A couple of "oddball" bullets

[High Plains Digger]

A couple of "oddball" bullets

Before all the fun finds from the weekend come in, I was hoping I could get a little detail on several bullets. I have 3 sharps, a "normal" one, one with only one ring that looks like the Richmond Labs sharps. Then a sharps with a very large cone in the cavity. Also included is what I think is a "swaged" bullet, but I don't know for sure.

Then I have a star in the cavity of a 3-ringer (or groover as the case may be):


And finally, an apparent 3-ringer .58 with a zinc plate in it that is obviously too small, and a small version, what may be a .54 Williams III. The size of this one seems to match the size of the zinc plate in the .58.

Any information is appreciated. I don't know if I have some unusual varieties or some run-of-the-mill varieties.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[TheCannonballGuy]

Re: A couple of "oddball" bullets

Thanks for providing the requested photos.

1st photo: From what I can see in the photo, your "one ring that looks like a Richmond Sharps" is indeed Richmond Sharps. What makes you think they are some other kind of bullet? There is a similar-looking yankee .52 Sharps, whose nose is much pointy-er than the Richmond Lab Sharps. I don't see that pointy nose in your photos.

2nd photo: On the left, a US .52 Sharps with "teat" in its small conical cavity. That version is much less common than the typical flat-solid-base version, but is not considered "a rare bullet." Some yankee Cavary camps are (or were) full of that kind. Unlike the solid-flat-base Sharps, the cone-base and cone-with-teat Sharps were made in a machine-press.

On the right, a US 3-groove .58 minie which was made in a J.D. Custer bullet-making machine which "pressed-and-turned" a lead slug into a 3-groove .58 minie. The five indented "spokes" in its conical cavity are the imprint of the tool the Custer machine used to grip the bullet during the body-groove cutting process.

3rd photo: Definitely a US .58 3-groove minie which bears the "raised" star mark of the Washington DC Arsenal, according to the McKee-&-Mason book on civil war bullets.

4th photo: Both of those bullets are typical US .58 Willaims "Bore-Cleaner" bullets ...except that their flat base-plug has been significantly eaten-on by acidic soil. Looks like the lead body of the left-side one has also been corroded by the acidity. Notice that its body-grooves are gone.

Regarding the possibility of a .54-caliber Williams "Bore-Cleaner"... various bullet-book authors have done very extensive research of US Ordnance Department records, and have reported finding no mention of any .54-caliber Williams bullets ever being produced.

 

[Monty]

Re: A couple of "oddball" bullets

Good job cannonball guy! Monty

 

[High Plains Digger]

Re: A couple of "oddball" bullets

Wow. Some great information. I feel priviledged to have a Richmond Lab Sharps. And pleased.

One more question on the 4th photo with the Williams III. All the other Type III I have only have 2 grooves, while this one has three. That is what was throwing me off and making me wonder if it really was a III. Can you help me make sense of that? I am amazed that the soil would eat the other bullet to such a diminished size, but that explains the lack of grooves on it.

Thanks, CBG, and thanks Monty.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Re: A couple of "oddball" bullets

High Plains Digger wrote:
> I feel priviledged to have a Richmond Lab Sharps. And pleased.

To help you have complete assurance that you do indeed have a Richmond Lab(oratory) Sharps bullet, I'll attach photos from the fabulous 19th Century Bullet database, showing a true Richmond Lab Sharps bullet and the near-lookalike yankee Sharps. I am using the photos with the permission of their owner.

The McKee-&-Mason book calls the yankee version a Sharps "Commercial Short" ...but new research by the Thomas Brothers has proved it was made in US Arsenals ...who would be unlikely to sell it as a Commercial product. Nonetheless, that name has been in the M&M book for 40 years, so it will probably stick for many more years.

> One more question on the 4th photo with the Williams III. All the other Type III I have only have 2 grooves, while this one has three. That is what was throwing me off and making me wonder if it really was a III. Can you help me make sense of that?

You're correct, the 3-groove one is not a Type 3. The Type 2 had three body-grooves. The Type 3 had only two ...and its body is commensurately shorter than the Type 2. I'll attach a couple more photos, which make the difference clear. Note that the photos' filenames include the bullet's diameter and length info.

> I am amazed that the soil would eat the other bullet to such a diminished size, but that explains the lack of grooves on it.

Yes, it's surprising ...but definitely true. I've dug several like yours, in "low ground," also called swampy ground. Swampwater can contai a significant amount of Tannic Acid, which comes from decayed leaves in the stagnant water. The acidic water (or soil) is of course much too weak to burn your skin ...but when a piece of metal sits in it for over a century, even extremely-weak acidity will take its toll on the metal. For what's its worth to know, the brass eagle-buttons and even iron artillery shells I've dug in "low ground" also tend to have that eaten-up look, when you clean the dirt-crust off of them.

 

[High Plains Digger]

Re: A couple of "oddball" bullets

CBG: The difference in the bases of the two sharps is significant and easy to see a mile away. And I didn't even think about a Type II bullet because of the small zinc butt. That puts my current lot of questions to rest. I knew I could count on you for detailed info, and I love it!

I just want to take a moment to put a small plug in for Sgt. Riker's Civil War Trading Post. Not only did he give me a good wholesale price, but this post is an example of a little extra variety that he included in what he was offereing--above and beyond! I will definately be knocking on his door again to do business.

I have offered some singles and "Collection" of 4 bullets in two shows now, actually, park festival is the better term, with my rocks and jewelry, of course, and have sold a reasonable number so far. I am trying to get the "non-event" of the beginning year of the Civil War to be more historically interesting to us Coloradoans. I am surprised at how many people have never held a civil war bullet, but then, I hadn't either until a few years ago.

And what is that sound I hear? Ka-ching. The green check. After I go and read the directions.

 

[AGBlex]

Re: A couple of "oddball" bullets

cannonball really knows his stuff verrrr y impressed

 

[Monty]

Re: A couple of "oddball" bullets

cannonballguy, I have been up on my modern bullets because of all the handloading shooting and collecting firearms I have over the years. But after reading several questions about the CW bullets I found that I was severely lacking in knowledge of that era. Several months ago I asked for a good reference source for civil war bullets and the M&M book was recommended so I bought it and have been studying it. I am not familiar with the 19th Century Bullet Data Base. Is that a document in print or is it a site on the net. If a site it could be invaluable for anyone who hunts relics related to the CW. I would appreciate and I'm sure there are many who would also like to know if you have a link to that site. Thanks! Monty

 

[High Plains Digger]

Re: A couple of "oddball" bullets

I was wondering about that, also. And I was getting ready to ask the same question.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Re: A couple of "oddball" bullets

Monty, and High Plains Digger, please permit me to begin with some background-info. My knowledge comes from:
1- Having been a relic-digger for about 37 years.
In that much time, I've dug an enormous array of relics, and I wanted to learn the correct ID of what I'd found.
2- Having been a relic-dealer for about 35 years.
Preferring to be a "reputable" dealer, I had to make sure the ID-label I put on my stuff was correct, so I did a lot of diligent relic-ID research.
3- Continually studying various relic reference books for all of those 37 years (and now, websites).

I was also blessed by the personal assistance of several top-level relic experts. (Bullet-book author M.E. "Mac" Mason was one of them.) So nowadays, I do for y'all what they did for me. That is not any kind of an Ego thing. I'm simply "repaying old favors."

The McKee-&-Mason book on civil war bullets was first published in 1967. Its authors did the best they could at reporting the limited amount of ID-info which was available back then. But unfortunately, although that book has been re-printed several times, it has never been "updated" to correct some significant ID-errors in it.

The good news is that the Thomas brothers (Jim and Dean), who are excellent civil war bullet Reasearchers, have produced an up-to-date book which corrects the ID-errors in the M&M book. The Thomas brothers' book is titled "A Handbook of Civil War Bullets & Cartridges." (We diggers call it simply the "T&T book.") Like the M&M book, the Handbook contains hundreds of civil war bullet photos, and detailed info. Very importantly, the Handbook includes a cross-reference chart which links bullets in the McKee-&-Mason book to their location in the Handbook. It is available for just $9.95 at the authors' website: http://www.thomaspublications.com/details.asp

You asked about the 19th Century Bullet Database. It is indeed a website. It is viewable for free ...and it is "searchable" for free.
http://www.baymediapro.com/collection/bulletsearch.htm
Among its Search options, you can look up bullets by their base-type, cavity-type, the number of grooves or rings, and etc. You can also search by either their M&M book number or their T&T Handbook number.

Since you said you've already bought the M&M book, I'd recommend also spending $10 for the T&T Handbook. Then, use the online Database in combination with the two books. That's what I do.

 

[High Plains Digger]

Re: A couple of "oddball" bullets

Thanks CBG. I do have a M & M, although it is old and well used by the previous owner, as well as being a early edition signed by Mason. I should get a new copy that I can drag around. I do have the T & T also, but I don't have the 37 years of looking at bullets. Can't order that! I have the projectile reference in my favorites now. I think I used to have it, but lost it with an update or hard drive fart or something. Thanks for your accumulated knowledge and wisdom.