Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum

Author Topic: 2 "new" Mullanes  (Read 10387 times)

emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
2 "new" Mullanes
« on: February 25, 2017, 10:22:58 AM »
I recently picked these 2 shells up.  The painted one is from an old GAR Hall.  I like this kind of camp art thing for some reason:


emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
Re: 2 "new" Mullanes
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2017, 10:23:42 AM »
I got this one at an auction the weekend everyone else was at Dalton without me  >:(

Neat old tag on it:

« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 10:42:58 PM by emike123 »

emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
Re: 2 "new" Mullanes
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2017, 10:24:19 AM »
It is empty!  Check out the casting bubble flaws in the other side:


alwion

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
    • Email
Re: 2 "new" Mullanes
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2017, 05:27:34 PM »
I like the tag better than the shell :D

emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
Re: 2 "new" Mullanes
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2017, 08:31:08 PM »
Thanks for articulating the point I was attempting to make by posting these.  Neither of them is remarkable in their sabotless state except for the label and GAR Hall paint job.  But as a result of those touches, I consider them collection worthy and have placed them aside more complete and less common Mullane projectiles.

redbob

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
    • Email
Re: 2 "new" Mullanes
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2017, 09:42:33 PM »
Sometimes the back story (like concrete in the base of a Camden Read) is every bit as good as the find itself.

Garret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
    • Email
Re: 2 "new" Mullanes
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2017, 10:06:51 PM »
Nice pickups Mike!
"Suppose you were an idiot.  And suppose you were a member of Congress.  But I repeat myself."  Mark Twain

Woodenhead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • Email
Re: 2 "new" Mullanes
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2017, 02:10:30 AM »
Like The Walking Dead, and with emike's permission, I'm going to bring this thread back from the dead. This shell he illustrated is not just another 'damn' Mullane. It is special with a story that needs to be told. Bear with me.

First of all, it was not made by Tredegar. After casting nearly all of the 3 inch Archer shot & shell during 1861, the Richmond Arsenal naturally expected the Ironworks to make all of the 3 inch Mullanes with the Tennessee sabot when large-scale production began in the middle of February 1862. The records show they produced about 450 during the remainder of the month, 1,800 in March followed by 2,600 in April and 3,428 in May. At this time, an increasing nervous Ordnance Bureau was begging Tredegar to speed up its production dramatically. The intensity of the fighting on the Peninsula was increasing with the great battle of Fair Oaks at the end of the month. On June 23, 1862, the Richmond Arsenal's Maj. Briscoe Baldwin invoked the name of the Army's beloved commander when he wrote: "Please make every exertion to give us some 3 inch shell today and tomorrow. I have a most urgent order to send what can be gotten ready immediately to a very central point. Gen. Lee is very anxious on the subject." At the time they were about to launch the ferocious 7 Days battles.

Faced with frequent metal shortages and an understrength workforce, Tredegar relinquished its role as the primary source of 3 inch ammunition. Still, they managed to make another 5,000 during June and July, followed by a final 1,550 in August. But that was the end. Tredegar never made a 3 inch Read or later Broun, and their production of 10 and 20 pounder Read-Parrotts soon halted for good. From contemporary correspondence, it is clear that the struggling Ironworks asked to be relieved of this responsibility. It is also apparent that the dissatisfied Richmond Arsenal had already turned to any of the smaller foundries willing to cast quantities of 3 inch Mullanes. This included Samson & Pae, Rahm and Lynchburg's Deane & Son. Following this time line, only the standard Tredegar Mullanes are dug at sites from the spring of 1862 like Yorktown, Williamsburg and probably including Fair Oaks on May 31st & June 1st. The 7 Days should have mostly Tredegars while a mix of the other mold patterns begin to show up including some sent to VA from Deep South foundries. None of the preceding 3-inch shells should have flame grooves or copper fuze plugs. The first Mullane pictured below does not have a flame groove.

Emike's second Mullane shell was cast from the same mold pattern as the two projectiles pictured below as was a 3rd Mullane I'll post later. They are not the common Tredegar pattern. All of this particular casting include a rectangular lathe key chiseled off the ogive and a prominent round air vent opposite the mold seam between the bourrelets. You never see these features on the Tredegar Mullanes. The three versions of this pattern I am showing here match the timing and details provided by S & P's production records. They made their first 250 three-inch shells during June and July, 1862. At that time, flame grooves had not been prescribed (On August 9th, the Richmond Arsenal ordered: "To ignite the time fuzes,...the base of the 3 inch shell to have one slot and a groove through the projection of metal.") The first of this pattern pictured below has no flame groove. The second Mullane pictured below is identical to the first except for a very smooth crescent cut in the bottom bourrelet that appears so identical from one shell to another that it might have been cast-in as part of the mold pattern. Its safe to assume that about half of those first 250 S & P Mullanes from June and July were not finished until August which I believe explains the origin of emike's new shell.

Samson & Pae recorded its first use of copper fuze plugs with their Mullanes on August 15, 1862. Their monthly voucher included: "Six 3-inch Rifle shell with fuzes tapped" at $2.25 each. The current price for any contractor making wood-fuzed Mullanes was $1.75. In the next few months, an additional 25 cents was regularly charged for threading fuze holes and 25 cents the official price of a copper plug. The process began on July 10th when the respected Richmond shop billed the government for "One machine for casting fuze plugs - brass & 2 cast steel taps." By "machine" they meant "mold," and the "steel taps" cut matching 12 per inch treads into the fuze hole and onto the plug. The third S & P Mullane I'll show on a follow-up posting has one of these first copper fuze plugs with the same thin head seen on other identified S & P projectiles made in late 1862. It was fired at Cemetery Ridge on July 3, 1863. Samson & Pae switched to making 3 inch Reads sometime in October or early November, 1862.   

Woodenhead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • Email
Re: 2 "new" Mullanes
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2017, 03:07:53 AM »
Here is the third Samson & Pae 3-inch Mullane shell. Their August 1862 vouchers specifically stated that copper fuze plugs were included. Samson & Pae billed for 190 Mullane shells in September. Their price per shell returned to $1.75 which suggests a temporary return to the old wooden plugs. A couple of months passed before copper plugs became Army standard. Many or all of the 649 they reported making in October 1862 were probably the new 3-inch Read pattern prescribed by the Richmond Arsenal at the end of August 1862.

The second (black & white) Mullane shell pictured below is Tredegar's flush-bolt pattern. It had no lathe key on ogive (fit into key slot in mandrel) or air vent on its side like the previous three Mullanes. Excavated by Don Williams at Gettysburg, it was among the last 1,179 of the 3-inch shells cast by the Ironworks in August 1862. Not all had copper fuze plugs. It appears that Tredegar adopted this flush bolt arrangement at that time as a sensible replacement for the long exposed bolt and wooden dowel combination. At that time they were making large caliber Mullanes with this flush bolt and also the first of the Brooke sabots were being made. Previously, on July 18th they had requested the Arsenal supply "some 1 1/4 or 1 1/2 [inch] square cut steel... We require it much for reaming out shell."

emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
Re: 2 "new" Mullanes
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2017, 09:59:06 AM »
Thank you for sharing this great information Woodenhead.  I am sorry we did not get to see you at the Richmond Show, at least not Friday or Saturday when I was there.

I have a lot of 3" "Mullane" shells in my collection, but it looks like I need to find and secure another one now.

alwion

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
    • Email
Re: 2 "new" Mullanes
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2017, 09:10:56 AM »
Ok i'm trying to follow this and make sure I understand the visual difference's. an S &P shell is on my short list, and recently had Carl disarm a mullane for me, and it was still sitting on my desk I bought at the "putty auction" because I liked the sabot rifling. 1st I show a mullane with a rect key, flame goove,  but none of the other feature's mentioned. I assume it is a standard shell. the rest of the pictures of the second shell seem to match the description of an S&P. mold seam, vent hole, and key, no flame goove. additionally, can someone tell me what kind of fuse we saved? looks like it could be a petrified wood/paper fuse?

alwion

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
    • Email
Re: 2 "new" Mullanes
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2017, 09:12:09 AM »
continuation of above

emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
Re: 2 "new" Mullanes
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2017, 04:59:58 PM »
Second one has the lathe lug and a wood fuse adapter.  I can't see the other attributes, but the sabot shown full frontal doesn't look to have the flame groove crescent in it.

Woodenhead

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • Email
Re: 2 "new" Mullanes
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2017, 04:09:12 PM »
I've only ever seen one Mullane sabot like the one you feature with all 4 holes made by a single punch. Usually the holes are much smaller and drilled individually. I've enclosed three views of a shell with your sabot because the projectile is noteworthy. I believe it was a CS Navy Mullane because it had a percussion fuze. Maybe Archer's fuze. The Army made a decision not to employ Archer's (or anyone else's, i.e., the Girardey) percussion fuze when they replaced Skates screw-down percussion fuze at the start of 1862. When the Richmond Arsenal tested them they determined that the fuzes were not reliable unless they struck head-on. But that was exactly what the Navy sought for striking the sides of warships. Naval invoices from early 1862 confirm they ordered Archer's fuzes for many of their 3 inch Rifle shells and 10 pounder Read-Parrotts (larger shells, too). During the pause between the Peninsula and 2nd Manassas Campaigns, the Army borrowed at least two 3 inch Navy Rifles along with some 10 pounder Navy Read-Parrotts and ammunition. With its narrow bourrelets and overall body shape, the illustrated projectile was not a common pattern. Unfortunately, its recovery location has not been documented. It belongs to the Keith Kenerly collection. By the way Mike, are you certain that sabot was found with the accompanying shell. Your shell No.2 with no lathe key or big air vent looks like one of the approx. 10,000 Mullanes made by Tredegar between Feb. and August of 1862. Absence of flame groove should date production around spring 1862.

The 4th picture below shows a 20 pounder CS Read-Parrott dug at Cold Harbor by David Young. I believe it was made by Augusta in 1863 because it has an extra thick copper sabot that was not milled to thin out the bearing surface. After extensive testing during the winter of 1863-64, all of Augusta's copper sabots were carefully shaped. Contemporary correspondence and identified examples confirm this. Production records show Augusta made more 20 pounders than 10 pounders during 1863 and sent hundreds to the Army of Northern Virginia. My point in showing this shell is because your Mullane shell No. 1 with sloppy casting on top bourrelet has the same depressed slot where a raised lathe key should be. My opinion is that it reflects the shape of the actual wooden mold pattern marking the spot where a small tool was used by hand to press the impression of the right-angle key into the sand mold cavity. Sometimes they hurried and overlooked this step. I have photographed a number of identical 20 pounders with the typical raised key in place. I have also shot a couple of 10 pounder Read-Parrotts from VA with Augusta's copper sabot and the same rectangular depression on the ogive. The history of the Augusta Arsenal, Never For Want Of Powder, reports that Augusta made its first 3 inch ammunition (i.e., Mullanes) in June 1862. I believe that explains the origin of your Mullane. I also wonder what the deal is with its fuze?

Woodenhead

emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
Re: 2 "new" Mullanes
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2017, 05:19:25 PM »
Alan (Alwion) is the one with the second shell with sabot (one you asked about whether it was from the same shell) above, not me, so he can answer.  That said, the "putty" auction had a lot of Farb'd up items in it including sabots replaced with putty copies.

Keith K. sold me that shell in your picture with the remnants of the percussion fuse.  Thanks for the backstory.

If I get time I will post some more 3" Mullane projectile examples.  I have quite a few that I kept for having one distinguishing feature or another.  I am enjoying learning so much about the items in my collection.