3in Absterdam Bolt

[Pete George]

John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> You mentioned earlier that no known combat use of any Absterdam has been found.
> Surely that does not include the lead sabotted ones with lead bands?

  Yes, it includes the lead-saboted Absterdam projectiles.  As I said in the same post, a single specimen of lead-sabot 3" Absterdam is REPORTED to have been found in the Petersburg area.  But very importantly, that one-&-only specimen's fuze was absent ...AND half of its lead sabot had been very neatly CUT away in order to view how its sabot gripped the shell's iron base.  Logic very strongly indicates it was not used in combat, but rather was a Test specimen.

  By the way... its lead sabot was held in place (and prevented firing-slippage) by being cast around a 6-sided iron "angular post."  Thus it is a yankee Adaptation of Blakely's patent.  (See the Captain Blakely website's illustration of Blakely's patented "angular-post" projectile.)

Regards,
Pete

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Pete,
   I thought that the Lead sabot Absterdam was in conflict with Dyer's shell and that the troops didn't like either of them. you can see the dovetail type shell base in my drawing which was drawn from the Absterdam pattent  so please lets not call it a Blakely design.
John

[Pete George]

  I'm talking about the anti-sabot-slippage PRINCIPLE.  Both Blakely's disc sabot and Absterdam's lead sabot are prevented from spinning on the shell's iron base by a single, centrally-located, angular-sided projection.  I am not proposing we re-name the Absterdam lead sabot.  I'm just saying its anti-sabot-slippage PRINCIPLE is the same as Blakely's disc-sabot.

Regards,
Pete

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Well I guess I was mis-informed.
John