That's at odds with eyewitness reports from both sides. First hand accounts including men standing on deck, make the theories so far presented unworkable.

1. The indication is that the strike was either below or to port, in the direction of the *opposite* bank. That rules out fire from the fort as it would be masked by the boat. Plus the deck was filled with men, so they clearly weren't taking any more fire from the fort.

2. This leaves sharpshooters on the opposite bank. Yet there were men on deck at the time, including Browne, and no mention of any firing from that shore. And of course there is no indication as to how they could have been close enough to fire at a steep angle down toward the submerged portions of the vessel where an unseen torpedo lay. (It's not like they could see anything in that murk.) Could a minie ball even penetrate 4+ feet deep and probably 12 feet or more horizontally and detonate the charge by striking it even if perfectly aimed by a man right on the bank? And of course if such a shot had been made, the hero would have been celebrated, and men would have remembered the party firing from the other bank. Yet there were no such claims.

3. Sea creatures? If a large vessel didn't detonate it in previous passes, I doubt there was much else that would have. It was rather common for torpedoes not to detonate when struck. Considering those large guns had been firing in the hours before, it's hard to imagine any large critter intentionally close by at the time hugging near the boat.

The detonation does appear to have been weak, that's never been in dispute. Of course it was off center--the chances of it detonating aft and centered are extremely slim regardless. Browne describes the rear of the vessel being carried to port by the current and against the bank. That is when the event happened. He at first thought it was just a hard collision with the bank since the water only roiled as if the propeller was stirring it up. In moving "half a dozen rods" from the bank the chief engineer reported they had been struck by a torpedo.

So I think we can rule out the remote explosion theory. There was no geyser of water at a distance from the vessel to justify it. Instead, it sounds more like only a weak explosion. Perhaps most of the powder was wet and only a fraction detonated. Nonetheless, it produced a hole and radiating cracks. The hole was low enough in the boat that running aground and letting the ship settle into the mud sealed it sufficiently to stop the flooding.

The reason I mentioned the Montauk was how it dealt with a substantial breech not unlike what a 10" shot could do. In considering the case of a 10" hole for comparison, I estimate a leak rate of about 3,000-4,000 gpm. More than likely some obstruction of the hole could and would be made within a minute to cut that rate in half again (wedging in some beam for example.) It looks like a ship would have 10 minutes or more to work the problem before it's fate would be sealed. Remember, torpedoes/mines were struck while moving, not stationary, so steam would be up and the vessel would not be anchored. In 10 minutes an ironclad will be out of effective range of shore batteries. Barring a critical hit to propulsion, steering, or magazine, the boat will most likely survive as the Montauk did.