Have found what looks like a 50 pounder shell need artillery expert to

[Hawaiian_Historian]

So a friend and I found this 55 pound solid brass artillery shell barrier in the sand here in Hawaii . There are serial numbers on it and the markings 5" Drill Mk.1 I have done a little bit of research and I believe it predates ww1. From what I have found out it looks like it is a BL 5" howitzer from possibly 1880's to 1908

It came from a mk 1 so I believe it is the first make they had. So I genuinely don't believe it is American I couldn't find anything like it. It is most likely a British BL 5" Howitzer. I found out that they used these during the time period of The Second Anglo Boer War. Where the British fought against the Dutch settlers of South Africa. I am not 100 percent sure but it lines up with all of the specs. I am assuming because it is solid brass and has the word "drill" written down the side that it was used as a proof shot. I have read that proof shots were used to test the maximum integrity of the Barrel before marking it for regular use and stress. That would explain also why it actually weighs 55 pounds instead of the 50 pound spec. I read that usually the proof shots were heavier and harder then the regular shells so that it will provide much more stress on the Gun.

If this is what I think it is I was very confused as to why it would wind up here on a beach in Hawaii. Well it turns out I found out that Prince Kuhio the very last Heir to the Hawaiian thrown had actually left Hawaii in its darkest time when it was being illegally annexed by the United States and went to Europe where some how he joined the British and fought in The Second Boer War. I have a hunch that this shell might have belonged to prince Kuhio himself. I couldn't find any other connection between Hawaii and that war. It also makes sense to me that he would bring back this shell because it isnt a live one. therefore making it much safer to keep and travel with. Either way if I'm right about either of my theories this is a huge piece of history and must be incredibly rare. I will attach photos below. If anyone can help identify it in anyway that would be great. I know this isn't part of World War One but I was referred to this site by a head of the western front website. They told me there were probably some artillery experts here.

Thanks for any help

Josh

[Thunderbox]

Interesting find.

Its a drill round; these are used to practice the loading drills for the gun. That is why it is made of brass (so it doesn't create any wear in the breech) and has no driving bands (so it doesn't stick in the rifling, but will simply slide back out when the breech is opened).

I'll leave identification to an expert, but I'd guess its actually from a US 5" naval gun (probably the 5"/38) - which would be much more likely, given its location.

[Hawaiian_Historian]

Interesting find.

Its a drill round; these are used to practice the loading drills for the gun. That is why it is made of brass (so it doesn't create any wear in the breech) and has no driving bands (so it doesn't stick in the rifling, but will simply slide back out when the breech is opened).

I'll leave identification to an expert, but I'd guess its actually from a US 5" naval gun (probably the 5"/38) - which would be much more likely, given its location.

Well I agree it does look like the us 5" drill shells however I can't find any 5" gun with a mk1 the earliest I found of the 5/38 was mk 12. I would just really like to know how old it is.

[shippingsteel]

Going by the US type serial numbers on all parts, not really that old - and it is the training shell which is the Mark 1, not the gun which it was designed for.

EDIT. Here is some further discussion about the 5" brass training shells on another forum. Just click on this here LINK

Cheers, S>S

[Hawaiian_Historian]

I didn't know they had shells with mk.1,2,3,4,ect I thought it represented the gun it came from. Oh and I looked at the practice shells from the 5/38 and they don't look like this also the link you posted that shell also doesn't look like this one. What's weird is almost every shell I have seen has some sort of date on it or says U.S. or has a hint to the country of origin. I haven't seen any of the us practice shell with that cone on top which I think is copper or something. I wish someone knew more detail about it. Or what the markings mean. So far the only thing we confirmed is that it is a drill shell. Which I already knew. Isn't there some way to date this thing

[TonyE]

The one thing that immediately says it is not from the 1880s but is modern is the radius of the ogive.

Most 19th century shells had a 3 or 4 c.r.h. ogive.

Regards

TonyE

[Thunderbox]

I didn't know they had shells with mk.1,2,3,4,ect I thought it represented the gun it came from. Oh and I looked at the practice shells from the 5/38 and they don't look like this also the link you posted that shell also doesn't look like this one. What's weird is almost every shell I have seen has some sort of date on it or says U.S. or has a hint to the country of origin. I haven't seen any of the us practice shell with that cone on top which I think is copper or something. I wish someone knew more detail about it. Or what the markings mean. So far the only thing we confirmed is that it is a drill shell. Which I already knew. Isn't there some way to date this thing

The description of the shell mentioned in (http://oldguns.net/q&a4_04.htm) includes a "US" and an "anchor". Given that the part number is nearly identical to your shell, I guess we can assume that yours is from the same series, and that is it most likely US Navy and for the 5"/25, 5"/38 or 5"/51 guns. All of those guns were developed 1920s/30s, so that is probably the era of your shell - being a "Mk1", it presumably was part of the original CES.

It would not be unusual for different Marks of a drill shell to have different configurations. E.g. in this case, some Marks may have been intended for the "loading machine" mentioned in the text, whereas modified Marks might have been intended for use in real guns, or for testing shell hoists and handling equipment. Yours, for example, may incorporate a dummy fuze assembly because it was intended to be used for fuze-setting drills.