Artillery cartridge

[redbadge]

Hello everyone! Was wondering if somebody here might be able to give a little info on this military shell that i have. It looks like it could be marked DC , but i cant tell for sure.  Rattle Snake Jake! Are you out there! Or any other info from anyone else would be much appreciated. Thanks

[redbadge]

Ok so apparently my file size is to big to send a picture. Ill have to figure something out

[redbadge]

Heres some pics

[Advertising]

[redbadge]

2nd pic

[redbadge]

3rd pic

[redbadge]

pic4

[Trailrider]

Is that thing inert for sure certain? If it hasn't been demilled, be darn careful! Some of that 100 year old ordnance can be unstable I'm told.

[RattlesnakeJack]

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 -

[redbadge]

Once again Jack you never seize to amaze! Iv been trying to look up as much info as I could and I couldn't even come up with a diagram such as this. I guess it would help if I know what exactly I was looking for. I didn't think there was much of a danger considering like you said, there is no built in propellant. Thanks for the info! And ill get those dimensions to you.  So you figure it could be as old as 1887??

[River City John]

I didn't think there was much of a danger considering like you said, there is no built in propellant. 

While no built in propellant, as the diagram points out it was designed to carry an internal EXPLOSIVE charge. Again, urge you to have a professional determine whether it is truly inert. Better safe than sorry.

RCJ

[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 in the other thread in the Barracks 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 my suggestion 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

[RattlesnakeJack]

So you figure it could be as old as 1887??

Without digging out the books again, I think it could be as old as 1871, which was the year the British War Department introduced the Rifled Muzzle Loading guns, if I recall correctly.  However, I suspect that the "94" may be a production date - i.e. "1894"

The "DC" marking could signify "Dominion of Canada" .... in which case it might date as late as the early 20th century, since I believe our Militia kept at least some of these guns in service that late!  (It could even be rather later, I suppose, since some early breech-loading field guns used similar projectiles.  The lugs prevent them from being used in a self-contained "cartridge", but they were loaded loose from the breech, with a primed brass casing containing the propellant charge then inserted behind them before the breech was closed ....)

[Trailrider]

ABSOLUTELY, BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY! As to whom to get to check it out, you may need to consult with your local EOD types, whether the police bomb squad or nearby military base! In either event, they may decide to "blow in place" (at a disposal site of course, not in your backyard  )  Sorry about that, but it is far better than having the thing go off and injure/kill people. It is possible that they might find someone who could disarm it, but it is unlikely anyone but highly trained EOD people would even chance it, and maybe not then. Sorry about that! 

[Grenadier]

I once had someone hand me a live WW1 Imperial German handgrenade and ask me what it was. I about passed out! 

[River City John]

I posted a recent story of a professional relic hunter who was killed in 2008 by a shell in the other thread for this subject in The Barracks.

Here is another story from The Civil War: Strange & Fascinating Facts by Burke Davis, pp. 224

"Ancient Fort Macon on the North Carolina coast was occupied by US troops in World War II, for the first time since its capture from Confederates in 1862. Fireplaces provided the only heat, and some unsuspecting soldiers rolled cannon balls into position as andirons, mistaking them for solid iron shot. The powder-filled balls exploded, killing two men and injuring others. A syndicated newspaper cartoon headlined the tragedy:

CONFEDERATE SHELL KILLS TWO YANKEE SOLDIERS 80 YEARS AFTER IT WAS FIRED."


RCJ

[redbadge]

So before anybody starts jumping to any conclusions about the safety of either myself, or the common man, iv gotten a hold of the local DND to inspect the shell of any possible explosive matter. From there a decision will be made upon what to do with the relic, or how it will be taken care of. Do appreciate the concerns and info.

[RattlesnakeJack]

Are you in Canada, Redbadge?  (..... DND, as in Department of National Defence .... ?)

[redbadge]

You bet Jack,. That local base. There on there way as we speak