Merry Christmas Bart!

[emike123]

This shot is for you -- not sure I have ever shared the sectioned one on the left.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Dear Mike,
 What a great specimen.  A true Stafford shell.  how about adding a shot of the base for all. Or, for the sake of argument, it could also be the 1864 model Arrick (Eureka).
Thanks,
Bart

[jonpatterson]

Nice looking shell.

[emike123]

Its your birthday, its your birthday....

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

C. Arrick's early model.  Can you see any anti-rotation lugs beneath the edge of the sabot?
John

[CarlS]

Such a nice shell.  So sad....

[emike123]

For the record, and before you and RelicRunner vilify me, I did not cut that shell or have it cut!  I got it that way, Carl, from your lifelong buddy no less 

I'll look for some things under the sabot next time I get to it, but I am not sure what I am looking for.

[emike123]

Sorry, I cannot see anything in the small space between the sabot and the iron shell body.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Dear Mike,
    That is fine, no need to worry.  with no means to impede sabot rotation except for the peen over large rivet it merely means that it is a Stafford shell.
    Stafford uses the same sabot retention on his sub caliber projectiles.  From the beginning Arrick used four then three detents with matching lugs to fit in order to stop the sabot from spinning as it takes the rifling.
     If you will look at your other shells that appear to be Stafford's will see the three lugs in the inside of the sabot with matching recesses in the shell body. The Arrick sabot is also held on by a large hex head bolt.
     To add to the confusion, Arrick copied Stafford's large rivet design and I am not certain I can tell them apart.  You have to look at their patent drawings. to see what I mean. See sample below.
John

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Mike look at the first image you posted,. On the complete shell, look at the top edge of the sabot about 1 inch from the left side in the photos and tell what that small object is?
John

[redbob]

Thanks for the information on these Arrick's/Staffords, I've had a bolt and a shell with the large bolt head on the bottoms and have never really been sure what I had. Also both have the lugs/indentations above the sabot. John, I haven't forgotten about the Whitworth pictures; as soon as the grandchild clears the area, they will be on their way.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

No problem.  If your shell and bolt has the three lugs it is an Arrick (Eureka) projectile.
John

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Eureka or Stafford:

     I can understand why there is confusion in the posting. Essentially the same miss identification that has been spawning from person to person.
     Let me try and put this in chronological order with brief explanations: 

1.   On Dec. 20, 1864, Patent #45,567, was issued to Charles Stafford
a.   Spiral powder cavity to produce more fragments
b.   Brass cup sabot, NO STUDS, wedge shaped shell bottom, NO NOTCHES
c.   Sabot retained by two rather small screws cramping the sabot’s center hole to shell body OR using one large screw (slotted).

2.   Three months later on Mar. 28, 1865,patent  #47,078 , was issued to Clifford Arrick (Eureka)
a.   Brass cup sabot
b.   Sabot attached by teat on bottom of shell body having its outer edge rolled over  a central hole in sabot
c.   Wedge shaped shell base
d.   Note:  This design is the same as Stafford’s except for method of sabot attachment (this is shown on page 89 of PG’s 1993 Edition of his book)

3.   Almost 10 years later on Feb. 23, 1875, patent #160,071, is issued to Clifford Arrick

a.   Brass cup sabot having three (3) male wedge shaped studs at 120 degrees around inside edge of sabot
b.   Wedge shaped shell base with three (3) corresponding wedge shaped notches (to mate with studs to prevent rotation of sabot
c.   Sabot retained by large hex head bolt through center hole in sabot

At some point in time, the Arrick (Eureka) design was miss identified by someone, probably because of the likeness of both shells, and has been perpetuated ever since.
   So with this in mind, Arrick’s first design was dug at Petersburg and featured in PG’s 1993 Edition.    To my knowledge a true Stafford design has not surfaced, however, Jack Melton displays one on his web site.  Perhaps he can lend knowledge where he photographed it and who has it. (I suspect it is a Eureka photographed so that the notches do not show in the photo.
In short the mystery lies in when and where did the mix up occur.
 Regards,
John aka Bart

P.S. Mike- That is an unusual looking fuse in the sectioned image, is the same fuse in the intact shell? If so can you make some close- Look at the below patent by Arrick. ups of it?  This can be my anniversary gift..

[emike123]

 I am not sure I completely track what is being asked.  The complete shell in my first photograph is the same one you show in yours and i think you used for your drawing a while back.  I remember you were very excited about it at the time.  I think you said you had never seen a "true" Arrick, but maybe I don't have that quite right as I was too busy hiding the fuse from the Plumber who kept coveting it.  What is new to you, I think, is that I have a sectioned version to show you alongside the complete shell.

1) Sectioned one has same fuse in it as other, only cut in half.  Picture of the fuse type (complete, not sectioned) is posted below. 
2) The fuse shown below is the same type as is in the shells above, but is an even rarer variant made of white metal instead of brass.  These unusual ones are discussed in Jones alongside the also pretty uncommon brass ones.  Consider this your early bird special gift for posting so early today
3) I don't see any wedges & don't think this type of shell was supposed to have them if I am reading your posting correctly,
4) I do see the slight irregularity you pointed out on the top edge of the brass sabot, but upon close inspection it is just an irregularity in the milled edge, nothing more to my eyes.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Mike,
   This fuse looks like the Abssterdam time fuse, only not brass;  its lower body and fuse head str  different than the one in the sectioned view.  The brass one has a narrower lower body, unless the image photo is deceiving me.
Regards,
John