Blakely or Scott?

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Well I wanted to hear from Pete before I presented my next bit of study which will lend more to the Blakely- Scott query.
         I recently did some reading in Author Jack Bell’s book on “Heavy Projectiles of the Civil War”, and was especially interested in his two chapters – Blakely projectiles and the next- Preston-Blakely projectiles.  I have email Jack asking for his references he used to obtain names for these two patterns of projectiles, but haven’t heard yet.
     As I looked at the 8 inch Blakely shell I noticed the profile of the nose view and thought to myself how like the 4 inch Preston-Blakely it resembles. ( the 4 inch is exactly like the 3.5 inch six flanged Blakely.
     Previous evidence found in Holley’s book “Ordnance and Armor” explains Commander Scott’s projectile design as consisting of three raised flanges (ribs) which he used in the tests along with Lancaster, Hadden, Britten and others.  Gosh, just like the 8 inch Blakely shell in Bell’s book.
    So I decided to run an experiment.
      I imported the 8 inch Blakely nose view into my draw program and carefully traced the profile, including the three flanges (ribs) and colored it grey.
      I then copied and pasted an exact replica of the original drawing and laid it on top of the original drawing then rotated the top drawing so its ribs were half way between the ribs of the first drawing then locked the two together.
     I then reduced the size of this now six ribbed profile and reduced it down to overlay the 4 inch Preston-Blakely base view, flipped it because it was a nose view, then  rotated my drawing to align all ribs and the now six flanged Blakely (Scott) matched perfectly.
      This tells me that the shell everyone has referred to as either a Blakely or Preston or Preston-Blakely is, in reality, a design invented, but not patented, by Commander Robert Scott, Royal Navy who designed projectiles for the Blakely rifled cannon.  Blakely is known to have manufactured rifled cannons having different rifling systems.
       Others may call these projectiles by whatever they feel is correct.
        When I see and read a Blakely patent to prove that I have wasted my time they will be Scott’s design in my mind.
Regards,
John

[joevann]

Hmmm.  I just found this tonight, and it does seem to muddy the issue.

[joevann]

I wish I could find the drawing.  British patents are a real pain to search.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Joe,
   It's muddy to me, can you copy and paste rather than scan a paragraph. From what I can read it is not clear to me.
Regards,
John

[joevann]

A.D. 1863, May 22-No. 1286.
BLAKELY, THEOPHILUS ALEXANDER.-:”A new method of
" rifling guns. and of forming projectiles to correspond there-
" with."
Guns are rifled by forming the bore in section of an irregular
curvilinear shape.  It is .first decided "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.  "A circle
is drawn 'from a centre in the axis of the piece at this fixed dis-
tance, and the piece is then rifled with "rifling of such a shape
“ that a line perpendicular to any point of its surface shall also
“be a tangent to this circle."  The projectile is formed of
corresponding shape to fit the bore.
[Printed, 6d. Drawing]
SOURCE: Patents for Inventions: Abridgement of Specifications relating to Fire-Arms and other Weapons, Ammunition, and Accoutrements, Part II-A.D.  1858-1866, Commissioners of Patents, London: George, E. Eyre and William Spottiswoode, 1870   Page 285

[joevann]

I'm changing my mind again.

[joevann]

The difference between the Blakely and the Scott (As I see it)  In the Blakely pattern, regardless of the number of flanges, each flange begins where the last ends, they are perpendicular and form a tangent of the bore.  In the Scott pattern, each flange would be disctict regardless of the number as the flanges are perpendicular but ARE NOT tangent to the bore.

[joevann]

I'd be very interested in the opinions of other contributors, too.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Before everyone gets confused.
First, Blakely did not design the three flanged projectile.
Second, Commander Robert Scott invented the three flanged projetile and this is verified by Holley's Ordnance and Armor by description and illustration of the scott pattern at the Shoeburyness trials.
Third, by my experiment above, I think I illustrated that when Scotts 8 inch, three flanged projectile doubles its flanges to six and then reduced from 8 to 4 inches in diameter, the flanges from both shells match and if further reduced to 3.5 inches all four projectiles will have matching flanges with regard to position and shape.
This indicates to me that all four projectiles were designed by the same person - SCOTT, not BLAKELY. 
They are Sctott projectiles made for a Blakely rifled cannon.
Regards,
John

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Okay guys, I will get off my soap box and stop beating my drum in an empty room..
Regards,
John

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Scott is given credit by Gen. Henry Abbot in his book:
Siege artillery in the campaigns against Richmond: with notes on the 15-inch
 By Henry L. Abbot
Page 107
 "The eighth system consists of the three deep grooves in the gun and corresponding flanges on the projectile devised by Scott and adopted by Blakely for his largo calibres. These projectiles (Figs. 11 and 12, Plate III) were captured at Fort Fisher, North Carolina, where the gun to which they belonged was the most efficient of the confederate armament, and was taken marked by our shot and stained with the blood of its cannoniers. Fig. 10, Plate III, was evidently designed for close quarters, where the rifled motion is unnecessary. There were several Blakely guns of smaller calibre found in and about Richmond, and one in Fort Clifton, on the Appomattox river; but they were designed for his lead-coated projectiles, and were very little used."

Regards,
John

[joevann]

This is the BIG difference between the flanges on a Scott and Blakely:  On the Scott there is a noticable shoulder on BOTH sides of the flanges but is smaller on the counter-rotational side  just as in the rifling pattern there is a radius on both sides of the groove.  On the Blakely, there is a shoulder ONLY on the rotational side to conform with the so-called 'saw-tooth' pattern.  While Blakely was undoubtably influenced by Scott, there is a distinct and patentable difference in the geometry used to achieve the same end: a self-centering projectile.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Joe,
scott shells are self centering.
John

[joevann]

John, I'm not arguing that point.  Of course Scott projectiles are self- centering.  So are Whitworth's, French studs, British studs, and Armstrong shunts.  They all just go about it in a slightly different manner.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

      No one is contributing to this post but you.  I have produced what evidence I have and believe it warrants a change. 
I presume everone is content in naming them the same old thing.  So I give this one the big -30-