Info Wanted

[CarlS]

Hello,

Please see that images below on a shell that I recently picked up.  I'm looking for any information that anyone might have on what type of shell this might be.  It is a bolt (solid) with a flat nose.  The diameter of the body is 2.88 inches.  The widest part of the sabot is just over 3 inches.  The weight is 10lb 1.5oz.   I have some thought on what it might be but was hoping to get any experience or knowledge that others might have on this shell.  At one time I owned a similar shell version.

Side View:


Base View:


Top View:

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Lead sabot for Parrott shell??? It looks like lead, is it brass?
John

[CarlS]

John

Good catch on my omission in describing the sabot. It is lead/ white metal and is pre-cast with Parrott rifling (3 lands-n-grooves).   It is a soft metal cup cast on the bottom that is the same diameter as the shell body other than the lands. 

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thanks Carl.  I can only think of it as a Dyer or Britten.  Since it is labeled as US then it must be a Dyer.  I have not seen one quite like it though.
John

[CarlS]

The "US" you see part of painted on it was done because that is what that owner was told when he got it.  In fact it says "Dyer" as well for the same reason.  I didn't show that side so as to sway thought.  If you look here:
      http://civilwarartillery.com/projectiles/rifled/FAOIIIb15.htm
you'll see the same projectile labeled as "thought to be an early experimental Parrott projectile".  So at least at the time he created that web page Jack didn't know for sure it was a Parrott.  And that is what I believe it to be as well but was hoping someone had some more conclusive evidence than my gut feel.  The reason I think it a Parrott in addition to what Jack thought is that I used to own this:
      http://civilwarartillery.com/projectiles/rifled/FAOIIIb16.htm
and the profile looks to be a Parrott in addition to the rifling.  But the Absterdam, Brooke, etc. also have similar profiles.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Carl,  I believe your two Melton references are the same shell not bolt.  Dyer and Britten both use the principle of soldering the sabot on the base of the shell body.  The Melton shells do not have the pre-engraved rifling as yours does. The Melton shells have Dyer characteristics, the only thing Parrott about them is the diameter. In an attempt to saving his contracts with the government could he have made a pre-engraved sabot to fit the Parrott rifle??
John,
P.S. Don't tell me that we are the only ones that can comment on this shell.

[CarlS]

John,

Not sure what happened when you connected but I tried the links and they worked fine.  Both links go to projectiles that have lead looking sabots and both have factory made lands on them.  One is a bolt (1st link) and the other is a shell (2nd link)  Both of them Jack calls an experimental Parrott.  The bolt in the first link is exactly the shell I posted.  Mine has in various places the numbers "9" and "92" stamped on it in addition to the "10".

My guess is that as Jack said it is experimental and he was testing the use of a soft metal to see the pro's and con's.  Many other designs (Archer, Dyer, Hotchkiss, etc.) used lead or some soft metal successfully and you have to figure Parrott at least tested it.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Carl,
   Another "not sure" things I guess.
John

[jonpatterson]

Carl,

Harry Ridgeway has one listed for sale as:   A1244...Rifled artillery projectile, Dyer design, Federal manufacture, solid bolt, experimental round, lead cup sabot with pre-cast flanges, Ordnance rifle, 3in.  If that helps any.

So far haven't spent a penny at Wheaton.   

Jon

[CarlS]

Jon,

Thanks.  Surprised someone didn't refer to that earlier.  Close inspection would show this is the same projectile pictured by Harry although I didn't get it from Harry.  The writing that has been applied to the shell that I didn't show reflected the Harry info and I'm trying to confirm it.  It appears that Harry got it from the example shown in the 1993 Dickey and George book from his website listing.  We have Read-Parrotts.  Perhaps this is a Dyer-Parrott?

Sorry you didn't find the hidden gem at the show but you did so well last year you are still playing with house money!

Best,
Carl

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Dear Carl,
  Can you tell us what is shown in the second (base view)? Is that the shell body peeking through the sabot base? what is the second item that looks like a hole.
  It appears that Dyer made the sabot longer  thereby gripping the body better and moving the grease groove from the center of the sabot to its forward edge.
   We have a poor evidence trail on where this bolt came from!
Kind Regards,
John

[CarlS]

The place on the bottom is the iron shell base peeping through the sabot. At a glance it appeared to be a lathe dimple but closer inspection and it is not, only rough iron.  The sabot surface on the bottom is not a very quality finish showing lots of imperfections which is surprising given it is likely a prototype and I would think more attention to detail would have resulted in a nice finished product.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Carl,
Perhaps it is the result of removing the casting process.
Regards,
John

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Pete,
   Is this  the same bolt as posted by Carl? Yours shown  on page 149, 1993Edition?
In your book you stated that Parrotts were not in service until 1864, is that still a good service date?
Kind Regards,
John

[CarlS]

I can confirm it is not the same bolt. There are different numbers stamped on it.