Need info on this old artillery ammo

[adrian]

Hi Fernando, that fuze hole is too small to act as a loading hole, as you correctly say, so it is not a "case" or "shrapnel" shell, but could be a "common shell" - filled with powder only. 5 1/2 inch shells were fired from 5 1/2 in Howitzers, Royal Mortars (5 1/2 in calibre) & of course also 24 pr guns, so do not worry about there being only a few howitzers. At approx 1 cm the fuze hole is small & does begin to make one wonder if it is a shell. Little really useful is written about Napoleonic era British fuzes, there were a variety of sizes & diameters differed. It is concievable that some could be as small as 1 cm, but at this diameter we are perhaps moving away from wood (beech) time fuzes that were tapered to fit the fuze hole firmly & towards a simple fuze of match, rather like earlier fuzes & like grenade fuzes, that simply burned their entire length & were not quite as scientific as an early 1800s wood time fuze that was cut to length or bored to a specific depth from the bottom end.
Colonel Boxer transformed time fuzes, his first pattern was adopted in 1850, then there were almost constant changes until 1854 when the design of his wood time fuzes settled down for over a decade - at the time known as "large cone" fuzes to distinguish against his earlier designs.
I am concerned that your shell appears to be partially filled with some substance. Shot Put, used for sport, often have a small hole in which molten lead is poured to get the weight exactly right - I have seen quite a few of these, though not as aged as your shell. Are you able to ascertain with more certainty what is inside your shell? Its unlikely to be a Shot Put but am curious about what is inside.....
Kind regards, Adrian.

[fernando]

Hi Adrian,
Thank you for coming in with your input in the subject, which i know you are familiar with.
I still admit that this shell might date to a prior period, in this case consistent with the 'primitive' fuze hole width, but am not in a position for a solid conclusion. So let's remain with the Peninsular war probability.
I have strongly scratched the interior contents and not much came out of it. It looks a bit darker than local earth ... and rather fine. I heated it with a lighter flame for some twenty seconds and nothing happened. At this stage i wouldn't feel like taking a more violent measure towards the contents ... not for fear of deflagration but for risking to take the 'patina' from the hole and similar damage.
Also i wouldn't go for the shot put hypothesis; a bit too old, a bit too wide, a bit overweight ...with its 13 cms and 7,8 Kgs.
I have emailed a Portuguese Colonel who is known for his expertize in Artillery mathers. I hope he reverts with some answers.
Attached i show a close up of the hole, some interior contents, before and after failed combustion atempt.
... And an overview of my cannon balls, the two largest ones in stone; probably not so large as the one you once got ... was it in Malacca ?

,

[kronckew]

casting sand for comparison: sand next to the metal gets burnt black, yours does appear to have some black specks. the bigger pebbles are atypical in casting material. may have dropped in for visit later & stayed.

[adrian]

Hi Fernando, most likely it is dirt with rust particles, baked hard with heat & dryness. I once emptied a loaded cannon in which the powder had set like concrete from decades in the extreme heat of the Middle East - I had to chisel it out - it still flashed (weakly) when a small piece was lit. I agree its not likely to be a Shot Put & is perhaps a pre 1800s early shell. The British had a shell wall thickness of approx 1/6 the diameter, this was considered to be quite thick, whereas the French had a much thinner shell wall - I don't recall the French thickness to diameter ratio. What does your example's wall thickness measure?
Yes, good memory, my stone ball is from the Malacca Straits, a Portuguese shipwreck I am given to understand. Its diameter is 6 inch (15 cm) weight 10.5 lbs. Yours look to be close to this size?

[fernando]

Thank you Wayne.

Originally Posted by kronckew

casting sand for comparison: sand next to the metal gets burnt black, yours does appear to have some black specks. the bigger pebbles are atypical in casting material. may have dropped in for visit later & stayed.

This material is thinner than sand and lighter than earth. Dark tone achieved after burning atempts gets darker, but not black. Only one minuscle pebble showed up after four samplings, not enough to be representative, i guess.

[fernando]

Hi Adrian,
I see your point. I have scratched hard again with a stiletto like, sharp pointed blade and again only residual contents came out. So probably only the chiseling opearation would result.
It is rather hard to measure or estimate the shell wall thickness, as part of the whatever contents is stuck to the walls right up to most of the hole aperture. Although easy to discern that, the small part that is not continued by the shell contents, measures some 5 m/m, so much thinner than the British ratio you mention, this is no reliable evidence, as the hole entrance looks completely uncharacterized by age elements. But again judging with no scientific basis, the (heavy) weight of this shell seems to denounce a thick wall.

My stone balls specs;
The limestone one measures 19 cms and weighs 7,8 Ks (17 pfund ). Apparently from Germany, as announced by the German auctionner.
The granite one mesaures 18 cms and weighs 8 Kgs. (18 arratels). Apparently Portuguese, as acquired on the Lisbon area.

.