1 inch projectiles

[2pounder]

Haven't posted much for a while so thought these might be of interest. A pair of 1inch solid inert projectiles copper plated like early Nordenfeldt but like most of them theyv'e been ornaments and over polished. A diffinitive i.d. would be nice if anyone can. thanks.

 

[TonyE]

Difficult to identify precisely, but they are not British service types as far as I can see. British Nordenfeldts have a brass rather than a copper envelope and usually a cannelure close to the base.

They may be foreign or they may be Kynoch export examples. Kynoch were still making 1 inch Nordenfeldt rounds into the 1920s.

Regards
Tonye

 

[Falcon]

The early Nordenfelts had a brass jacket. These look like they are actually copper plated as opposed to copper jackaeted?

 

[beihan62]

Hi 2pounder,would these originally have had driving bands,or has "ornamenting " procedure obliterated them,
Regards,
Don,

 

[TonyE]

No, the whole point of the copper or brass envelope of the Nordenfeldt AP projectile was that it engaged the rifling just like the envelope of a normal rifle calibre bullet.

Regards
TonyE

 

[2pounder]

They are copper plated with the copper thicker nearer the base much like the lead thickens near the base on Armstrong shells. There are no raised bands as such plated over like 1.5in Nordenfeldt. I'm not sure the whole length of the copper would have engaged the rifling as I've never seen a fired one but suspect very little if any engaged toward the front where it tended to act as a bourolet (cant spell the word!). Labbett p108 states the MkI service round steel bullet with brass or possibly copper envelope and earlier mks were with copper envelope, as my proj. have the blunter point I would like to think they are pre approved mkI and not the later trial copper plated variant of 1883. As usual I will bow to superior knowledge if antone can do a positive id.

 

[TonyE]

Obviously only the parallel portion of the copper envelope engages the rifling, as I see no signs of a bourelet on those shells.

Labbett only says "possibly" with respect to a copper envelope and I see no mention of what previous types utilised. Are you saying that you hope your examples are those supplied by Temple & Co. to the Navy before the type was sealed as the Mark I, as by definition there cannot be earlier marks than the Mark I.

Also, are you sure yours are copper plated and do not have a copper envelope? Also, do the bases of yours have the typical british Nordenfeldt radial grooves?

Regards
TonyE

 

[2pounder]

definitely plated as you can see where it has been polished away to very thin but still 'stuck' to the steel. the radial grooves were anti rotation to stop the jacket spinning so not required with the plated coating. There are no signs of a bourelet but the plating is too thin to really engage the rifling so can only act as a means of corrosion prevention and bore wear reduction. My guess would be that they are Temple proj. but would like someone who has one to say yeah or neah.

 

[beihan62]

Hi TonyE,Thanks for explaining,I was a bit confused by the term plated,I would have thought plating would not be thick enough to engage the rifling,of course if they were covered with an envelope there would be sufficient to engage the rifling,I have learned something new today,Thanks TonyE and 2pounder,
Regards,
Don,

 

[Gspragge]

I think you have the oldest version of these I have ever seen. It certainly makes sense if they were copper plating the larger earlier kinds at the time too. I don't think there are many choices in these, what you have and copper or brass jackets. Yours are much scarser I would think as I have never seen or heard of any others.

 

[TonyE]

I thought originally that what is actually wear on the copper plating was simply corrosion on a copper jacket. Now that i can see what you mean, I agree with Gordon that these are probably very early, perhaps Swedish?

However, without some kind of provenance i suspect we will never know.

Good find.

Regards
TonyE