[cannonmn]

Additional study participants if needed: Yesterday an acquaintance living in NC volunteered to copy material from the Wilson Library’s collections, if we find that’s needed. We’ll know within days whether the Ramsay collection contains anything wotth copying.

 

[cannonmn]

Parrott Patent of October 10, 1861: 10 pounder Parrott Rifle no. 10 was manufactured as described here, in early 1861. Since the patent hadn’t yet been issued, the gun is marked “Caveat” on the wrought iron breech band. This is the equivalent of “Patent Pending.”

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/08/e3/90/3516454f377e56/US33401.pdf

 

[cannonmn]

Here are the final UNC findings from the Ramsay collection. There are several very complete “RETURN OF ORDNANCE AND ORDNANCE STORES” none of which contain any cannon registry numbers. This tends to prove my theory that The Army of Northern Virginia simply did not use cannon registry numbers.

 

[John.S.]

Here are the final UNC findings from the Ramsay collection. There are several very complete “RETURN OF ORDNANCE AND ORDNANCE STORES” none of which contain any cannon registry numbers. This tends to prove my theory that The Army of Northern Virginia simply did not use cannon registry numbers.

Those are really EXCELLENT quality copies, sharp, good contrast, easy to read. Whoever did them knows what they are doing! Quite the contrast from 40 years ago when you were lucky to get a crappy microfilm copy, if anything at all!

 

[cannonmn]

Thanks John, she did an excellent job locating and capturing that artillery material in the collection. She admits being unfamiliar with military terms, but did well. A classmate, former Marine, who lives near that library has agreed to go in and browse thru the collection looking for anything that might have been missed on the first go-around. Then I’ll be convinced I’ve covered that source as well as possible..

 

[cannonmn]

James Reilly, first battery commander of Rowan Artillery: Reilly, James | NCpedia

 

[cannonmn]

My classmate has graciously spent the day browsing thru the Ramsay papers at UNC. He went over the entire collection twice, finding a few interesting items that didn’t increase our knowledge of the history of No. 10.

 

[cannonmn]

My classmate has graciously spent the day browsing thru the Ramsay papers at UNC. He went over the entire collection twice, finding a few interesting items that didn’t increase our knowledge of the history of No. 10. After looking at hundreds of documents From many different Confederate batteries, I‘m sure that in general, the Army of Northern VA simply didn’t use cannon registration numbers in the field.

 

[cannonmn]

Next source I’m consulting is the Edward Porter Alexander papers, 3000 items, 7.5,shelf feet. The only reason I didn’t go after this collection earlier is that I only discovered its existance today. I have the thick recent book of Alexander’s memoirs but it doesn’t have the info I need. The papers collection has notes, notebooks, etc. where I think there’s a good chance I’ll find some notes on the distribution of the Bull-Run-captured artillery. Alexander seems to have been in charge of the captured artillery which included nine 10-pounder Parrott rifles.

 

[cannonmn]

I’ve ordered copies of 5 of the 120 or so folders in that collection, from UNC, for delivery in electronic format in unk number of weeks. I plan to post the copies here.

 

[cannonmn]

Received the images of a small group of the EPA papers today, copy of 98 pages of a small notebook, and the remainder is maybe 250 sheets of stationery with letters on many subjects. There are a few complete, very long ordnance returns signed by Alexander, will check those closely. The small notebook touches on ordnance in many places, will have to look over closely.

 

[cannonmn]

Referring back to post no. 60, I’m certain two units each received a pair of captured 10 pounder Parrotts within days after Bull Run. These are Rowan and Rockbridge. Thrre we’re five more available to distribute. Capt. Edward Porter Alexander, the Chief of Ordnance, would have been in charge of distributing the captured weapons. Today I found his notes on this in images of a small notebook, part of the Edward Porter Alexander Papers at UNC. In the image, the right page shows numbers of weapons captured, and the left page shows the distribution plan. Those numbers are a bit scrambled so I need to think about what I’m seeing there. I’ve also asked Steve Grefe in UK to take a look, he’s done lots of cannon counting for certain battles.

 

[cannonmn]

Interesting old drawing showing Confrderates destroying a gun carriage A few days prior tomLrr’s surrender. This may help explain the drag marks on the top of No. 10. With no carriage, Union troops collecting the dismounted barrels would probably have dragged them to a collection point. I don’t think tubes dismounted in action would be dragged upside-down like No. 10 was because doing so destroys the front sight, rendering the tube useless until skilled labor is available to replace it.

 

[cannonmn]

Top of tube:

 

[cannonmn]

In an earlier post, I mentioned the iron vent bouch currently in this gun. It appears to have been there for a very long time. I wondered whether these early 10-pounders were manufactured with wrought copper bouchings like other US cannon barrels of the period, and a friend checked his 1861 2.9-inch, having a registry number in the low 20’s. His gun has an original copper bouch installed in the vent. Therefore No. 10 has a replacement bouch, made of iron, as I had guessed earlier. Remember that the rifling in no. 10 is almost completely worn away, which is consistent with extensive firing and the need for one or more vent replacements. The fact that the original copper vent bouch was replaced with iron is consistent with the replacement having been done by Confederates.

 

[cannonmn]

No. 10‘s bore is “shot-out,” no rifling left. The vent either has an odd repair or has been replaced. These two features indicate the weapon was fired extensively, and probably continued in service well beyond when it should have been retired. The tube has drag marks on top, showing it was dragged upside-down over rocky soil. I havent yet found a good explanation for this. Take a look at the history of the Rowan Artillery here, there are details of where the guns fired, when, and how many rounds. One thing is clear in this history, the guns fired rapidly and depleted one ammunition chest after another. In one battle they got so hot a round “cooked off” and fired before the primer could be inserted.

To expand a bit on the extensive firing, Reilly’s battery reported firing 5174 rounds in the actions mentioned on pages 564-578, covering a 7-month period ending before Gettysburg. I’m guessing it fired over 2000 rounds at Gettysburg. So it is easy to see how the battery would have guns with worn bores and vents.

 

[cannonmn]

Here’s a thread on Civil War Talk by a descendant searching for info on one of the two Parrott rifle gunners mentioned in the unit history, one Ignaz Schoesser. https://civilwartalk.com/threads/soldier-returned-to-ranks-and-detained.115791/

 

[double d]

BTT

 

[cannonmn]

BTT

I’m Replying as a test.