The lowly friction primer

[emike123]

I know a couple folks out there get excited about friction primers but I have kind of ignored them until recently.  As a result, I don't know much about them at all.

Here we have two of them that are different from run of the mill ones.  The one on the left has a flat circle pull tab, the surface of which is perpendicular to the copper tube.  It is 2.465" long.

I have been told these have been recovered in Mobile and around Fort Fisher.  I have also been told they are to Armstrong guns.  I know there is a type with the circular part rotated 90 degrees from this that is definitely an Armstrong.  Is this an Armstrong and was it used during the American Civil War?

The other one looks common enough but there is no hole in the copper tube opposite the short tube at a right angle to the long one.  To me, there should be a hole there for a wire with a serrated end to be pulled out of.  What is going on here?

I'll start with these two, but I have several other types for which I also have questions.

[Dave the plumber]

 the primer with the ring are CS used, supposedly British manufacture run through the blockade. They are not just for Armstrong guns, the tube fits any vent. They are probably called Armstrong because they resemble the other ringed primers that are so common on ebay, and called Armstrong there. Those are definately British manufacture.   
          the other primer I have no guess what is going on with that one - I have a whole riker case full of different primers, and I have no idea how that would function.    Maybe it should end up in my riker case - 'ol buddy, 'ol pal :]

[Dave the plumber]

                          by the way, at one time I had seen a patent drawing for the 'common' circle ringed pull 'Armstrong' primers. It was from the late 1850's, so they can be period manufactured and used......

[divedigger]

I have found a ring to one of those friction primers at Fort Fisher, surprisingly enough, behind the Armstrong mound, along with a few long friction primers that were spent

[Dave the plumber]

     I have seen quite a few of the ringed ones in local collections here. And Mike says they are found around Mobile too. So, I would assume somewhat they are British manufacture brought through the blockade and distibuted into the forts that are at the ports

[pipedreamer65]

I have a few of the long ones with the ring.  Found at Fort Fisher.  Made for the big guns I suppose.

[emike123]

Two more variants.  The one on the left with the 90 degree cut out to form the right angle is CS.  The one on the right is associated, I understand with navy use and the coiled wire was to enable pulling in the part after it flew out upon firing so it wouldn't lie around on the deck for barefooted seaman to step on or cause a fire.

The coiled ones are often associated with post war use, but this one was pulled out of the river dump at Milledgeville.  I know the site continued to be occupied post war but I cannot imagine that the occupiers received a shipment of these from England and then proceeded to dump them right amongst the shells and other arsenal material was dumped by the Union cavalry when Milledgeville was taken near the end of the war.

[joevann]

The coiled primer....As soon as my camera battery id done charging I have some photos to take.  I dug many of these at Mare Island years ago.  They were not just for naval use.  You will note that the tube is slightly longer than that for use with field guns.  They were also for use in fortification casemates, and for the same reason as in a naval use.  You don't want a hot piece of metal flying around in an enclosed space filled with men and black powder.

[Pete George]

Edit-note: Joevann's post came in before I finished typing mine and adding photos to it.

Emike wrote:
> The coiled ones are often associated with post war use, but this one was pulled out of the river dump at Milledgeville.
>  I know the site continued to be occupied post war but I cannot imagine that the occupiers received
> a shipment of these from England and then proceeded to dump them right amongst the shells and other
> arsenal material was dumped by the Union cavalry when Milledgeville was taken near the end of the war.

  The Milledgeville site was contaminated by much-later dumping of several kinds of very-postwar Ordnance.  In addition to the US Model-1896 primers, unfired .45-70 rifle cartridges and turn-of-the-century unfired Springfield .30-06 rifle cartridges have been found in quantity at the Milledgeville river-dumping site.  (That is why I remain unconvinced that the mysterious lead-banded 2.2"-caliber so-called "Confederate Breechloader" bolts found in the river at Milledgeville are civil war rather than postwar.)

 The "coiled-spring" primer is not British.  It is a US model-1896 Radial-Vent cannon primer ...intended to be used on a cannon inside a turret or other enclosed space.  Selma Hunter has a non-dug can of those primers, dated 1904, if I recall correctly.

  I'll post a scan from the document I found which contains the identifying information for the coiled-spring primer.  The document is the "Journal of the United States Artillery" Volume 38, published in 1912, pages 165-166.

  Note the presence of a finial or "mushroom" on the spring primer's top.  The finial/mushroom was needed for attaching one end of the spring to the primer -- as you see in the diagram.  The spring's other end was attached to the pull-wire, which was attached to the lanyard.  This arrangement caused the pull-wire AND the primer to remain attached to the lanyard after the lanyard was pulled, firing the cannon.  That was necessary because (just as with civil war cannons), firing-blast violently ejected the primer from the cannon's vent.  That is not a problem for the gun-crew in outdoor firing. But inside a turret, the fast-flying primer could ricochet and injure the gun-crew.

  The second photo clearly shows the distinctive finial/mushroom shape at the top of the US Model-1896 primer, which is missing its spring.  (In Emike's photo, the finial is hidden by the spring, but it's "there.")

Regards,
Pete

[joevann]

Mr. George is absolutely right.  As the article states, these springs were not added until 1894 and improved again in 1896.  The following is from the Annual Report of the Chief of Ordnance for 1894, page 46.

[Selma Brooke Gunner]

     Sorry for bring this tread back to life but I have a question. This weekend I acquired a primer that is a little different than the one that started this. I am sorry that I dont have a picture to post but technology is not my strong point, This primer has a flatened ring that stands vertical.
    The pull ring is .5 inches in diameter the flatened shaft that leads to the tube is 1/8 inch wide. The shaft leads into a horizonal tube that is .5 inch long and just over 1/8 inch wide.
the vertical tube is 2 1/16 inches long, the top 1/16 inch is nearly rounded. The horizonal tube joins the vertical tube 3/16 inch from the top of the vertical tube.
    The diameter of the vertical tube is 3/16 inch.
    When I do figure out how to post photos on here I will.
    Thanks in advance for any info that will help.

[emike123]

Does it look like these?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ARMSTRONG-CANNON-FRICTION-PRIMERS-FORT-FISHER-N-C-1863-/300862708723?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item460cd09bf3

In my opinion discount the fanciful story, but friction primers like these are to Armstrong guns.  Someone more knowledgeable can comment on whether they are period, but they are, again in my opinion, no way long enough to work in the monster Armstrong gun at Fort Fisher.  I think there is another forum that discusses this seller's "stuff" more frequently.

[Selma Brooke Gunner]

Yes, Thanks.

[scottfromgeorgia]

That is Rick Armstrong of Gore, Virginia. He is a faker and manufactures letters of provenance from museums and families. He has sold hundreds of faked items with fake ID for over 20 years. I have heard others tell the same story - he buys junk, and then the item appears with a new story and new documents.

NEVER BUY ANYTHING FROM revwarcannonball.

[Selma Hunter]

Gentlemen -

FWIW, the friction primers shown in the lower of Pete's photos are the ones I have a full can (50 ct) of along with a few left over from an opened can.  I recommend caution in handling these examples as I discovered that they are still capable of ignition, or were about 20 years ago.  The term "match" has been associated with these devices at times in the past, but there was nothing match-like in the detonation associated with the one I tested so long ago.  It is noteworthy that I never again carried any in my shirt pocket (or any other unprotected place) to pass on to my ACW collector buddies at shows.

Andy, I have seen recovered examples with both horizontal and vertical pull rings from the Mobile/Spanish Fort sites.  Both types were the larger "Siege, Seacoast or Naval" length.  I cannot tell you much more than that.

Also FWIW, I have seen a "cartridge board" that had multiple examples of friction primers (along with a 1" Gatling gun cartridge) mounted.  The friction primers included one that was only about  1 1/8" - 1 1/4" long - notably shorter than the typical "field gun" examples.   When I can find my pics of those primers I will post them here.  And for those dieing to know the cartridge board was by UMC Co. (as I recall).  It was huge, in great shape with no missing pieces and sold for a bunch of money.