Civil War era double weight proof shot

[Cannoneer]

I've read about these before, but had never seen any till now. Scroll down to page 45.

http://books.google.com/books?id=g2S3_eFxFnMC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq

[Artilleryman]

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

[KABAR2]

Some interesting shapes..... I also found the shot with the iron sabot interesting.....

[Artilleryman]

In my collection of found projectiles used by other artillery crews, I have zinc cannonball with a bronze sabot.  I have no idea if it worked well or not.

[Cannoneer]

Some interesting shapes..... I also found the shot with the iron sabot interesting.....

I did too. Comments on that 32-pdr photo read: This is a prewar experimental shot from early testing of rifling concepts.
I wouldn't think that wrought iron would be the best choice of material, if the intention was to have it expand into the rifling of a barrel.

I also don't really understand why they would go through all the added expense and bother of casting these double weight projectiles; why not just load two shot in the barrels they were proofing?

[Artilleryman]

I also don't really understand why they would go through all the added expense and bother of casting these double weight projectiles; why not just load two shot in the barrels they were proofing?

I believe that most of the time that is what they did.

[seacoastartillery]

Some interesting shapes..... I also found the shot with the iron sabot interesting.....

I did too. Comments on that 32-pdr photo read: This is a prewar experimental shot from early testing of rifling concepts.
I wouldn't think that wrought iron would be the best choice of material, if the intention was to have it expand into the rifling of a barrel.

   
     John, referring to your comment in red above, I can't think of any reason why you would think that wrought iron would be inferior.  After all wrought iron is very malleable, a quality any sabot material requires for proper operation.  It is also tough, another essential quality.  Bronze has these two most important qualities as well, but is substantially more expensive than iron.  Capt. Parrott and Dr. Read worked with this material as they developed early pre-war sabots for rifled projectiles and both designs were used throughout the war fashioned from wrought iron by both sides.  The two links below show actual projectiles fired and unfired which used the wrought iron sabot invented by Dr. Read and improved by Capt. Parrott for use in his 10, 20 and 30 pdr. rifled cannon.


                               Union                 http://www.relicman.com/artillery/zArchiveArt.Parrott.E.20PounderType1.htm           


                               Confederate      Scroll down to ART 26        http://www.armyoftennesseerelics.com/artillery


     In an attempt to re-create the iron sabot projectiles used in the Civil War, Mike and I selected 12L14 steel which is the most malleable steel commonly available today.  We are not financially able to import real wrought iron from one of the puddling furnaces still producing wrought iron in the U.K. today.  We have had excellent success with 12L14, proving to our satisfaction, the concept of the malleable ferrous sabot.  Brass or bronze is still too expensive!

Mike and Tracy

[Cannoneer]

I should have done a better job of making my point clearer, but I'm specifically referring to the experimental projectile seen in the photo, not the bolt with the real short wrought iron sabot that it evolved into. The sabot on that shot is four inches long, and I know it's somewhat corroded, but there is no sign of any rifling on it. I just don't think that that projectile would have ever been very accurate.
We've had discussions about parrott projos here before, both contemporary bolts (Norm's and yours), and historical. I don't at all question the validity of historic accounts of the Parrott's respectable accuracy, and that accuracy would have certainly depended on both the rifling of the gun and the construction of the bolt.

[KABAR2]

I should have done a better job of making my point clearer, but I'm specifically referring to the experimental projectile seen in the photo, not the bolt with the real short wrought iron sabot that it evolved into. The sabot on that shot is four inches long, and I know it's somewhat corroded, but there is no sign of any rifling on it. I just don't think that that projectile would have ever been very accurate.
We've had discussions about parrott projos here before, both contemporary bolts (Norm's and yours), and historical. I don't at all question the validity of historic accounts of the Parrott's respectable accuracy, and that accuracy would have certainly depended on both the rifling of the gun and the construction of the bolt.

According to the info it was found on the west point test range….. what this info does not tell us is if it was found in the impact area or elsewhere…. Perhaps it was not fired….
 
M&T thank you for that excellent link they have some very good photo's on that site.

[Cannoneer]

According to the info it was found on the west point test range….. what this info does not tell us is if it was found in the impact area or elsewhere…. Perhaps it was not fired….

M&T thank you for that excellent link they have some very good photo's on that site.

Perhaps.