James Birdcage Shell

[copdoc]

I hope you enjoy looking at this James Shell that was given to me a couple of years ago.  That is a samlple of the powder on the white card.  It is inert/deactivated  and a pretty rare when compleat with the slider, cap safety wire and sample of powder. The slider is zinc instead of brass which is what I have usually encountered.   The slider fractured and the ignition was not transmitted to the powder so it did not go off.

Has anyone else seen a zinc slider in a James shell?

[Cat Whisperer]

WOW - a trip to the museum without leaving my arm chair!

Refresh my  memory, was not the James the First (in some way) example of rifling in muzzle loading cannon?

[copdoc]

WOW - a trip to the museum without leaving my arm chair

I felt the exactly same way (except saw it in person)so I guess I have found a home.  The old fellow that gave it to me is 81.  he has had it since he was about 40 and the old man that gave it to him was 90 at the time.  I said  "I bet the old guy brought it backfrom the War" and laughed.  My 81 year old friend said the 90 year old that gave it to him didn't but he got it from his Daddy who did bring it back.  "WOW"  Is what I said.

Refresh my  memory, was not the James the First (in some way) example of rifling in muzzle loading cannon?

That is a good question.  I don't know who made the first sucessful rifled cannon, but this is early.  The 3.8" James shells were the Union Army's attempt at the first part of the war to get enough rifled guns into operation quickly.  They rifled some of the earlier bronze 6 pounders and designed this shell to be fired from them.  As you would expect they wore out quickly but did provide additional guns until enough Parrots Guns and 3" Ordnace rifles could be fielded.  James also designed some other variations if this projectile(shot and shell), and other guns firing similar projectiles.  I think James guns were used to take down Ft Polaski at the end of the war, but that may have been one of the larger versions.

Some Civil War artillery  expert out there prob knows a lot more and I always appreciate information.  I have Ripley's book and Hazlett/Olmstead/Parks book and can look up information if anyone is interested.  I would have read up first but had a long day yesterday.

[Will Bison]

http://www.civilwarartillery.com/  has some good info on early shells.


Bill

[Cat Whisperer]

http://www.civilwarartillery.com/  has some good info on early shells.
Bill

Good reference.  It's in among several listed under C.W. History in the References Sticky.

[A.Roads]

A lovely example & a good picture as well, thanks for sharing that.

The search for an effective and efficient method to impart spin to an artillery projectile, dates back at least to 1615, a few early examples are: The elliptical bore, often ascribed to Lancaster, was experimented with in Germany in the 1690s. By 1745 the Swiss had small rifled pieces. In 1774 the Military Society (a committee existing before the formation of the “Board of Officers” which preceded the “Ordnance Select Committee”) experimented with elongated projectiles fired from a smooth bore 6 pr. Even a breech loading gun firing lead coated projectiles had been proposed, by Lieutenant Croly of the 81st Regiment, in 1821, well before Armstrong's design.
Adrian.

[copdoc]

A lovely example & a good picture as well, thanks for sharing that.

The search for an effective and efficient method to impart spin to an artillery projectile, dates back at least to 1615, a few early examples are: The elliptical bore, often ascribed to Lancaster, was experimented with in Germany in the 1690s. By 1745 the Swiss had small rifled pieces. In 1774 the Military Society (a committee existing before the formation of the “Board of Officers” which preceded the “Ordnance Select Committee”) experimented with elongated projectiles fired from a smooth bore 6 pr. Even a breech loading gun firing lead coated projectiles had been proposed, by Lieutenant Croly of the 81st Regiment, in 1821, well before Armstrong's design.
Adrian.

Thanks, I was able to save all the parts intact. I knew someone would have more info.  As I remember it was diffictult for the rifled gun advocates to get some of the early designs adapted.

Now, CW buffs,  what about Ft Polaski in  GA?  Was that the "modern fort" that was brought down by James projectiles?  It seems like I remember that some of the artillery had to be "dug in" in order to drop the trail and increase the angle of fire/range enough to hit the fort.  I remember one of the larger calibre James projectiles on display there and think they were the guns involved.

I know I could look it but would rather hear from others with interest.

[Double D]

I thought Pulaski was breeched by Parrot guns, did they use a Jame shell?

[copdoc]

Sorry I did mean Pulaski. (long day, I  know I should use spell checkers)

I did look it up after all.  I know there are a lot of CW buffs out there with a lot of information from different sources.  We were told about the James rifles on a tour there but I was not sure what other guns were involved. 

Here is the NPS page but I had to get the catched version as the original would not come up.  The fort was taken in the early part of the war so the James guns make sense.  I am not much of a history buff for a gun person but have an interest in all types of guns as well as design so I can't remember everything.  I think this was a turning point for the acceptance of rifled artillery by the bulk of the military planners.  I think it is interesting that the first James guns were somewhat "improvised weapons" (older  bronze 6 pounders, drilled and rifled) 

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:cyYx4kddLdAJ:www.nps.gov/fopu/historyculture/siege-of-fort-pulaski.htm+%22james%22+%22fort+pulaski%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

[Double D]

Wow!

In the 2 days of battle, 5,275 shot and shell were fired against the fort, but the breach through the walls was largely the result of three guns—two 84-pounder and one 64-pounder James rifles. Solid projectiles from these guns at a distance of 1,640 yards penetrated the brickwork from 20 to 25 inches with shattering lateral effect. Shots from the other rifles were erratic in flight—some wabbling, some turning end-over-end—and did little damage when they slammed into the wall of the fort. Explosive shells from the rifles also played an important part in reducing the work

[Artilleryman]

"On the second day of the bombardment 100 sailors from the frigate Wabash manned four of the 30-pounder Parrott rifles in Battery Sigel. The accuracy of fire achieved by the gunners in the 2-day battle is remarkable in view of the fact that none of them, except the sailors, had had previous experience in firing."

Apparently the men using the 30 pdr Parrotts the first day didn't do as well as the sailors who manned them the second day.   None of the guns used would have had to have the trails dug in to increase the elevation.  All of the guns were capable of reaching 1600-1700 yards with less than 5 degrees of elevation.  The Parrotts would have used Parrott shells not James shells. 

There tends to be confusion about James Rifles versus smoothbore guns that were reamed and rifled using the James system.  Generally speaking the 3.8 inch (14pdr) with an ordnance rifle profile and some Model 1841 6 pdrs that were made to accept the 3.8 inch James rifling would be "James Rifles".  The rest were smoothbores of various calibers that were rifled using the "James System".   This allowed the government to get a lot of rifles into the field quickly and at a lower cost. 

[copdoc]

This might be interesting.  My wife was given this "horn" by her grandfather.  He used it to call his cows.   It was a family story that it was a powder horn brought back from the CW by one of her relatives.  About 30-35 years ago when she I got it I told her it was not a powder horn but a funnel of some sort.  I even specucated that maybe it was for cannonballs but I was just joking as I thought even back then that they all should be non-ferrus. I was somewhat familiar with artillery as I built my first real cannon in 1975-76.  Now that I have the James Shell we put the funnel in it and it is a perfect fit.  It is not copper but steel and covered with a thick black  paint.  There was a pic of a similar object in one of my artillery books.  Are there any projectile collectors that could comment.   It is interesting to me, especially with the family story of the "powder horn".  It might really be a powder horn and I will have to eat some crow.

They can laugh, her brother gave me the CW vets (her GGGF)1840 Ames sabre.

[Artilleryman]

Sorry, According to the Ordnance Manual the "Funnel for filling shells (copper or tin): diameter of funnel 3.3 inches; diameter of pipe 0.7 inches; lenght of pipe 2 inches.  Weight 0.75 lbs."