GBExpat
Member
Driving Band is simply older terminology.
Driving Band is simply older terminology.
Not an artillery expert, but I've been aware of the term " driving band" for, oh, I don't know, 30 years as it pops up in military and history texts with some regularity. Had never heard of obturating until today. Thank you for the addition to my data base, Monkey......and thank you for your service.I'm sorry exactly when did you actually do this for a living? In the 15 years I spent manning every artillery piece in the United States Army's inventory I never heard an obturating band referred to as a "driving band". Never read it in a -10. Never saw the term used in the 650.
There was no issue and, therefore, no need to apologize.It's a dumb thing to fight over and I apologize. Driving Band is not a term that was in use when I was in the artillery.
It looks like the OPs tape measure is off axis a tiny bit, but looks like 83-85mm.What is the diameter of the (for lack of a better word) shell?
My father has a projectile on his farm he collected off a beach used for WWII naval practice in Australia. Solid steel with a copper band showing rifling from being fired. About 75mm from memory. Flat base though. He called it a practice round, I just assumed it was AP.None of them were solid steel shot.
Monkey, I'm assuming most of your service would have been with the 155mm guns, and I feel stupid for never wondering about this before, but were they rifled? If they are smoothbore, that would explain why they use obturating, rather than driving bands......What is the diameter of the (for lack of a better word) shell?
What that rather looks like is a shot for one of the last of the muzzle loaders, right just before rifling was introduced.
Call that mid 1850s or so, by the time that ogived rounds were known to be ballistically superior to round shot. But for some ordinance that could not be rifled easily. Which was an issue with many period pieces.
Yep, saw that too....better safe than sorry.Hard for me to see how a "cylindro-conical" projectile would work at all from a smoothbore.
There were shells with lead sleeves to take the rifling. If the OP's thing had one, it might do for a James rifle at 3.67" or so.
There is something going on at the pointy end. (Since we are not sure it is a firearm projectile, I avoid calling it the "nose.") If it were a shell, it would look an awful lot like a fuze. Playing it extremely safe, I think I would offer it to the bomb squad.
Well, in the same way a Minié ball works, just with a better BC.Hard for me to see how a "cylindro-conical" projectile would work at all from a smoothbore.
What that rather looks like is a shot for one of the last of the muzzle loaders, right just before rifling was introduced.