Calling all experts. Another mystery artillery piece

[Force_of_Iron]

This is from the same collection as the VB grenade. It is a real enigma. You guys solved that one though so lets put the experts to work again.

The artillery collection was primarily civil war but was inclusive up to about 1910

Is a cast iron core with a copper jacket wrapped around it. The copper is not real thick but is fairly heavy. About the same guage as a circuit board.

I read somewhere long ago that the confederates experimented with something like this it didnt have the right width to length ratio. This caused a problem to load and succesfully fire at times as it could slightly turn and jam so the project was abandoned. I recall it did have some field tests at Petersburg. My memory is uncertain but I believe that is correct.

The key perameter is the width of course as it has to go into the bore. It measures 3 1/8 with the copper jacket slightly less than 3 with just the core. Im not sure that you could ram it down the barrel of most cannons but perhaps you could. If you did the bolt would be somewhat pre rifled before firing. It has indentations in the copper at the base which probably has the dual purpose of clamping it on but to ease the rifling during loading.

Anyone got any ideas?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Force_of_Iron]

When loaded im thinking the copper jacket would go to the back

 

[DCMatt]

Maybe a tompion or muzzle plug?

 

[Madmox]

I must be missing something. Though admittedly I know very little about civil war era artillery. It wouldn’t be very stable in the barrel if it had to ride out on that shoulder. It’s not very aerodynamic. Nor is it rifled. I’m not sure what you would gain, aside from it being functionally useable if it was saboted, especially given the increase in complexity. There is no fuse and it appears solid so it doesn’t explode. About the only thing that MAY make that useful is if there was a stack of them in a housing that would explode over a target like an old school MIRV. But again I am not sure what you gain with that shape of projectile, even as a prototype.

 

[Force_of_Iron]

I must be missing something. Though admittedly I know very little about civil war era artillery. It wouldn’t be very stable in the barrel if it had to ride out on that shoulder. It’s not very aerodynamic. Nor is it rifled. I’m not sure what you would gain, aside from it being functionally useable if it was saboted, especially given the increase in complexity. There is no fuse and it appears solid so it doesn’t explode. About the only thing that MAY make that useful is if there was a stack of them in a housing that would explode over a target like an old school MIRV. But again I am not sure what you gain with that shape of projectile, even as a prototype.

Good observation. That was my thoughts of it initially but when you consider that the civil war was the beginning of rifled field projectiles and what that means. Look at all the crazy varieties they tried it seems that this could be considered for a couple of reasons. I think this is someones stab at a rifled cannonball

Transport- can be stacked two for the size of one cannonball the same size. Are smaller than equivilent projectiles
Materials cost - a rifled cannonball using less iron than other projectiles
Design versitility- some projectiles are flat headed some are rounded. Depending on what you wanted to do this could be used either way.

Who knows?

I know in all my years I have seen something similar to this but without its copper sabot but I can't for the life of me remember where.

 

[Force_of_Iron]

bump

 

[jewelerguy]

just thinking outside the box here..... It doesn't look like any known shell that anyone can identify. It doesn't have any rifling marks. It looks solid, like maybe copper or brass. All the dings on the 'nose' make me want to lean towards it being some sort of anvil used where they didn't want the chance of a spark. Just a thought....

 

[Force_of_Iron]

That is a guess worthy of anyone calling themself jewelerguy. You are a credit to your trade.

Its definitely artillery though no doubt about it the question is why,what and or when.

 

[frijoles]

Hiya everyone, thank you to who called me to see if i knew what this was. I have seen these "projectiles" over the years i have collected, be it on ebay, facebook etc. I typically only see them made of just steel or iron, but are identical to this. Maybe originally those were copper coated too? I have always tried to figure out, whether it ask the seller or whoever owns it, "what is this exactly?" or "what makes you think its a projectile?" and no one is ever able to explain what it is. In my personal opinion, i think these are some sort of weight for a tool or old machine. When i look at these there isn't much that, to me, makes me think they are a projectile. The design would cause too much tumble, which i imagine would not be very aerodynamic nor accurate. It wouldn't fit very well in a barrel unless if it was breech loaded maybe, otherwise it would be a ungainly shape for any muzzle loading i think. Ill try to find the photos of the ones ive seen that are just steel. I could see the argument made for the jacket having shed off while being fired and what I have seen is fired ones, but I need to check if the iron versions ive seen still have that lip that is on this example at the base. If that iron lip is there, then that makes me doubt that it is for rifling. Too rough of a material for a cannon barrel. Thats my two cents on this, ill try to find any photos of the ones ive seen. I have yet to see any conclusive documentation or photographs that point to them being artillery.

Edit: I decided to look into and found others, and noted them once again being called civil war shells but zero background info. One seller, like one linked below, even claims its 3.5 inch "Blakely" projectile. However, even though im not a civil war era expert, a quick google of blakely gun projectiles quickly debunks this claim. I am pretty certain he was just hoping for some sucker to buy it so he labeled it as such.
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/confederate-civil-war-experimental-5-1891736845

 

[Retired Sarge]

Hiya everyone, thank you to who called me to see if i knew what this was. I have seen these "projectiles" over the years i have collected, be it on ebay, facebook etc. I typically only see them made of just steel or iron, but are identical to this. Maybe originally those were copper coated too? I have always tried to figure out, whether it ask the seller or whoever owns it, "what is this exactly?" or "what makes you think its a projectile?" and no one is ever able to explain what it is. In my personal opinion, i think these are some sort of weight for a tool or old machine. When i look at these there isn't much that, to me, makes me think they are a projectile. The design would cause too much tumble, which i imagine would not be very aerodynamic nor accurate. It wouldn't fit very well in a barrel unless if it was breech loaded maybe, otherwise it would be a ungainly shape for any muzzle loading i think. Ill try to find the photos of the ones ive seen that are just steel. I could see the argument made for the jacket having shed off while being fired and what I have seen is fired ones, but I need to check if the iron versions ive seen still have that lip that is on this example at the base. If that iron lip is there, then that makes me doubt that it is for rifling. Too rough of a material for a cannon barrel. Thats my two cents on this, ill try to find any photos of the ones ive seen. I have yet to see any conclusive documentation or photographs that point to them being artillery.

Edit: I decided to look into and found others, and noted them once again being called civil war shells but zero background info. One seller, like one linked below, even claims its 3.5 inch "Blakely" projectile. However, even though im not a civil war era expert, a quick google of blakely gun projectiles quickly debunks this claim. I am pretty certain he was just hoping for some sucker to buy it so he labeled it as such.
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/confederate-civil-war-experimental-5-1891736845

I always look forward to your input and your knowledge on munitions, hence the reason I keep PMing you when these come up.

 

[ARC]

Reminds me of one of these...

 

[Force_of_Iron]

Aiiiee, this is getting good...... thanks everyone




That Blakesly one on worthpoint is missing the lower sabot. It looks to me to be just the head. It has a lower portion that should have had an attached lead sabot. This doesnt have anything to attach to being flat bottomed.

I believe the copper jacket is the sabot and is complete.

Thanks again for any assistance. Im stumped

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

The reason I've kept silent until now is, I wanted to see what other folks would say about this object.

I agree with Frijoles, who is spot-on correct in everything he says about it. Absolutely NOT an artillery projectile. This thing, and others quite similar to it, have been showing up on the artillery collectors market for decades... almost always in NON-EXCAVATED condition. Meaning, they aren't being dug by somebody using a metal-detector on a battlefield, they're being found at yard sales and old collections of people who do not know much about actual artillery projectiles. My (deceased) co-author Tom Dickey had a literal pile of these things in his backyard, because people would bring them to him for authentification as a "Confederate Experimental Artillery Shell" and when told it's just junk they'd hand it to Tom to be added to the scrap-pile.

The thin copper jacket is not a sabot... its purpose is to either prevent water corrosion or sparking. The shallow T-shaped impressions on the side of the copper jacket are to ensure that something is able to firmly grip the object... similar to the shallow slots in a plastic microwave meal foodtray, which enable to tray to be correctly handled by the manufacturer's machinery on the food-filling and packaging conveyor belt.

These copper-jacketed objects always have multiple small dents on the top, where the object got repeatedly battered by something. See the photos below.

The photos are mostly grabbed from Ebay. They show some of the variations of these objects, with and without the cup-shaped copper jacket. Note the circular ridges in the iron when the jacket is absent. They are present for a reason related to the object's function. They would serve NO purpose on a projectile. That's just one more reason they are not a projectile, in addition to the reasons given by Frijoles.

About those concentric circular ridges in the center of the object's rounded side:
Some of y'all are familiar with what collectors of Historical Buttons call a Nipple-button. Due to the "look" of these domed objects with the concentric ridges, I've nicknamed them a "boob slug."

 

[Retired Sarge]

Harry Ridgeway of http://www.relicman.com had this to say......

"I can end the debate for you.

This is paper weight, from the days when newspapers were sold outside on street corners or in news stands. Big stack of today’s paper, this set on top to keep the wind from blowing them away. Dates to early to mid 20th century."

There we have it people.........

I had sent him a message prior to Frijoles and TheCannonballGuy chiming in with their vast knowledge.

 

[Retired Sarge]

This is from the same collection as the VB grenade. It is a real enigma. You guys solved that one though so lets put the experts to work again.

The artillery collection was primarily civil war but was inclusive up to about 1910

Is a cast iron core with a copper jacket wrapped around it. The copper is not real thick but is fairly heavy. About the same guage as a circuit board.

I read somewhere long ago that the confederates experimented with something like this it didnt have the right width to length ratio. This caused a problem to load and succesfully fire at times as it could slightly turn and jam so the project was abandoned. I recall it did have some field tests at Petersburg. My memory is uncertain but I believe that is correct.

The key perameter is the width of course as it has to go into the bore. It measures 3 1/8 with the copper jacket slightly less than 3 with just the core. Im not sure that you could ram it down the barrel of most cannons but perhaps you could. If you did the bolt would be somewhat pre rifled before firing. It has indentations in the copper at the base which probably has the dual purpose of clamping it on but to ease the rifling during loading.

Anyone got any ideas?

View attachment 1862597

View attachment 1862598

View attachment 1862599

See above post.......

 

[Red-Coat]

While I wouldn’t even think about questioning Harry Ridgeway’s expertise on Civil War Relics, I am deeply sceptical that this is a news-stand paperweight.

I’ve seen a lot of these, but never one where someone has gone to the trouble of wrapping an iron/steel core with a copper jacket. All of those I’ve seen are simply cast in brass or iron. They’re also usually in the form of an ingot-like plate (rectangular or disc-like) such that the weight is spread across a wider area to stop the papers flapping around in the wind. Those kinds of castings also don’t usually miss an opportunity for some advertising and are almost invariably embossed with the name of a paper or publisher. This kind of thing:



Why go to the trouble of embossing it with ‘T’ symbols (which would be upside-down Ts in use) when it could just as easily be embossed with ‘Chicago Tribune’ or whatever… unless those Ts had some functional purpose?

If there were any contemporary illustrations showing such pieces serving such a purpose, or surviving examples with some branding on them, then I would be more convinced. Otherwise, it’s just an easy call to say it must be a paperweight because it’s heavy and can’t be imagined for a purpose beyond that. I have no idea what it is (or was, as part of something), but I don’t think it has yet been reliably ‘solved’.

 

[Force_of_Iron]

Well who can argue with so much certainty. Thanks for your opinions everyone. These are certainly well founded and worthy of merit in their own right as possibilities.

Questions remain, of the photos the cannonballguy provided only one was the same. The others were very different in shape and of course didnt have a jacket. They may have had one at one time or the same function but who knows. We do now know though that another just like this exists out there somewhere which is cool. Thanks for sharing that photo. Did you buy it?
Perhaps the damage to the top arc of the copper came when the jacket was formed as it was rolled onto its top and the copper worked?

As for the paperweight perhaps so, but that makes more sense for the unshod ones than the ones with the copper banding.

You may well be right but some doubt remains.

There is only one sure way to know and that is find it mentioned or illustrated in some old book or publication.

This did come out of the artillery collection of a civil war veteran formed in the 1880-1910. Im going to give him the benifit of the doubt on what he knew about it.

He was well traveled as he headed a GAR post. He went to many reunions where he notes in his inventory he picked this up as a relic while in Petersburg.

His exact notation is "Confederate found at Petersburg"

Thank you for your suggestions everyone, very cool!

 

[Force_of_Iron]

With all due respect for those helping to find an answer to the mystery I found something interesting in a basic text about civil war artillery. Nothing fancy just the Ripley book "Artillery and Amunition of the Civil War. "

He breaks down confederate shells in 7 classes.

This shell is described by #6. Interestingly he shows no examples of this style shell and in addition I don't know of any that fall into this category at all that are available.

Go on websites such as civilwarartillery.com and there are no examples in their huge reference database like this. Where did he get this classification?



I went back to the person I got this from and got a copy of the entry in the inventory of this collection done back in the 1950's. This is the entry for this shell.



I appreciate everyones replies to date. There are plenty of unknowns out there. No reason to box ourselves in by our current knowledge