
      Next we asked to stray from using lpatents as references and to use a modern 1980s book as a reference to idently the projectile. Does this mean that a modedrn document is to be taken over Blakely's own patent?
      To my knowledge no patent has surfaced for this projectile. 
Regards,
Johno
Patent #1286 follows:

"
A.D. 1863, 22nd mAr. N° 1286.
Rifling Guns, &a.
LETTERS PATENT to Theophilus Alexander Blakely, of Montpelier Square-, in the County of Middlesex, late Captain Royal Artillery, for the Inven¬tion of " A NEW METHOD OF RIFLING GUNS, AND OF FORMING PROJECTILES TO CORRESPOND THEREWITH."
Sealed the 18th November 1863, and dated the 22nd May 1863.
PROVISIONAL SPECIFICATION left by the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely at the Office of the Commissioners of Patents, with his Petition, on the 22nd May 1863.
THEOPHILUR ALEXANDER BLAKELY, of Montpelier Square, in the County
5 of Middlesex, late Captain Royal Artillery, do hereby declare the nature of the said Invention for "A NEW METHOD OF RIFLING GUNS, AND Or FORMING PRO-JECTILES TO CORRESPOND THEREWITH," to be as follows :
My new method consists in rifling guns and in forming projectiles in such manner that let the turning force come upon whatever point it may of the 10 projectile, it shall exert the same power or influence.
My rifling is formed thus :---I first decide at what distance from the centre of the projectile the turning force shall act, the smaller the bore the nearer the centre should this force act; let a circle be now drawn with a centre in the axis of the barrel, the radius of which circle is this settled distance ; then I form.
15 the rifling of such shape that a line perpendicular to any point of its surface• shall also be a tangent to this circle. I form the projectiles to correspond, and follow the same mathematical rules for determining the shape of the external, surface thereof.
 
2   A.D. 1863.-N° 1286.   Specification.
Blakely's New Method of _Rifling Guns, Ore.
SPECIFICATION in pursuance of the conditions of the Letters Patent, filed by the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely in the Great Seal Patent Office on the 21st November 1863.
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, I, THEOPHILIIS ALEXANDER BLAKELY, of Montpelier Square, in the County of Middlesex, late 5 Captain Royal Artillery, send greeting.
WHEREAS Her most Excellent Majesty Queen Victoria, by Her Letters Patent, bearing date the Twenty-second day of May, in the year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, in the twenty-sixth year of Her • reign, did, for Herself, Her heirs and successors, give and grant unto me, 10 the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, Her special licence that I, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, my executors, administrators, and assigns, or such others as I, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, my executors, administrators, and assigns, should at any time agree with, and no others, from time to time and at all times thereafter during the term therein ex- 15 pressed, should and lawfully might make, use, exercise, and vend, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Channel Islands, and Isle
of Man, an Invention for " A NEW METHOD or RIFLING GUNS, AND or FORMING PROJECTILES TO CORRESPOND THEREWITH," upon the condition (amongst others) that I, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, my executors or administrators, 20 by an instrument in writing under my, or their, or one of their hands and seals, should particularly describe and ascertain the nature of the said Inven¬tion, and in what manner the same was to be performed, and cause the same
to be filed in the Great Seal Patent Office within six calendar months next and immediately after the date of the said Letters Patent. 25
NOW KNOW YE, that I, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, do hereby declare the nature of my said. Invention, and in what manner the same is to be performed, to be 'particularly described and ascertained in and by the following statement thereof, reference being had to the Drawing hereunto annexed, that is to say :— 30
My new method consists in rifling guns and in forming projectiles in such manner that let the turning force come upon whatever point it may of the projectile, it shall exert the same power or influence.
My rifling is formed thus :—I first decide at what distance from the centre of the projectile the turning force shall act, the smaller the bore the nearer the 35 centre should this force act ; let a circle be now drawn with a centre in the axis of the barrel, the radius:of which circle is this settled distance ; then I form the rifling of such, shape that a line perpendicular to any point of its
 
Specification.   A.D. 1863.-N° 1286.   3
Blakely's New Method of Rifling Guns, 4'e.
surface shall also be a tangent to this circle, as shewn in the accompanying Drawing, wherein A B, C D, and E F, are bearing surfaces ; lines perpen¬dicular to any part of these surfaces, as A G, H I, B K, all pass within an equal distance from the centre O. I form the projectiles to correspond, and
5 follow the same mathematical rules for determining the shape of the external surface thereof.
In witness whereof, I, the said Theophilus Alexander Blakely, have hereunto set my hand and seal, this Twenty-first day of November, One thousand eight hundred and sixty-three.
10   T. A. BLAKELY. (Ls.)
LONDON :
Printed by GEORGE EDWARD EYRE and WILLIAM SPOTTISWOODE,
Printers to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty. 1863.
 

D.1863. NAT 22. 11?1286. BLAKELY'S SIT CIFICATION   SHEET)
 
The-filed drawing is not colored,.   Drawn an Stone -by Malby & Sans
LONDON: Printedby GEORGE EDWARD EIRE and WILLIAM S POTT1SWOODE ,
Printers to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty 1863 ."
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 04:12:59 PM by John D. Bartleson Jr. »

alwion

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
    • Email
Re: Blakely??
« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2012, 05:53:22 PM »
I'm trying to stay on track, , am not using any book for reference on this, just trying to gather information, and definitley not taking sides as my final idea on this with this data isn't ending with either concept. I'm a geologist by training, and the 1st rule is that the story is always based upon what info you currently have, and as more evidence appears over time, that may need to be revised. I do know most of archeology is based on speculation. We would all love to have hard written facts and pictures, but you can't always have them, and you must then guess from what you have actually observed. Here's what I conclude from the massive amount of info posted

1. I don't really see any resemblance of the shell under discussion to the English patents John has laborously dug out and posted. I agree, to my mind, I don't think the English shell inventor personally had anything to do with the design of the confederate shell. The people who were designing these shells were smart, I doubt they made a spelling mistake. That would be Large conjecture that someone mismade the stamp. I don't think patent info on this shell exists, unless it's in the destroyed Confederate patent info. I doubt the Confederacy had documentation and patent info at the top of its list at the time anyway

2. The basis of the name in the D&G book seems to be based on the Blakeley stamp on some 3.67" square post base shells and one cannon. From there it has been assumed that all square post flanged shells to be named the same. I'm Ok with that since its a definitely a specific design, but am not sure calling it Blakely is at all correct. I would suggest using the spelling as known for ID. I would guess the shell is a unique design for the confederacy, either designed by or inspected by a Blakeley, probably with no connection to the English shell inventor at all! Having 2 people with a similar last name could easily happen.

3.Since we have other types of shells stamped with there maker's name, it is very possible that the designer is Blakeley, but with no similarities in the design to the English Blakey shells and the similar but different in names, I'd conclude that it was designed by a Confederate engineer, possibly using some other design ideas, but a unknown individual otherwise, written documentation otherwise lost

I don't really connect the cloverleaf base to this at all, don't see any connection. Improved disc sabot?

Please be kind when you beat me up now:), I have no other info besides what was posted, and have tried to use the info we actually can visually see and read, without trying to stretch anything to join the facts together. We do have the name and its hard to ignore connecting it to that style sabot, but no way to connect it to anything else for sure, since it doesn't seem to "match up" with anything else for sure

Blakeley sabot, details of designer unknown
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 06:02:13 PM by alwion »

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Blakely??
« Reply #19 on: February 19, 2012, 08:03:41 AM »
Inventor?
     some would suggest that the projectile in question above was invented, but not patented by Commander Robert Scott, RN who also designed the three large flanged projectiles for Blakely, as did Bashley Britten.  Blakely seemed content to let others design shells for his cannons.  See the Blakely web site owned by Mr. Steven Roberts at:
   
http://captainblakely.org/Associates.aspx

   As you view the above web site of Mr. Roberts you will see Scot's large three flanged bolts that Gen. Abbot also mis-identified as Blakely projectiles all because they were found with the Blakely cannons and so our generation has repeated this I.D. error.  I have often wondered how many other projectiles fall into this type of association

Best Regards,
John
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 08:47:24 AM by John D. Bartleson Jr. »

alwion

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
    • Email
Re: Blakely??
« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2012, 10:23:29 AM »
Marketer/dealer. The Bill Gates of cannons lol. now I'm of track. wanted to share this photo from this site with the pictures of Blakely's shell offerings. Looks like Brook sabots along the bottom of the picture

alwion

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
    • Email
Re: Blakely??
« Reply #21 on: February 19, 2012, 10:46:33 AM »
Back on track. What hurts my theory from this article is the letter with the misspelled name on Blakeley, not his signature , but if enough of these were sent by a secretary to a shell designer or supplier in the CSA, the spelling could have been misspelled enough times to compound this error, that could make these shells commissioned by Blakely (Blakeley).
   Helping my theory is nothing of similar design in what he was making or having made. He liked the pre rifled shells, although the picture above shows pretty much standard stuff. The shell looks from the outside to be a confederate design through and through, only the attachment is different. It seemed to have been made in other sizes than just for Blakely cannon, and I see no reason for the name to be on that design, unless he was involved somehow, or there again, another person entirely, maybe a relative living in the south with some cannon experience

If it wasn't for that pesky name, it would just be a form of Selma disc sabot. You just can't dismiss that name stamp. I just wanted to share a possible alternate theory of why that name would be there. Now I'm about torn 50-50 on it being another guy, or somehow involved with Blakely. There has to be a reason this was distinguished from other Selma single letter stamping.

I think this one awaites more answers which may never appear:( 

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Blakely??
« Reply #22 on: February 19, 2012, 01:55:46 PM »
They sure look like Brooke sabots.  Is there a Brooke - Blakely connection?   The ones on the shelves are Blakely's copper disk shells and bolts.  Hummmm did Brooke steal the Blakely design for his ratchet sabot or did the Blakely Ordnance Co. make them for him.  An interesting thought!
Regards,
John aka Bart

CarlS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
    • Email
Re: Blakely??
« Reply #23 on: February 19, 2012, 02:10:00 PM »
Or perhaps that display is a collection of projectiles known to be fired by Blakely's guns and were made by a number of customers/manufacturers.   It was Blakely's shell collection. 

Also, given that there was so much tried under field conditions during the ACW, I'm sure it's quite probable that they paid close attention to what worked and didn't work as they developed their products.  They may have sent envoys to the US to gather information on the competition.  At the start of the CW, England was the big dog in the arms manufacturing industry.  But I can't help but think that they realized that after the war the US war machine would look overseas to continue their industry and be competition.

While the sabots on the floor certainly look like Brooke sabots, nothing on the shelving unit really does.  Brook sabots fit smooth with the shell surface and have no groove.  The two big shot on the left could be.  I sure would like to have those.

Most impressive is teh weight those shelves are hold.  They appear to be made of wood and the middle shelf alone has about 3/4 ton on it.  One thing that doesn't make sense in the picture is the two cartridges on the floor.  They are marked 11-inch and 9-inch and are probably no more than 6-inches in diameter based on the other stuff.
Best,
Carl

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Blakely??
« Reply #24 on: February 19, 2012, 03:39:17 PM »
Those Blakely copper disk shells are in Blakely Ordnance Co. warehouse.  See what else was in there - courtesy of Mr. Steven Roberts.
Carl remember the underside of Brookes are ratchet steps. Those items at ehe bottom are proofing cylinders.
Mr. Roberts says they are not Brooke sabots, however, if not then Blakely appears to have the same ratchet  system or I am really going blind.
John

alwion

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
    • Email
Re: Blakely??
« Reply #25 on: February 19, 2012, 03:44:50 PM »
Looking at those shelves, I would say they are 3" thick old growth lumber. Every few years construction span charts change, because force growing lumber gains size but removes strength. A 200 year old piece of old growth wood would have to be replaced by a steel I'beam now  lol. That old stuff is dense and hard!!!! When we were discussing fixed charges in the other post, I was wondering if the charge could be made a small diameter to fit and not bind, I would guess that it was easier to make different size charges using the smaller but longer bags. would load easier, and if it broke when rammed it wouldn't matter. Does anyone have specs on bag diameters for shell size, how much undersize where charge bags? the charts I see have length, not diameter. Interesting point on the cartridges. I don't really see anything in the picture that resembles any of blakelys patents, do you?  I'm assuming the grooves we see are for grease rings, turned into the shell body not down by the sabot?  Does anyone know what the cute little 4 groove shells are on the top shelf? It's funny how one question always gives you 5 more  lol

alwion

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
    • Email
Re: Blakely??
« Reply #26 on: February 19, 2012, 03:48:20 PM »
I'd say these guys traded (stole?) ideas more than automobile manufaturers  lol  The picture says gas checks? is that english for sabot?  and what are proofing cylinders?

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Blakely??
« Reply #27 on: February 19, 2012, 05:30:33 PM »
Gas check, sabots, rotting bands, same.  Soneone else will have to explain the proofing routine.
John

John D. Bartleson Jr.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • Email
Re: Blakely??
« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2012, 07:17:41 PM »
IAW Mr. Stefen Roberts;  “proofing cylinders” are overweight projectiles fired twice with double charges to secure government proof of every piece of ordnance. For example the 11 inch Blakely gun fired a 400 pound service projectile but was proof fired twice with a solid 600 pound cylindrical bolt and a double charge. This was applied voluntarily to ordnance sold for export as well as being obligatory for guns provided for British army and navy use.  End quote.
Regards,
John

pipedreamer65

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • Email
Re: Blakely??
« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2012, 06:26:13 AM »
I'm not sure I understand the question here as far as the 3.5" "preston-blakely" shell and it's inventor.  It would appear to this casual reader that the arguement is being made that a rifle was invented by Blakely to fire a shell that had previously been invented/patented by someone else.  Maybe I'm just reading this the wrong way.  Concur that perhaps the 3.5" and the 4" Preston Blakely shells should perhaps not have the Preston name.  Why not call them Fawcett.  Nevermind.


Anyway, the patent posted plainly states:  LETTERS PATENT to Theophilus Alexander Blakely, of Montpelier Square-, in the County of Middlesex, late Captain Royal Artillery, for the Inven¬tion of " A NEW METHOD OF RIFLING GUNS, AND OF FORMING PROJECTILES TO CORRESPOND THEREWITH."

Seems pretty plain to me, picture or no picture.