Author Topic: whitworth drawings (Read 7059 times)

cannonmn · « **Reply #30 on:** October 13, 2009, 11:06:39 PM »

Quote

YES BUT THOSE !D!OTS STILL DONT ACCEPT ME ON THEIR SITE

A few idiots around the world have caused this I believe. There are idiots in Russia and a few other places who get great pleasure from inserting spam stuff in discussion boards. As the forum moderator for the CMH site, I see all of it and I have to delete it when I screen the proposed posting. I have better things to do and this takes some hours per year. I'm not surprised the NSSA avoids this problem by simply not allowing any foreign use of their site. Yes, I guess they could get spammers from within the US also, but it hasn't happened yet.

dan610324 · « **Reply #31 on:** October 14, 2009, 12:34:05 AM »

yes I understand , but they dont even care to ansver technical questions I sent in personal emails
if they are that close to god in the american cannon shooting and set all the rules thats used in usa I think they at least could be polite enough to reply to direct addressed questions
maybe even explain for me why I cant join and register
but they seem to not care at all
so in my opinion they are just a bunch of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ please fill in whatever word you prefer to use

there are a few very helpful people here who have tried to help me with this problem
but without success , you also offered to help me John . thanks
but I dont think its any idea as there already are people that have tried without to get any responce from n-ssa
thanks for the other links John

dominick · « **Reply #32 on:** October 14, 2009, 01:09:39 AM »

Here's the link to more Whitworth photos from Gettysburg.

http://old.villagephotos.com/members/album.asp?folder_id=2111623

KABAR2 · « **Reply #33 on:** October 14, 2009, 04:28:26 AM »

Quote from: dominick on October 14, 2009, 01:09:39 AM

Here's the link to more Whitworth photos from Gettysburg.

http://old.villagephotos.com/members/album.asp?folder_id=2111623

Dominick it takes us to a sign in page no further......

cannonmn · « **Reply #34 on:** October 14, 2009, 08:07:10 AM »

I don't want to kill Santa Claus for anyone, but the pix in an earlier post of an "original in FL" didn't look quite like an original to me. Anyone want to comment? The sight in particular-I don't think anyone in their right mind would permanently add a sight like that to an original Whitworth B/L. It looks like socket-head capscrews holding the leaf in the slot.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y35/Cpt03Ed/Whitworth-2.jpg

KABAR2 · « **Reply #35 on:** October 14, 2009, 08:47:52 AM »

Cannonmn,

You didn't kill or even accost Santa, I noticed the sight and the threaded section is much longer on the breech than what is seen on an original Whitworth,
I am thinking I have seen that sight before on a WWI machine gun, French I think. did not bother commenting at the time, One other thing is look closely at the
muzzle I see grooves cut this does not look like Whitworth rifling. Also look to the right of the rear sight on the slope of the hinge - there is no hole for the original
sight and no hole on the right trunnion. some machinist built this, did a nice job but there are inaccuracies as you noted.

gary michie · « **Reply #36 on:** October 14, 2009, 09:25:52 AM »

Hi:

I'm pretty sure that the Whitworth 2 jpeg is a reporduction, the cannon has all of the changes that you guys have pointe out plus...... hoe do you get the cartridge out? all of my drawings that show it, shows the cartridge hanging out of the breech about 1/2" or so, so you can use the extractor on it .

Has anyone noticed that there is a picture of the extractor in the first pic. in AOP#23?

And the kind of threads that I was talking about( threads with a chanfer or buttress/beveled) you can see in the second pic. of cpt Ed's that he took in Florida.

dominick · « **Reply #37 on:** October 14, 2009, 02:45:02 PM »

Quote from: KABAR2 on October 14, 2009, 04:28:26 AM

Quote from: dominick on October 14, 2009, 01:09:39 AM
Here's the link to more Whitworth photos from Gettysburg.

http://old.villagephotos.com/members/album.asp?folder_id=2111623
Dominick like take us to a sign in page no further......

Here is the link. I was just informed there my be viruses on this link. If anyone else can check this please let me know. I have not had any problems with it but I don't want anyone else to. If you do not have a firewall or virus protection then it's best not to open it.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-1/1237240/2111623

Double D · « **Reply #38 on:** October 14, 2009, 03:25:01 PM »

Ad blocking software will send you a message saying some sort of spy bot software is trying to access you computer. It's not a virus, but a common product found in commercial website to track users and their interest. It may also pop when you try to load website that uses a cookie to keep track of you and you have not enabled cookies.

You may notice that some websites have ads that seem to related directly to what your looking for. A good example is when you are looking for cannons and a get ton of ads for Canon copiers and cameras.

It the internet version of all those little coupons that use to fall out of the magazines when you bought them...some of you guys are old enough to remember magazines, aren't you?

Cannoneer · « **Reply #39 on:** October 14, 2009, 06:11:40 PM »

Quote from: gary michie on October 14, 2009, 09:25:52 AM

Hi:
I'm pretty sure that the Whitworth 2 jpeg is a reporduction, the cannon has all of the changes that you guys have pointe out plus...... hoe do you get the cartridge out? all of my drawings that show it, shows the cartridge hanging out of the breech about 1/2" or so, so you can use the extractor on it .
Has anyone noticed that there is a picture of the extractor in the first pic. in AOP#23?

Does anyone have a photo, or drawing of the whole cartridge?
How long was the cartridge, and did all the length of the powder bag fit inside it, or was it just a cup that contained the rear of the bag?
Does anyone have a photo or drawing of the extractor that Gary mentioned?
I've read accounts of CSA artillerymen that had a lot of problems with the threads becoming fouled on their Whitworth rifles, and then not being able to close the breech. Does anyone know if this problem was occurring because (for some reason) they weren't utelizing the cartridges?

gary michie · « **Reply #40 on:** October 14, 2009, 06:59:41 PM »

Hi:

The pictures that I've seen the cartridge is about the same lenght as the bolt. Now I just figured that the cartridge was proud of the breech because of the few pics. I have seen like Dahlgren G095 and I'm thinking that I see a cavity in the breech cap in the top pic. Max Caliber.
I cann't copy the pic in #23 maybe someone else can.

GGaskill · « **Reply #41 on:** October 14, 2009, 07:08:50 PM »

You mean #24? Or which one in #23?

gary michie · « **Reply #42 on:** October 14, 2009, 07:11:23 PM »

Hi:

AOP #23

guardsgunner · « **Reply #43 on:** October 14, 2009, 07:25:39 PM »

Photo of cartridge at the Horse soldier Shop in Gettysburg.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.horsesoldier.com/catalog/M18439B.JPEG&imgrefurl=http://www.horsesoldier.com/catalog/c0000.html&usg=__psDS5a5LzzZ74RUZ85xAXa_t8B0=&h=329&w=864&sz=73&hl=en&start=15&um=1&tbnid=i21VSa-cNQhFsM:&tbnh=55&tbnw=145&prev=/images%3Fq%3DWhitworth%2Bcannon%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4ADBF_en___US331%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

With as rare as the cartridges are, most must have been fired with bag charges.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #44 on:** October 14, 2009, 08:00:53 PM »

Thanks Gaurdsgunner; now I understand that it actually is a sealed cartridge that contained the BP inside of it, (no bag) and that the hole in the base was pricked before the breech was closed.
Were these sheet iron cases reused multiple times, or was it only good for one firing?

guardsgunner · « **Reply #45 on:** October 15, 2009, 12:31:43 AM »

Judgeing from the extraction tool, I woulld say they were one time use only.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #46 on:** October 16, 2009, 01:27:36 PM »

Quote from: guardsgunner on October 14, 2009, 07:25:39 PM

With as rare as the cartridges are, most must have been fired with bag charges.

Guardsgunner,
It would be great if we could find this information recorded in a primary document somewhere; it would surely help explain why the CSA gunners had problems (and those problems are documented) with these guns breech mechanisms, because of fouling. It might also go a long way in redeeeming the reputation of this rifle as unreliable, or prone to problems.

KABAR2 · « **Reply #47 on:** October 16, 2009, 08:00:05 PM »

This is an educated guess as to some possible issues let's look at the system, the cartridge case is the shape of the bore, it is made of a fairly thick tinned sheet iron, it is not just pushed in but would have to be twisted in and out.

1) If the breech is not swabbed after each round would fowling build up and keep the next cartridge case from seating fully?

2) After many shots and the gun is heated up is it possible that the tolerance of the cartridge case is too close and would bind if the gun has not been properly swabbed?

3) If not properly swabbed could a fired case end up stuck in the breech? These things had to be twisted out not just pulled straight out.

4) how much grime and gunk did it take for the threads to start binding up (tolerances) ?

5) we know that fired cases exist are there any unfired cases in existence in a collection somewhere that could be measured in relation to the breech measurements?

GGaskill · « **Reply #48 on:** October 16, 2009, 09:23:30 PM »

It's a little hard to believe that the threads could have gotten much powder fouling if the gun was fired with a cartridge case since the expanding case should have sealed the breech. Perhaps it was fired with loose powder due to lack of supply or emergency and that was when there were problems closing the breech.

I would think at least some swabbing for cooling purposes would have been part of the drill.

KABAR2 · « **Reply #49 on:** October 16, 2009, 09:34:36 PM »

Quote from: GGaskill on October 16, 2009, 09:23:30 PM

It's a little hard to believe that the threads could have gotten much powder fouling if the gun was fired with a cartridge case since the expanding case should have sealed the breech. Perhaps it was fired with loose powder due to lack of supply or emergency and that was when there were problems closing the breech.

I would think at least some swabbing for cooling purposes would have been part of the drill.

Even in modern cartridge guns, rifles, pistols, etc. you get fowling in the "sealed" breech mechanism, black powder is dirty compared to smokeless,

combined with a lite coat of oil or grease on the threads.............

Cannoneer · « **Reply #50 on:** October 16, 2009, 09:42:32 PM »

Allen,
Those are all valid questions about the effects on the gun when the cartridge was used, another that wasn't mentioned would be fouling caused from the blowback coming out of the flame hole in the bottom of the cartridge; if the cartridge expanded, (the way it was intended to) and sealed the chamber, then maybe the majority of fouling would have been coming from that source.
I was thinking more along the lines of what Gaurdsgunner mentioned; what if, because of the success of the Northern blockade, combined with the South's known lack of quality, and/or capabilities in some of their industrial manufacturing attempts, the CSA Whitworth batteries didn't even have any cartidges, and were trying to fire the rifles loaded with powder bags?
Well, as I was typing George made a post that pretty much jibes with mine. I think it would be historically important if some valid document was discovered, that proved the CSA crews were firing the guns without cartridges.

cannonmn · « **Reply #51 on:** October 17, 2009, 02:58:28 AM »

Quote

that proved the CSA crews were firing the guns without cartridges.

I don't think the CSA would have been firing the Whitworth B/L rifles as breechloaders without cartridges.

The rifles from England came equipped with a copper gas-check which was to be installed in the breech when the rifle was to be used as a muzzle-loader, which was probably what the CSA did as soon as problems began to occur with the breechloading mode of operation.

There's a fairly well-known article written by a former CSA general which was published in something like the "Southern Historical Society Journal" long after the war. In it he mentioned the problems with the Whitworth breechloaders. I have a copy somewhere but cannot seem to find it at the moment.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #52 on:** October 17, 2009, 08:36:44 AM »

While you're in all probability right, that the CSA cannoneers knew better than to fire the Whitworth B/L's without the cartridge; I'm always reminded of the 12.75 Blakely that lost its breech in defense of Charleston, because the crew didn't have the instructions on how to load the gun, nor understand the purpose of the air chamber built into the breech.

Excerpt from "Sketches From My Life" by The Late Admiral Hobart Pasha (Augustus Charles, Hobart-Hampden) He was a British subject that served as an officer in the Confederate Navy.

Having had a good look at the positions of the attacking and defending
parties, I went down from the tower and paid a visit to a battery where
two Blakely guns of heavy calibre, that had lately been run through the
blockade in the well-known 'Sumter' (now the 'Gibraltar'), were mounted.
These guns threw a shot of 720 lbs. weight, and were certainly
masterpieces of design and execution. "Unhappily, proper instructions for
loading had not accompanied them from England, and on the occasion of
the first round being fired from one of them, the gun not being properly
loaded, cracked at the breech, and was rendered useless;" the other,
however, did good service, throwing shot with accuracy at great
distances. I saw much that was interesting here, but more able pens than
mine have already described fully the details of that long siege, where
on one hand all modern appliances of war that ingenuity could conceive
or money purchase were put into the hands of brave and determined
soldiers; on the other hand were bad arms, bad powder, bad provisions,
bad everything; desperate courage and unheard-of self-denial being all
the Southerners had to depend upon.

I don't think there is much doubt, that some of the CSA crews manning these B/L's became frustrated with the breech's not functioning properly, and switched to using them as muzzleloaders with (if they had them) the copper gas checks, but this all still leaves the question: Why were the breech mechanisms becoming so fouled? Was it due to poor designing on J. Whitworth's part?

Cpt Ed · « **Reply #53 on:** October 17, 2009, 09:41:24 AM »

Found, the probable origin of the Florida reenactment Whitworth.

Excellent observations by the board members, we are here to learn..

This advertisement is from “The Artilleryman” Winter issue 2004.

piutesteve · « **Reply #54 on:** August 20, 2010, 02:13:41 PM »

I built a Whitworth cannon. Its on a number I field carriage now but I was going to build a Whitworth style carriage. Resently I saw a bad picture of a Whitworth on a steel carriage. Does anybody have any information on a Whitworth Steel carriage? In the picture it Looked to be cast iron with rivots Similar to a Hotchkiss but bigger. In the same book the mention a 1.5" Whitworth gun. Does anybody know anything about that? Steve

piutesteve · « **Reply #55 on:** August 20, 2010, 02:30:51 PM »

On my Whitworth the case seals tight enough to block all the powder fowling. The threads stay clean as a whistle. The touch hole in the back of my case is lined with stainless steel and drilled with a number 55 drill bit. In the past they were just brass and after 40 or more shots the hole would erode to almost 1/8" but the threads still stayed clean. The blast shield on the back of a Whitworth is a must with the 1/8" touch hole. I never could find anything about an extractor so we just tap the cases out with a ramrod.

moose53 · « **Reply #56 on:** August 20, 2010, 04:14:14 PM »

Would you be referring to this photo .I have also been trying to track down information on this carriage.

GGaskill · « **Reply #57 on:** August 20, 2010, 05:01:30 PM »

As the description says, that is an ornamental stand. It has no means of moving the gun and would be an immense handicap in field combat conditions.

moose53 · « **Reply #58 on:** August 20, 2010, 07:40:52 PM »

Did you miss the original carriage minus the wheels setting in the ornamental stand

GGaskill · « **Reply #59 on:** August 20, 2010, 09:14:19 PM »

I saw that text in the description but it was not obvious which parts were ornamental and which were not.