Author Topic: Sam Colt's cannon accident, 1844  (Read 629 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cannonmn

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
Sam Colt's cannon accident, 1844
« on: January 29, 2008, 05:19:33 PM »
The original letter I copied about 22 years ago was on three sheets of paper, tri-folded as were all such letters. A cover sheet contained a brief summary, originator, date, and file number(s). Unfortunately, so far I've only found a spare copy I had, missing the cover sheet. I am sure it came from National Archives, Washington DC Record Group 156, Records of the Chief of Ordnance, US Army, but I've not yet located my notes on the location within that large record group.

I would greatly appreciate knowing the name of the New York Commissary General who signed this letter, as his last name is not clear and I can't seem to find the information in the resources available to me at the moment.

I replicated the 19th C. punctuation (dashes or underscores vice commas) as I saw it rather than attempting to change it to modern standards.

________________________________________

Commissary Generals Office

New York April 11th 45

Col Talcott

D'r Sir,

In your letter of March 20th you wish me to inform you the cause of the accident which occurred in my practice last year.

In October last I went into Encampment on Hempstead plains, with my Officers and non Commissioned Officers for practice.with 6&9 pdrs. and 12&24 pdr. Howtz. for three days. During practice Mr. Colt came on the grounds and requested me to make a trial of his tin foil cartridges, which he said required no sponging. I hesitated at first not wishing to be interrupted with new Inventions there, but some of the officers were disposed to make the trial. He then brought forward some fifteen or twenty cartridges in a pail of water. The firing commenced with six men at the piece _ and discharged as soon as the cartridge was driven home; at the fifth discharge the first aid on the left did not extend his arm sufficiently to clear the muzzle, and the reaction got(?) his arm in front of the muzzle. At that instant the cartridge exploded, shattering his left arm in such a manner that amputation above the elbow was necessary.

The cause was attributed by some to the melting of the tin foil by the heat of the gun, and by others to the aid who fired before the rammer was clear of the piece, but he insists that he did not pull the cord at all, & that the cartridge exploded by itself.

It threw quite a gloom our camp for the day. But Mr. Colt urged another trial, being willing himself to ram home the cartridge, and Major Powell of my command volunteered to tend vent and point the piece, and load and fire as quick as the two could do it. Mr. Colt very cautiously placed the cartridge, and with but one stroke of the rammer holding it between his thumb and fore finger, drove it home, and let go for a moment, when the cartridge again instantly exploded blowing the rammer to pieces. Mr. Colt was not injured but Major Powell had the last part of the first joint of his left hand blown off. Mr. Colt then threw down his hands, and said I am done-I am satisfied. Allowing some fifteen minutes for the gun to cool, I ordered the worm to be used to cleanse the piece-when several layers of tin foil appeared to have adhered to the sides of the gun-and a quantity was drawn out, with some pieces of the flannel cartridges which had been used previously. On Enquiry I could not find that the gun had been sponged after the firing with flannel cartridges, the fault was then laid to that.

My Opinion is that the tin foil was melted by the heat of the gun, and the explosion took place before the cartridge was driven home_ for I perceived the fire issue from the muzzle and the touch hole at the same time and the thumb of the 3rd aid on the right driven away by the force, and not without scorching the thumbstall, and he an old hand at the business.

Absence from the City has been the cause of my delay in not answering before.

Respectfully,

Your obt Serv’t

Henry St???s

CG

N.B. I shall profit by your remark as to my report- in my next one.

Offline cannonmn

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
Re: Sam Colt's cannon accident, 1844
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2008, 06:05:42 PM »
The letter:






Offline KABAR2

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2830
Re: Sam Colt's cannon accident, 1844
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2008, 01:21:40 AM »
I find it interesting that Colt or the officers did not take into account the buildup of the foil in the breech of the gun, or have the gun searched prior to the test.
I am surprised that they allowed the test to continue after the first instance, Colt must have been quite a salesman. The officers involved did not think to search the piece until after the second instance! No further tests should have been permitted until investigation of the first mishap.

"I ordered the worm to be used to cleanse the piece-when several layers of tin foil appeared to have adhered to the sides of the gun-and a quantity was drawn out, with some pieces of the flannel cartridges which had been used previously. On inquiry I could not find that the gun had been sponged after the firing with flannel cartridges, the fault was then laid to that."

one item we do not know was the age and condition of the gun in question, were there any rough areas in the bore or chamber area that could have damaged the foil? It wouldn't take much.from the date of 1845 these would have been smooth bore guns as I do not believe rifled guns had entered service as of yet, so it would not be a case of one of the edges of a land cutting the foil.

Today we use foil cartridges for one of the same reasons....spark and flame resistance, but only when the tube is properly maintained and searched and sponged between shots.
this is not a guarantee that accidents won't happen. As has been the case in at least two accidents where premature discharge has occurred with blanks. both cases injuries could have been minimized using a Shepard's crook rammer



Mr president I do not cling to either my gun or my Bible.... my gun is holstered on my side so I may carry my Bible and quote from it!

Sed tamen sal petrae LURO VOPO CAN UTRIET sulphuris; et sic facies tonituum et coruscationem si scias artficium

Offline Victor3

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
Re: Sam Colt's cannon accident, 1844
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2008, 01:45:56 AM »
 "He then brought forward some fifteen or twenty cartridges in a pail of water."

 I assume this should read "...AND a pail of water" (unless he had a very large pail and was attempting to show the waterproof qualities of his charges).

 Why would a pail of water be required if his charges required no sponging?
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Sherlock Holmes

Offline cannonmn

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
Re: Sam Colt's cannon accident, 1844
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2008, 02:04:41 AM »
The General definitely wrote "in a pail of water."  There would be no need for Colt to bring sponging water to the gun crew since they had their own, so it must have been to demonstrate the water-proof qualities.  Colt was also marketing tin foil cartridges for small arms. 

Everyone remember these were TIN foil not ALUMINUM foil, since aluminum as a refined element did not exist at that time.  The melting point of tin is much lower than that of aluminum, so I don't think comparisons between Colt's cartridges and our modern aluminum foil ones are very meaningful.  Also, the heat conductivity of tin and aluminum is probably significantly different.

Offline Artilleryman

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: Sam Colt's cannon accident, 1844
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2008, 06:29:23 AM »
If he did in deed have the cartridges in water that was probably one the causes of the accident.  If water got into a charge then it would not burn completely and would smolder.  When the next round was rammed it probably broke leading to the premature explosion.
Norm Gibson, 1st SC Vol., ACWSA