Artillery cartridge

[redbadge]

Hello all!  Im new in this forum. Iv recently came apon an Artillery shell that id like to have a little more info on. Iv already posted once in another forum here in Cas City, but i figured id give this one a try as well. It looks like the cartridge could be marked on the side with the letters 'DC' which to my understanding means Dominion of Canada. Any info would be greatly appreciated! Ill post a few pics.

[redbadge]

pic 1

[redbadge]

Pic2

[redbadge]

pic3

[redbadge]

pic4

[Trailrider]

Be sure certain that thing is either demilled or otherwise inert! I'm told some of those 100 year old ordnance items can be unstable!

[redbadge]

After my recent conversation with Rattle Snake Jack im quit certain that it is safe. But none the less, It has and will remain to be carefully handled. Along side that i should also clearify that it is a 'Shell' as opposed to a cartridge

[RattlesnakeJack]

Answer posted in the Historical Society forum:

Howdy Redbadge!

First off (..... just get the technicalities out of the way ....   ....) that is a "shell" - i.e. just the projectile for an artillery piece, not a "cartridge" (which implies a self-contained round with projectile, propellant and primer all together in a casing, like a big metallic rifle or pistol cartridge.)

Having said that, it certainly has the appearance of a "studded shell" for one of the British RML field or mountain guns, which were rated as 16-pounder, 9-pounder or 7-pounder.  The 16-pdr. had a 3.6" bore, and the 9-pdr and 7-pdr both had a 3" bore.  (Of course muzzle-loading guns did not use a "cartridge" at all;  rather, the propellant charge was loaded and rammed, followed by a projectile such as this ....)

What is the diameter of the shell itself, excluding the projecting studs, which engaged the rifling grooves? How far out do the studs project from the sides of the shell? Finally, what is the length?

Here, for what it may be worth, are diagrams taken from the 1887 edition of the British War Department's "Treatise on Ammunition", showing cross sections and some dimensions of the explosive and the shrapnel shell for the 16-pdr RML gun - which of course would look pretty similar, externally -

[River City John]

Excerpt from a May 2, 2008 article of the death of a Virginia relic hunter:

"An investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms will not be complete until the end of May, but police who responded to the blast and examined shrapnel concluded that it came from a Civil War explosive.
Experts suspect White was killed while trying to disarm a 9-inch, 75-pound naval cannonball, a particularly potent explosive with a more complex fuse and many times the destructive power of those used by infantry artillery.
Biemeck and Peter George, co-author of a book on Civil War ordnance, believe White was using either a drill or a grinder attached to a drill to remove grit from the cannonball, causing a shower of sparks.
Because of the fuse design, it may have appeared as though the weapon's powder had already been removed, leading even a veteran like White to conclude mistakenly that the ball was inert."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353998,00.html#ixzz2RHg4u9Ad

[Delmonico]

I'm going to be honest here, from my limited knowledge of these shells and the pictures, I'm not convinced it's not a live shell, plus the fact you have to ask, also adds to my worry. 

DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE AS IN HAVING SOMEONE WHO IS AN EXPERT IN THESE ITEMS HAVING INSPECTED IT?

I really don't want to see someone killed because of such a mistake especially if they were an innocent person.

[RattlesnakeJack]

I would add my cautions to the others!  (I was very puzzled by what you meant above when you stated "After my recent conversation with Rattle Snake Jack im quit certain that it is safe." However, now I realize that you took the suggestion in my first post that this item has no propellant charge as an assurance that it was safe.)

There is no built-in propellant, but a live shell would contain either a sizeable explosive charge filling the entire body cavity (top diagram) or a smaller dispersal charge in the base under a cavity packed with shrapnel ball (lower diagram.)  If either type remained live, it could be extremely dangerous.

It appears that your example does not have the composite tip of the shrapnel shell, so is likely an explosive round.  At any rate, the nose-plug appears to be in place, so who knows what is inside!

If it is relatively shallow, the square cavity in the nose is simply the lug which would be used to remove the nose plug, as well as the place that an impact or timed fuse/detonator would be installed prior to firing the projectile.  Someone may have thought absence of a fuse (or removal of the fuse) was sufficient to render this shell inert, but if the explosive charge is still inside then it is still LIVE!

[redbadge]

I will be sure to have a professional take a look at it.