Sumner Oscillating Bolt

[scottfromgeorgia]

These little bolts used to be hotly debated, since there is no known use of them, but is there any recent information on their source and use?

The following is from an exchange between Pete George and myself in 2006 after I bought one of these bolts from Lawrence Christopher:

"No collector or book-author I consulted has knowledge of any CS 2.25 BREECHLOADING rifled cannon having ever existed.  (Nor was there a US civil-war-era one.) That DuBose article seems to be the only place that a 2.25 breechloader is mentioned ...and DuBose only says "were apparently made."  Why say "apparently" instead of just "were made"?  As an author, I can tell you that you use "apparently" when your info isn't rock-solid and you need to keep some wiggle-room in your statement.  Why haven't any other cannon-historians been able to confirm what DuBose said 20-odd years ago?  (And remember, he only said "apparently.")
 
  I (and the cannon-book authors) sure would to be able to talk to whoever wrote the "documentation" that came with the mystery-bolt.  We very much want to see his source-material about the Sumner Oscillating breechloader - and discover its caliber in that material.  If it is 2.25, why didn't he say so "outright"?  But he merely said the bolt is for it.
 
We know the following about them:
They've been found ONLY in the river at Milledgeville - no field-use is known ...nor even from a test-range.
They're found with CS shells - but so are the US 1880s friction-primers.
They'd fit a CS 2.25 Breechloader - but all the cannon-book authors know of no solid documentation that such a weapon existed.
There are two 2.24-inch US 1880s breechloading cannon models they'd fit.
A larger-caliber 1870s US breechloader-projectile is known (a pointed-nose short-bodied bolt) which has a square iron body under its band."

[speedenforcer]

I'm NO expert or even close, just a novice trying to learn. That being said, judging by what you posted, I would vote that they are from the 1880's gun you mentioned. Due to lack of evidence otherwise.

[redbob]

Discussions of this bolt and the gun that fired it seems to be the "unicorns" of the artillery collecting world. While some say that it existed, others equally qualified state that no way did it exist. I guess that it is good that mysteries still exist.

[speedenforcer]

It apparently did go to something however. Unless its a fantasy piece made up in a shop somewhere which I do not think is the case.

[redbob]

If you believe the story, it is also called "The Georgia Railroad Gun" because the gun and bolts were supposedly made in a railroad repair shop in Georgia from the axle of a railroad car and the plan was to use it to protect the railroad from Northerners. A number of these bolts came out of the river and their main difference was whether or not they had lead bourettes attached to the bolt. You have to admit that the notion of a bunch of "good ole boys" sitting around a shop and deciding one day to make a cannon is rather intriguing; not unlike the idea of building a boat in the basement of a fire station and knowing that there was no way to get it out...

[speedenforcer]

lol that's funny

[CarlS]

I've seen a number of discussions over the years on them but nothing definitive.  One thing I'll add to this thread is that I've cleaned a couple and will say the iron quality of the two I cleaned does look civil war period.  It was kind of porous looking.  But I've seen some in collections or for sale that looked like amazingly good metal too.  And that is true of the Reads that come from the same river location.

[redbob]

If you have one in your collection, they are always a good conversation/argument starter when showing your toys to another collector. And to be honest about things, isn't that one of the great things about our hobby/obsession?

[scottfromgeorgia]

Dang, just found this 2013 discussion from this very Forum, which I had completely forgotten. Same points as made here:

http://bulletandshell.com/forum/index.php?topic=890.0

[Pete George]

  Part of my analysis in that 2013 discussion was, it seems there is no surviving historical document which tells what the caliber of the Sumner Oscillating Cannon was. So how can anybody claim that these Milledgeville bolts were made for use in it?

  I'll add that it seems unlikely that the Georgia Railroad's machining-shop would have the necessary equipment laying around (and the necessary expertise) to cut rifling-grooves inside the barrel of a cannon.

  Some of the information floating around (such as the Georgia Railroad machining-shop stuff) is said to be taken from a 20-something-years old magazine article written by Beverly DuBose. Does anybody here have access to that article, and if so, could it be scanned and posted here, so we could see exactly what it says, and doesn't say? Theoretically, the copyright has expired by now.

Regards,
Pete

[speedenforcer]

Pete, I have a question about copyright that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread but you spiked my curiosity. Obviously you being a distinguished and talented author (is that enough sucking up, lol) even if the copyright had not expired wouldn't scanning the article not be in violation of copyright laws since you are simply taking a picture of article and not writing it yourself then claiming it to be yours. And you are not scanning the document and reselling either. But of course I a not a lawyer and we don't enforce copyright laws at my agency so I have no clue. I was just curious. reckon we can go back to the subject o the thread now.

[Jack Bell]

Just to add fuel to the fire, I got one of these bolts when they were retrieved from the Oconee River in Milledgeville. Mine does have both lead bourrelets. 

Since all the ordnance that was recovered there was Confederate, I have always assumed it was both Civil War period and Confederate, but those are just assumptions with no documentation to back them up.

[scottfromgeorgia]

Pete, I have a question about copyright that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread but you spiked my curiosity. Obviously you being a distinguished and talented author (is that enough sucking up, lol) even if the copyright had not expired wouldn't scanning the article not be in violation of copyright laws since you are simply taking a picture of article and not writing it yourself then claiming it to be yours. And you are not scanning the document and reselling either. But of course I a not a lawyer and we don't enforce copyright laws at my agency so I have no clue. I was just curious. reckon we can go back to the subject o the thread now.

The answer is yes, you would violate copyright. You are permitted to reproduce only small parts of such material, and that only for specific purposes such as citation, and any more than that requires written permission of the copyright holder. So scanning and publishing the whole article indeed is a violation of the rights of the copyholder.
 

[speedenforcer]

ok. as I said I have no knowledge of copyright laws.

[redbob]

How can you not enjoy a discussion such as this? It has mystery, intrigue and above all great information.