Author Topic: Odd Object ID sought (Read 2967 times)

cannonmn · « **on:** February 17, 2012, 10:19:53 AM »

I have my own opinions but would rather hear yours regarding when you think this object was made, what its purpose was, and who made it. It isn't mine.
Info supplied by owner:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item: Unknown but Possible Civil War era projectile
History: Acquired 1955 gun show in Little Rock, Arkansas (@ $ 5.00). Story says it was plowed up in a farmers field near Arkadelphia, Arkansas ca. 1953.
Size: Length 4 1/2”, case alone, not including plug cap or nipples,Width 3 3/4” across equator, Weight: approx. 7 pounds
Material: Iron/brass (magnetic, but corroded)
Construction: Casing in two hemispheres, forge welded (?) at seam 3 concentric circles of pistol size nipples, 8 per circle, 1 nipple center top, for total of 25 nipples
Steel, threaded plug screws into base.
Clear, hollow interior

More photos here, use password "attack."
http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/Forums61%20120114/tanklike%20thing%20unknown/?albumview=slideshow

KABAR2 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2012, 10:43:15 AM »

I know one of the early hand grenade designs used a hollow sphere covered with nipples, it was then placed inside an iron ball that screwed together the ball acted as the striker when gravity did it's thing, I would say this may be someone's improved idea on the concept.... the problem is even with that many nipples on soft ground it still may not go off unless it had been in it's own container...... either way don't be a butter finger.........

Zulu · « **Reply #2 on:** February 17, 2012, 10:44:32 AM »

What a very interesting piece. However, I have no clue to it's idenity. It sure does make you think though.
Zulu

Artilleryman · « **Reply #3 on:** February 17, 2012, 12:45:23 PM »

First thought for me is that it might be a land mine (infernal machine, torpedo). Second thought was a smoothbore projectile with innovative impact fusing system. Reflected on that a moment and if it was, how did they load it in the gun? A grenade maybe, but rather heavy, however it could have been used by dropping it over a wall.

Very interesting!

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #4 on:** February 17, 2012, 12:48:07 PM »

Looks a little like one of those extremely dangerous "Peavey Shells or Grenades" doesn't it! But it's not. In fact it has absolutely nothing to do with ordnance at all. It is simply a sprayer head used on a high pressure agricultural implement used for cleaning out chemical tanks, etc. They and the wands for them were all over the place at the agricultural and technical college at Cobleskill, NY when my father taught school there.

Tracy

Artilleryman · « **Reply #5 on:** February 17, 2012, 12:52:29 PM »

It is interesting then that the nozzles appear to be musket cones (nipples).

KABAR2 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 17, 2012, 01:43:41 PM »

Quote from: Artilleryman on February 17, 2012, 12:52:29 PM

It is interesting then that the nozzles appear to be musket cones (nipples).

Well I have a feeling Tracy is right about this...... all it takes is a bunch of percussion nipples and the correct tap and you have a rare unknown infernal device/grenade........

cannonmn · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2012, 02:04:28 PM »

Quote

It is simply a sprayer head used on a high pressure agricultural implement used
for cleaning out chemical tanks, etc.

Thanks Tracy, an extremely logical conclusion.
I do have one question, as one of the posts following yours mentioned the musket nipples, which the small, nozzle-like fittings certainly appear to be. Would you advise us one way or the other, did the nozzles you remember have small fittings just like that, or were there simply holes drilled in the tank-like thing "off the shelf" then later someone apparently carefully fitted with old musket nipples to the holes?
I have to have my s___ together when I take this info back to the owner, who has been certain for the past 60 years that he had a unique piece of ordnance.

cannonmn · « **Reply #8 on:** February 17, 2012, 02:15:47 PM »

Here's a more modern version of a tank washing nozzle; the family resemblance to the older device is unmistakeable.

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #9 on:** February 17, 2012, 03:17:23 PM »

Cannonmn, As soon as I saw that sprayer head, I knew I had seen it before. The ones I remember looked exactly like that rusted one you posted first, not at all like the smooth Stainless Steel model. The only thing anyone could complain about would be the orifice dia., but who knows, maybe the manufacturer ordered special large orifices or maybe not, after all, it depends on how tenacious the tank surface crud is that you are trying to loosen and flush away. You may want a gentle spray or a small orifice, high pressure, cutting, type of spray.

I will not say I am 100% sure, just that I am very, very sure. After all, I got the I.D. of the two cannon located at the Old Stone Fort wrong in 2007 when Mike and I went through New York on the way to the New England states. I told Mike as we went from Cobleskill toward Schoharie, that I remembered two 9" Dahlgren Guns from a school field trip being in the front yard of the stone church that was used as a fort when the British allies, Joseph Brant and his Indians attacked the colonials in 1780. When we got there, Mike strode up to the cannon and said, "9" Dahlgrens, eh? I don't think so." I took a quick look and agreed. They both were Bureau of Ordnance, 32 Pdrs. Hey, it had been 50 years plus, and the shape was very similar! I am not infallible.

Tracy

cannonmn · « **Reply #10 on:** February 17, 2012, 03:37:09 PM »

Tracy, in your last line:

Quote

From the poem Screw-Guns by Rudyard Kipling

Reminds me of one eager and typically stupid anti-gun lady I heard talking on TV once. She was so eager to prove her point that she said the famous poet Rudyard Kipling was one of the original anti-gunners because he'd written a poem entitled "Screw Guns." Of course she'd never read the poem and assumed Kipling had used the first word as a verb.

Victor3 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2012, 12:11:05 AM »

When I looked at the pic I thought for sure it must be some kind of CW land mine, designed to be burried in a road and set off by hoof or wheel. I was predjudiced by the original description.

Then Tracy blew that theory all to hell.

My cat has a unique black/white coat. Just last week when I was driving up my street at midnight she zipped in front of my truck as she often does when I come home. I parked in the driveway and got out, walking to within 20 yards of where she sat looking at me. I called to her, and as usual she ignored me and started licking herself. I left her to her nocturnal business and went into the house. When I got inside, I found my real kitty dead asleep on the couch.

Just a reminder to not be too sure of what we "know" to be true.

stubshaft · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2012, 01:10:54 AM »

It is a real interesting piece. Just for giggles I would take it to the range and ask an old timer how to load it?

The Hayman · « **Reply #13 on:** February 18, 2012, 04:54:27 AM »

First, I'm new here and know nothing. What I don't understand is the extra nice plug at the end opposite the nipples. If this was just a nozzle, why a plug at all? Seems to me it would be plumbed in and left. There would be no reason to plug the nozzle, it would just prevent the inside from drying out and cause it to rust fom the inside out.

Zulu · « **Reply #14 on:** February 18, 2012, 05:01:42 AM »

Quote from: The Hayman on February 18, 2012, 04:54:27 AM

First, I'm new here and know nothing. What I don't understand is the extra nice plug at the end opposite the nipples. If this was just a nozzle, why a plug at all? Seems to me it would be plumbed in and left. There would be no reason to plug the nozzle, it would just prevent the inside from drying out and cause it to rust fom the inside out.

If you pulled that screw out, it might thread on to a showerhead nozzle.

Zulu

BUGEYE · « **Reply #15 on:** February 18, 2012, 05:04:51 AM »

Quote from: The Hayman on February 18, 2012, 04:54:27 AM

First, I'm new here and know nothing. What I don't understand is the extra nice plug at the end opposite the nipples. If this was just a nozzle, why a plug at all? Seems to me it would be plumbed in and left. There would be no reason to plug the nozzle, it would just prevent the inside from drying out and cause it to rust fom the inside out.

my thoughts exactly.

Starr 2011 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 18, 2012, 05:50:50 AM »

If Tracy hadn’t spoilt the fun, I would have said that cannonmn’s find was an “Orsini Bomb” used by anarchists throughout the 19th century.

It was first used by Felice Orsini in an attempt to assassinate Emperor Napoleon III in Paris on January 14, 1858. He had six made in Birmingham, England, tested three in London and threw two at the Emperor’s carriage. These first “Orsini Bombs” were near identical to cannonmn’s find, made in two parts with a “hedgehog” of percussion nipples at one end and a filling cap at the other. They were filled with fulminate of mercury, the same as used in percussion caps.

On February 23, 1860 a similar “Orsini Bomb” was found on a railroad car carrying Abraham Lincoln in Cincinnati on his way to Washington. The police discovered the plotters in Baltimore, one of whom had adopted the cover name of “Orsini”.

W W Hanes patented a similar bomb or hand grenade, covered in percussion caps, in the United States and it was used in the Civil War. His version, weighing 2 pounds, was spherical in shape and contained in a two piece iron case.

“Orsini Bombs” continued to be “popular” with terrorists for sixty or so years. A picture of the 1858 “Orsini Bomb” is attached. Looks like cannonmn's "tank cleaner" doesn't it?

The Hayman · « **Reply #17 on:** February 18, 2012, 06:18:25 AM »

As I was feeding the cows I was thinking.......Are the threads standard pipe thread? If so, probably a nozzle, if not....maybe a nozzle, maybe not. I have done some plumbing and it is hard to tell from the pictures, but it didn't jump out at me and yell plumbing fixture with tapered threads. If plumbing I would also have expected a hex head rather than the slotted plug.

Later...... guess I should have paid more attention and studied the above post before commenting. Seems Starr 2011 has solved the puzzle.

Ths Hayman

Victor3 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 18, 2012, 11:59:45 AM »

Quote from: Starr 2011 on February 18, 2012, 05:50:50 AM

“Orsini Bombs” continued to be “popular” with terrorists for sixty or so years. A picture of the 1858 “Orsini Bomb” is attached. Looks like cannonmn's "tank cleaner" doesn't it?

Uhhhh.... I'd have to say it bears a strong resemblance. Like maybe its twin. $:-\$

Zulu · « **Reply #19 on:** February 18, 2012, 12:11:17 PM »

Here it is. Star 2011 did good.
This article says the empty weight is 3 to 4 lbs though.
Zulu

http://www.machine-history.com/node/933

Artilleryman · « **Reply #20 on:** February 18, 2012, 12:29:46 PM »

Quote from: Zulu on February 18, 2012, 12:11:17 PM

Here it is. Star 2011 did good.
This article says the empty weight is 3 to 4 lbs though.
Zulu

http://www.machine-history.com/node/933

Great article! I wouldn't worry about the weight difference. That can be the difference between two different manufacturers.

cannonmn · « **Reply #21 on:** February 18, 2012, 12:30:11 PM »

OK didya make that "woodcut engraving" picture up using some kinda photoshop? That's my first guess, even tho April Fool's day has passed. If not, and the article is legit, this is truly amazing if not astounding. Even has the same number of nipples. When I show this to the owner he's gonna say his thing is a half-scale model of the one in the woodcut. I don't know what accounts for the seemingly excessive weight of the one I pictured in the first post, was it weighted artificially to keep it from floating in the tank?

Zulu · « **Reply #22 on:** February 18, 2012, 12:50:54 PM »

Quote from: cannonmn on February 18, 2012, 12:30:11 PM

OK didya make that "woodcut engraving" picture up using some kinda photoshop? That's my first guess, even tho April Fool's day has passed. If not, and the article is legit, this is truly amazing if not astounding. Even has the same number of nipples. When I show this to the owner he's gonna say his thing is a half-scale model of the one in the woodcut. I don't know what accounts for the seemingly excessive weight of the one I pictured in the first post, was it weighted artificially to keep it from floating in the tank?

cannonmn,
Starr 2011 did all the work. All I did was google images the words "orsini bomb" and the picture showed up a little down the page. Clicked on the picture and the article popped up. It took lesss than a minute.
Starr 2011 did the research.
Zulu

shred · « **Reply #23 on:** February 18, 2012, 12:55:29 PM »

Hmm.. All the other images for Orsini Bomb have the spikes all over, not just at one end.

Starr 2011 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 18, 2012, 12:57:33 PM »

Zulu
Thanks for the good words. It's appreciated.
Starr

Zulu · « **Reply #25 on:** February 18, 2012, 12:59:20 PM »

cannonmn,
The article says that one end of the grenade was thicker than the other end so it would land with nipples down. Is the one you have seen the same? If it is not the same and is the same thickness all over, that could account for some extra weight.
Some additional history on an assasination attempt would be good to give your client also.
Zulu

Zulu · « **Reply #26 on:** February 18, 2012, 01:21:37 PM »

Here is the story on the assasination attempt. Orsini went to the guillotine.
Zulu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felice_Orsini

cannonmn · « **Reply #27 on:** February 18, 2012, 02:12:14 PM »

This brief article has the photo of a real, documented Orsini bomb, that reminds me of a sea urchin, round with spikes all over. I have no idea were the other magazine or website got the "woodcut" that looks like the man's tank-cleaning nozzle, perhaps he supplied it to them. When faced with a decision between something you can't trace to a source and something you can, there's really no choice.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/liceu_bomb.jpg&imgrefurl=http://anarchistnews.org/%3Fq%3Dnode/1492&h=200&w=200&sz=12&tbnid=D9kgoIx5R3rleM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=90&zoom=1&docid=uxUjU9u1abkrSM&sa=X&ei=x0VAT4b2Cu-o0AH

Victor3 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 18, 2012, 08:57:20 PM »

Interesting stuff. A few more things to consider:

1. Are the nipples genuine CW era? Do they have a small diameter flash hole?
2. If it's a cleaner head, why no extension out the end where a wand would attach? Seems like kind of a flimsy connection without one.
3. Would a tank cleaner only have jets on one end? Seems it couldn't do a good job on the upper portion of a tank that has a fill hole on top. Maybe it was used to flush out a pipe?
4. It appears to have a nicely turned OD and a neat line between the halves, leading me to believe that the two parts were produced on a lathe. How did they weld it together so cleanly if it was done in the mid 1800s?
5. Could it be a water-boring drill head of some sort? Plumbers used a similar looking thing to create a 30' long hole under my garage slab.

Starr 2011 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 19, 2012, 02:16:46 AM »

“When faced with a decision between something you can't trace to a source and something you can, there’s really no choice.”

Yep, when faced with a choice between an anarchist website and a magazine that was published between 1845 and the 1990s I know which one I would trust and chose!

Look up “Illustrated London News” issue of February 27, 1858. The article is there in print - with the engraving.

Starr