Discussion Delafield Cannon

[tony_gunter]

Ran across the mention of a Delafield Cannon yesterday. I had never heard of it, and apparently the main procurer of this weapon was the New York State militia.

It looks almost exactly like a Parrot Rifle, the primary difference being the ammunition which uses flanges on the shell to engage the rifling. Did Parrot shells use a sabot? Or an expanding base? How did the accuracy and range of these guns compare to a Parrot Rifle?

3.67-inch Delafield Projectile

Civil War Artillery Projectile Site. Photographs and descriptions of over 170 Civil War Artillery Projectiles.

www.civilwarartillery.com

 

[Seduzal]

Not sure bu maybe I can get you some help. Paging @ucvrelics @redbob

 

[Belfoured]

Ran across the mention of a Delafield Cannon yesterday. I had never heard of it, and apparently the main procurer of this weapon was the New York State militia.

It looks almost exactly like a Parrot Rifle, the primary difference being the ammunition which uses flanges on the shell to engage the rifling. Did Parrot shells use a sabot? Or an expanding base? How did the accuracy and range of these guns compare to a Parrot Rifle?

3.67-inch Delafield Projectile

Civil War Artillery Projectile Site. Photographs and descriptions of over 170 Civil War Artillery Projectiles.

www.civilwarartillery.com

IIRC, "Parrott" projectiles used different designs of brass rings at the base as sabots. There was a documented record of these not adequately grabbing the rifling.

As an aside, some years ago I was curious as to why Delafield's use of the breech wrap didn't infringe Parrott's patent. When you read the patent it appears that Parrott was claiming the method of applying the wrap.

 

[Sowbelly and Hardtack]

@tony_gunter I think this information will prove useful.

3.67-inch Delafield Projectile

Civil War Artillery Projectile Site. Photographs and descriptions of over 170 Civil War Artillery Projectiles.

www.civilwarartillery.com

 

[redbob]

As far as I know, there have been no Delafield projectiles recovered from any Civil War sites, leading to the idea that they were never used or issued. The ones in the collector's market today are likely Bannerman's or other surplus stocks.

 

[UCVRelics]

I was curious as to why Delafield's use of the breech wrap didn't infringe Parrott's patent

Due to the difference in the sabot system the wrap didn't matter.

Here is one I donated to Charles at the Vicksburg CW museum.

 

[Belfoured]

Due to the difference in the sabot system the wrap didn't matter.

Here is one I donated to Charles at the Vicksburg CW museum.
View attachment 474971

I think that's a separate issue. Parrott may have been able to try to claim the wrap/reinforce in his patent application as a novel/new concept that wasn't obvious (I'm not saying he would in fact have gotten a patent even if he got over that threshold). He didn't and instead his claim in Patent 33,401 was restricted to the "mode of shrinking the wrought iron reinforce on the cast iron body of a piece of ordnance". If Delafield had tried to claim the wrap/reinforce after Parrott, he may have been barred because he couldn't articulate that as "novel"/"new" - after Parrott, at least, that concept arguably was no longer novel. So he wouldn't have infringed Parrott's patent but he would fail the threshold of invention. As I see it, the difference in sabot systems would have related to a patent on the projectile as opposed to a patent on some element of the tube - at least of its exterior and of manufacturing methods used for that.

 

[drezac]

in "Field Artillery of the Civil War", Delafield 3.6-inch banded iron rifles are mentioned, with drawings listed as "for the state of New York"

 

[Belfoured]

in "Field Artillery of the Civil War", Delafield 3.6-inch banded iron rifles are mentioned, with drawings listed as "for the state of New York"

Regarding the patent issue I raised above, the Hazlett entry indicates that Delafield was using the same concept of a wrought iron reinforce on a cast iron tube. That really drills down to the claim in Parrott's patent regarding how the reinforce was applied/the manufacturing process. Hazlett doesn't indicate Delafield's method - if it's even known. Parrott was a pretty agressive guy so I'm a little surprised that there doesn't seem to be any record of him raising this. Maybe he didn't see Delafield as a commercial threat.