One of the more interesting Mansfield finds...

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Joe,
   thank you, but why do you say 'maybe'?  Why are we so quick to name a projectile 'confederate' when it doesn't immediately fall under known Union use.??
Cheers,
John

[joevann]

Because we know for sure it's not Mexican.  Now we have established that it was a Northern founded gun that fired it, and that it is likely a Northern made projectile and we have battlefield recovery, we have to figure out from the position found which side fired it and when.  Conversation is taking some strange twists, isn't it?

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Joe, 
    You have proven that the 3.3 inch Parrott rifle was Union made and supplied with Dyer ammunition, no matter who was using it, then by established identification methods, it is a rare 3.3 inch Federal Parrott rifle and Dyer ammunition.  So Mike you have a rare piece in your collection. Congrats.
So what did the contributors to this thread learn by the strong evidence produced by Joe Vann?
  John

[joevann]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

[scottfromgeorgia]

Not to my satisfaction. We still don't know if this bolt is one of the Dyer 3.3 bolts, or if the Rebs made their own versions after capturing the cannons. Capturing a cannon does not necessarily mean capturing a supply of ammo.   

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

scott,
    Read the Artilleryman again.  In the second paragraph it states that Dyer projectiles were also provided with the 3.3 inch Parratt. ?? Of course you are free to continue to speculate on any  situation.
John

[scottfromgeorgia]

My conclusion is not due to misreading the article. It is that we still do not know if this bolt is one of those made by Parrott.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

We will probably never have that answer.  Usually when orders were placed for ammunition both shells and bolts and sometimes case shot and cannister were also supplied.  I guess the only way to prove it would be for Mike to remove the sabot and see if the sabot retention pattern matches.
John

[Dave the plumber]

 Mike does have one without the sabot, so maybe he can shed light on the base.  Also, a careful examination of the shells looking for either lathe marks or sizing grooves, lathe dog remnants would lend weight to either argument.... lathr

[CarlS]

The image that started this thread shows one with and without the sabot.  Sure looks very similar to a Dyer's style to me but that doesn't mean the Dyer style wasn't copied leading to it looking like a Dyer although the US Government is not likely to issue a knock off to the field.

[emike123]

I agree with Scott not to be too quick to consider this mystery entirely solved.

Despite some confusing comments to the contrary, early on in this thread several folks acknowledged some things

3.3" Parrott rifles were made in NY

The bolt looks to be made in the Dyer form, now confirmed by the letter

Some of these tubes were ordered by the state of NY


Other points not sufficiently addressed:

The Union Army had no 3.3" rifles on the field at First Manassas (or any known battle.)  But the Confederates had several 3.3" guns in use

Serial number on one remaining gun (serial #s not legible on other two remaining tubes) is past the dates referenced in the letter

Missing 13 Parrotts shipped to Virginia before the start of hostilities (discussed in the book reference mentioned by Joe)

Lack of acceptance marks on the 3 3.3" Parrott barrels extant, one at the Citadel and two at other Southern locations

One of the barrels referred to in that initial NY state order letter is for sale on our commercial site!  A friend of Carl and mine used to own another one and both were stamped "SNY".   These 10pdrs are believed to have never left the State of NY.  (Similarly the Delafield projectiles never left the state).  The 3 extant 3.3" Parrott tubes do not have "SNY" marks either.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Mike,
   What are we trying to do with this post? Identify the rifle or the bolt?  I thought, initially, the discussion was about your bolt otherwise why did you post images? So is the bolt a Dyer pattern or not?  I don't believe we can say with any assurance, who made them.
Regards.
John

[joevann]

Well, John, I admire you for sticking to your 'guns'.  But emike raises some valid points.  The letter doesn't mention bolts, so it COULD be a Southern made copy OR a round captured with the guns, OR a couple of other possibilities.  Now, how it got where it was found is a mystery, I think all we've solved is that it was fired from a gun cast at West Point Foundry and that it was fabricated on Dyer principles.  Am I correct so far, folks?  Unless I've missed something in this thread, no other identified tubes match this caliber and rifling.  To be honest, my D&G is still packed in a box with my other office supplies, so I don't know what this bolt has been called by others.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Joe,
    A quote from your Artilleryman referendce:
"& Have made for them a large number of projectiles of the kind known as Captain Dyer’s."
   It doesn't say shells either but they usually are provided together.
I don't believe Parrott made Dyer projectiles for his rifles  It would appear to me that the rifles were made by one manufacuter and the Dyers made for the 3.3 rifles by whoever made the Dyers normally.
 Why would the confederates obtain the Parrotts by whatever means then tool up to cast a Dyer bolt which they normally didn't have in stock when they could have re-tooled and cast a 3.3 Read or some other existing designs.
 
John

[scottfromgeorgia]

Mike, I can't find that 3.3 rifle you say is for sale.