Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum

Author Topic: 6.4 inch rounds  (Read 4237 times)

Digger42071

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • Email
6.4 inch rounds
« on: November 14, 2017, 11:18:03 AM »
What shells were fired from the 6.5 inch Rifled Columbiad at Ft Donaldson Campaign?


Digger42071

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • Email
Re: 6.4 inch rounds
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2017, 11:33:48 AM »





divedigger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
    • Email
Re: 6.4 inch rounds
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2017, 11:46:30 AM »
that shell in your picture is a Brooke

Digger42071

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • Email
Re: 6.4 inch rounds
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2017, 11:48:35 AM »
Yep your right. Trying to figure out if it’s local.

emike123

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Bullet and Shell
    • Email
Re: 6.4 inch rounds
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2017, 02:37:32 PM »
The gun that fired this was probably a rifled 32pdr and the bore diameter would’ve been 6.4”.  It is not possible to re-rifle a gun with a 10” bore down to 6.5” in diameter per the info from the link.

Does anyone (Bill, Pete, etc.?) know the earliest appearance of big Brooke ratchet sabot shells in the field?

Digger42071

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • Email
Re: 6.4 inch rounds
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2017, 04:44:08 PM »
Your right didn’t think about that unless the cannon wasn’t bored yet. This may be the case. I gotta take a trip to Ft Donaldson museum.

Columbus Belmont had some 6.4 inch cannon during the war.

http://rosswar.blogspot.com/?m=1



Here is a part of one I saw last Saturday.



Digger42071

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • Email
Re: 6.4 inch rounds
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2017, 06:02:56 PM »
Here is an article about Rifled Columbiads:

https://markerhunter.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/heres-why-polk-needed-that-gun/

Wonder what the shells they fired looked liked?

speedenforcer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • Raulerson Relics
Re: 6.4 inch rounds
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2017, 09:03:51 PM »
didn't know that you would have to stand on your head to read some post. ;D ;D ;D ;D
It's not always "Survival of the fitest" sometimes the idiots get through.

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: 6.4 inch rounds
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2017, 12:47:11 AM »
  I replied to you at TreasureNet about this shell.

  No offense intended, I'm only trying to be helpful... your measurement of it, at 6.5-inches diameter, absolutely cannot be precisely correct.  If your shell actually measures 6.5-inches in diameter, it would not fit into a 6.5"-caliber cannon.

Please try to do an extremely precise measurement, with a better device than a tape measure.  Your shell's actual very-exact diameter will answer your question, i.e., was it fired by Fort Donelson's 6.5" Rifled Columbiad.  Because .10-to-.15-inch will tell the tale, you'll need to clean off even very small bits of rust-encrustation from the raised band (called a bourrelet) at the the bottom of the shell's sides.  Make measurements across the base in several directions and tell us the result.

A 6.4"-caliber cylindrical shell typically measured 6.25-inches in diameter.  A shell made for use in Fort Donelson's 6.5"-caliber Rifled Columbiad would measure 6.35 to 6.4-inches in diameter.

  Please keep in mind that you'll be dealing with the thickness of rust-encrustation on two surfaces, meaning, the two sides of the shell.  If there is a mere .1-inch (1/10th-inch) of encrustation on each side of the shell's base, it adds up to increasing the shell's original diameter by .2-inch.  That would transform an actual diameter of 6.25-inch upward to 6.45... which is extremely close to the 6.5" measurement your tape measure gives you.

  Emike asked "Does anyone (Bill, Pete, etc.?) know the earliest appearance of big Brooke ratchet sabot shells in the field?"

  Regarding Digger42071's shell, the question isn't the caliber's earliest appearance, but the length.  The longest Brooke 6.4" shell in the Bell book on civil war Heavy Artillery projectiles in 12.87-inches in length (including the sabot). Digger42071's SABOTLESS shell appears to be at least that long, compared with the length of his foot in the photo.  (Please give us a precise length measurement of your shell, and its precise weight.) My point is, the longer -- and therefore, MUCH heavier -- versions of 6.4" Brooke shells appear later in the war, with the advent of the double-banded and triple-banded Brooke Rifles, capable of withstanding the firing of such very heavy long-bodied projectiles. Therefore, I do not think Digger42071's very long-bodied Broke shell existed at the time of the Fort Donelson battle (February 1862).  But of course, if its actual no-rustcrust iron-only diameter turns out to be 6.4" instead of 6.25" I will be proven incorrect.

  Another clue would be the CS Navy Archer Percussion fuze in this shell's fuzehole.  Contrary to what was first believed, that version of CS Navy fuze dates back to at least very-early 1862.  Some have been found in the vicinity of the very-early 1862 shelling near Hatteras, North Carolina. So the presence of one in Digger42071's shell does not remove the possibility that it is from the February 1862 Fort Donelson artillery engagement.

Regards,
Pete

Digger42071

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • Email
Re: 6.4 inch rounds
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2017, 06:46:01 AM »
Thanks Pete. I’ll make some more measurements this week. I wonder where it came from then?

I need to look in the museum at Ft Donaldson. They have some recovered large shells from the battle.

I appreciate all the help!

Selma Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
Re: 6.4 inch rounds
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2017, 08:57:29 AM »
Pete & All Others,

There were only three triple banded Brooke tubes ever fabricated to the best of my knowledge – all 7 inch and all three from Tredegar.  I have never heard of any VI.4 inch triple banded tubes of any origin.  If you have evidence of such tubes please give me a shout landline so we can discuss.

Excerpt from transcription of letter dated April 25, 1864 from D.P. McCorkle Lt., Commanding New Orleans Works to Cmdr. C.ap R. Jones, C.S. Navy Naval Gun Foundry, Selma.

(Letter opens with narrative regarding bow gun on CSS Chattahoochee)


 “…………. Brooke has been telegraphing for information about the manner of casting the ring ratchet shell.  I have been very successful with them.  I do not know whether he wants me to change or not.  I cast fuze end up, core anchored, with a high gate (or sink head), allowing the iron to flow over making a solid casting with no blow holes.  I do not lose as many of the ring ratchet as I did of the others”.

There is a data bit in this which is the date of this letter from McCorkle to Jones.  It would seem to date development of the ratchet ring to the first quarter of 1864 given the implied progress on development in the letter. Distribution for use in the “fleet” or to the army would not likely have been underway at this point since Brooke is still seeking information.

My impression of the banded and rifled 32’lbrs thus far is that while they could fire these heavier projectiles the tube would have been much stressed in the doing.  Selma “Teardrops” or other lighter shells and bolts would have resulted in a longer service life for those guns.  IMHO.

  1/ McCorkle moved New Orleans operations to Atlanta March/April 1862.
  2/ In June 1864 Gen. Joseph Johnston ordered McCorkle to relocate operations to Augusta.