Bullet and Shell Civil War Projectiles Forum

Author Topic: 11 inch shell weird  (Read 4192 times)

Steve Phillips

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • Email
11 inch shell weird
« on: March 14, 2018, 08:51:33 AM »
Yesterday John Horton from Tennessee came to my farm to pick up a 7 inch Dyer that I had unloaded and preserved for him. He brought a really strange 11 inch ground burst shell to show me. It has a four way part inside that looks similar to a lug wrench. Remains of black powder can be seen. He has all the fragments and there is no regular fuze hole. I think the lug wrench must be a type of fuze but I can't figure out how this was made. I don't see anyway to remove the sand after casting and no way to put in the bursting charge. Col. Beimick has a 9inch example in his book. The 11 inch was supposedly found at Island #10 30 or 40 years ago but the man who found it has died so we can't be sure. The Dyer did come from Island #10 and was found by the same man.

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: 11 inch shell weird
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2018, 01:42:59 PM »
  Steve, that is one of the infamous "4-Hole Mystery-Balls." Some people have floated various outlandish identifications, such as being a Confederate Incendiary shell.  They've been found in various sizes, from 6 inches to about 11 inches. Two facts absolutely disqualify them from being cannonballs:
1- None of them is the proper diameter (such as, 7.88-inches) to be a cannonball.
2- They are made of steel, not cast iron. (One of them fell off the back of a pickup truck onto concrete at a scrapyard, and cracked open. The characteristics of the "fresh" breakage proved it was made of steel.)

Additional disqualifications:
3- They turn up all over the country, not just in areas where heavy-caliber cannons were used.
4- None has ever been reported to have been dug at a civil war battlefield or testing range. (That statement must include this 11-incher, because the guy who came up with it is deceased.) In fact, the place they are found most often is at metal scrapyards.
5- Though some people claim they are filled with black gunpowder, the substance is actually black casting-sand, from the metalcasting process. As you mentioned, there's no way to get the sand out of the ball's cavity.
6- Even if the substance in them was gunpowder, the ball's walls are much too thick for that amount of powder to burst open the ball.
7- The four holes are much too tiny (1/4-inch or less) to serve as flame channels for an incendiary shell.

  Here's a photo of one which was "blown" by a police bomb squad.  Upon my request, its owner provided a very precise diameter measurement... which is 8.72-inches. As I said above, none of these balls are the correct diameter to properly fit a cannon.

  Also, as more proof they are made of steel, the high-explosive detonation charge used by the bomb squad would have totally shattered simple cast iron, not left it more than 50% intact with the peculiar shape we see in the photo.

Thanks for posting this one. It's good for educating collectors every so often that these mystery-balls are definitely not cannonballs.

Regards,
Pete

Steve Phillips

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • Email
Re: 11 inch shell weird
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2018, 02:30:47 PM »
I'm not sure of any opinions on these. This one had many fragments and I think it must have shattered on impact. It also appears to me to be cast iron not steel because there are no signs of bending. I did not try to test the black powder or whatever material is in it. I wish I had. Mr. Horton said that he was told that the material would sparkle when lit. But that may not be so. Col. Biemeck seems to be pretty sure that they are incendiary projectiles and Jack Melton said that he had seen patents on them. Me, I don't know. Over the years I've seen too many opinions proven wrong.

scottfromgeorgia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
    • Email
Re: 11 inch shell weird
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2018, 10:56:40 PM »
If the ball doesn't fit, you must acquit.

speedenforcer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • Raulerson Relics
Re: 11 inch shell weird
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2018, 08:58:03 AM »
 ;D
It's not always "Survival of the fitest" sometimes the idiots get through.

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: 11 inch shell weird
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2018, 03:15:30 PM »
Note:
This post has been modified to correct my error in saying the 4-tiny-holes mystery ball is not in the Biemeck book.

  We are all here in pursuit of the Actual Facts. That is my only intention in posting the following.

  I've struggled to come up with a descriptive name for the 4-tiny-holes mystery balls. All I've been able to come up with is "4-Tiny-Equatorial-Holes" balls, because the holes are all on the ball's Equator line (and spaced at equal distances from each other, at the compass points, North, East, South, and West).

  As I said in my previous post, the most important evidence about them is, none which have been super-precisely measured are a correct diameter to be an artillery projectile.

  Steve, somebody gave you false information. I was shocked to read that our esteemed colleague Colonel Biemeck had included these "4-equatorial-holes" mystery-balls in his book as being a cannonball... and that Mr. Melton had found a US Patent for them. So I searched through Biemeck's book. [Modification: Here I've removed my incorrect statement that the 4-hole balls are NOT in his book.] Also, the Patent found by Mr. Melton is definitely not for the 4-hole balls.

  See page 499 in the Biemeck book. The ball shown there is merely a drawing from the (POSTWAR) "Experimental Williams Repeating Shell" US Patent diagram found by Mr. Melton. (Patent #48,005.) Although in the "topview" diagram the structure kinda-sorta resembles the crossed pipes in the 4-hole balls, the cross in the diagram is actually merely four GROOVES which are cast into the walls of the powder-cavity. The grooves are "lines-of-weakness" (somewhat similar to a Polygonal Cavity), intended the break the Williams Patent Repeating Shell into four equal explosive segments. It actually has FIVE fuzeholes, with four holes grouped closely at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock around a central hole.

A clarification, for readers who do not own a copy of Volume 2 of Col. Biemeck's book, "Encyclopedia Of Black Powder Artillery Projectiles Found In North America; 1759-1865", and thus cannot see the Patent diagram:
The pipes inside the 4-Tiny-Equatorial-Holes" balls go through the ball's walls to its exterior... and the similar-looking grooves in the Williams Repeating Shell's cavity do not go through the ball's walls to its exterior. That is obvious if you can see the diagram.

  Colonel Biemeck's book says the evidence suggests no Williams Repeating Shells were ever made.

  [Modification: Here I've again removed my incorrect statement that the 4-tiny-holes ball is not in Biemeck's book.]

  They are NOT the US Patent found by Mr. Melton.

Regards to all,
Pete
« Last Edit: March 22, 2018, 12:59:03 PM by Pete George »

Steve Phillips

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • Email
Re: 11 inch shell weird
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2018, 10:19:33 PM »
Pete, this is the photo from Col. Beimick's book. I think you must be talking about something else.

Pete George

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • Email
Re: 11 inch shell weird
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2018, 10:54:39 PM »
  Steve, thank you for the correction. I had searched the Biemeck book's Index for Incendiary shells, and several related sections, but I didn't go page-by-page through the whole 598-page book. Apparently, that is what is required.  So I went back to the search, and found it on page 497. Although Biemeck titles it as Unidentified Incendiary Union Postwar, it is not listed in the book's Index of Incendiary projectiles, so I couldn't find it on my previous attempt.

For anybody here who doesn't have a copy of Colonel Biemeck's book:
  Biemeck says "The author will not speculate what this round was, only to predict that it was likely postwar." There is no mention of Mr. Melton (or anybody else) finding a Patent for this ball. (But there is for the ball on page 499, which is why I thought that was the one Steve Phillips was talking about.)

  Biemeck says none of these balls, despite beong hollow, have contained an explosive charge. One contained "a dark material, causing some to think it might have been an experimental incendiary shell, along the lines of the old Carcass." (I believe it is merely black casting-sand... which as Biemeck mentions would be difficult to remove from this ball's cavity.)

  He also says it measures 8.75-inches -- which doesn't fit any known smoothbore cannon of the era.

Regards,
Pete
« Last Edit: March 21, 2018, 11:35:44 PM by Pete George »

speedenforcer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • Raulerson Relics
Re: 11 inch shell weird
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2018, 06:09:24 PM »
I find this thread very interesting and I return often to see if the mystery has been solved. Like reading a book to find out who the killer is and you never seem to get to the final chapter. Eagerly waiting the final verdict.
It's not always "Survival of the fitest" sometimes the idiots get through.

scottfromgeorgia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
    • Email
Re: 11 inch shell weird
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2018, 09:18:37 PM »
No one made cannonballs that no cannon could fire. Pete's remarks are typically dispositive on that point.

CarlS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
    • Email
Re: 11 inch shell weird
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2018, 07:43:57 PM »
It is very odd how they come to be found cracked open out in the ground somewhere but we've not seen a non-dug one or drawing showing their use.
Best,
Carl

speedenforcer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • Raulerson Relics
Re: 11 inch shell weird
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2018, 09:49:08 PM »
What ever it is, wouldn't there be a drawing and full description in the patent office somewhere. Yes I know that is only if a patent was applied for but wasn't that usually the case.
It's not always "Survival of the fitest" sometimes the idiots get through.

CarlS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
    • Email
Re: 11 inch shell weird
« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2018, 12:53:37 PM »
In Pete's 2nd posting above he mentions a patent found by Jack Melton for the lugwrench ball, whatever it is.  To clear up any confusion Jack wants to be clear that he did not find a patent for the object that Steve started this thread with (page 497 of John Biemeck's book) but the patent mentioned in the book is for a Williams Repeating Shell (page 499 of John Biemeck's book) which is a patent for a shell that seemingly never got made.  The shell's cross section at a glance can make it appear to be a similar shell but in fact the Williams shell is not at all the same.
Best,
Carl