Author Topic: Vicky must have a story, but she ain't talkin' (Read 2723 times)

cannonmn · « **on:** August 29, 2009, 01:19:09 PM »

The slideshow has about 21 photos of Vicky. She's a British 16-pounder RML, steel tube with wrought iron jacket, made at the Royal Gun Factory in 1872. YOu can see she has many scars, and I have no idea how she got them. I don't know enough about British military history to know where she might have been used sometime between say 1872 and maybe 1890. I can bet it wasn't Afghanistan, the tube alone weighs 1360 lbs.and with its wrought iron carriage and limber, a whole lot more.

Does anyone know enough about British military history of that period to help me here? I'm not sure what you see is even battle damage, the gun could have been at Woolwich during one of the German bombings during WWII, or at the wrong end of a government test range.

Sorry no powder can-trunnions are 4" diameter, bore is 3.6 in., length of gun is 72 inches.

http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums43/?action=view&current=f38d6c8f.pbw

RocklockI · « **Reply #1 on:** August 29, 2009, 01:41:05 PM »

looks very bidness like .

cannonmn · « **Reply #2 on:** August 29, 2009, 02:26:47 PM »

Quote

looks very bidness like

I read somewhere that at the time it went into service, the 16 pdr. Mk 1 was the most powerful field gun in the world.

I wouldn't want to be one of the horses that had to pull it.

RocklockI · « **Reply #3 on:** August 29, 2009, 03:11:26 PM »

thats a nice tube . strong to beat all , and simpleish .

it would make a nice variation , to all the parrot , mountian howies repros.

it looks like a doms standard ...sawyer rifle iircc . sitting on a siege mount of steel . wood in a pinch ...

what about those 'disappering guns' that i first saw on bugs bunny ? were there any pre 98 versions ?

any regs against an old repo being mounted on a newish carriage ,disappering mount ?

cannonmn · « **Reply #4 on:** August 29, 2009, 03:43:31 PM »

I'm pretty sure there were disappearing guns before '98 in the US. I think the fad began with a gent named Moncrieff in Europe in the 1870's-he built the first one.

I won't "go there" on the question of what would be OK and what would not, the board has its own interpretation of that stuff.

RocklockI · « **Reply #5 on:** August 29, 2009, 03:51:09 PM »

thanks cannonmn !

food for thought .

Forward Observer · « **Reply #6 on:** August 29, 2009, 08:00:16 PM »

The British were still using muzzle loading field pieces during the Zulu wars in 1879 and there were several field pieces present when over 1000 men were overrun and slain by the Zulus at Isandlwana. This battle is always described as the worst defeat of a modern army by tribal forces in history. (modern army being defined as having breach loading small arms as standard.) I think Custer's massare may held the record up until then.

However, I have not found any references as to the size of the pieces the British employed in the battle, but due to the terrain I wonder if 16 pdrs would have been to heavy.

Cheers

RocklockI · « **Reply #7 on:** August 29, 2009, 09:20:26 PM »

you did it now ...... DD is IT on the zulu wars .....noone i know is even close .

thats not saying much ......but he has a library dedicated to that stuff ......and martinis .

Ex 49'er · « **Reply #8 on:** August 29, 2009, 09:35:45 PM »

Quote from: RocklockI on August 29, 2009, 09:20:26 PM

you did it now ...... DD is IT on the zulu wars ......but he has a library dedicated to that stuff ......and martinis .

Does he have the olives to go with them?

dan610324 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 29, 2009, 09:40:01 PM »

noooo , he use the olives for his deer hunting ammo

black powder loads
now I was on topic

Double D · « **Reply #10 on:** August 30, 2009, 03:42:38 AM »

7-PDR RML

cannonmn · « **Reply #11 on:** August 30, 2009, 10:57:05 AM »

Now all that's lacking is a elevation screw, trunnion bushings, a clear vent, and projectiiles. I'd like to use cast lead trashcan projectiles ut haven't yet decided if they will work in this style rifling.

KABAR2 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 30, 2009, 11:53:27 AM »

Vicky looks like she likes her new home, it won't be long till she is fit for duty!

RocklockI · « **Reply #13 on:** August 30, 2009, 01:41:58 PM »

"I'd like to use cast lead trashcan projectiles "

do you know what style projo was used ?

if would help any , i would vote ...oh sure it will , lets see !

i didn't realize that was addision to your 'herd o guns' .....good work !

for no good reason in the world i would geuss it shot iron shell with expanable skirt ?

would you use zinc first or just go lead right off ?

cannonmn · « **Reply #14 on:** August 30, 2009, 02:29:03 PM »

The original projectile was cast iron with two rings of three studs each, studs were zinc. The "correct" way to replicate that is to cast a solid zinc projo with the studs an integral part of the zinc casting. That mold would cost about $2500., I know because a friend had one made for the 3" mountain guns (7 pounders.) I don't have that kind of money for a mold, no way Jose. So I'm looking for a cheap-a__ alternative. Trash Can mold is about the simplest there is and I can make them myself. Troubles come if lead is wrong hardness, front wall not thick enough, bore has pits that cause projectile to lock in it blowing out front of projo, leaving nasty cylinder pressed hard into the chamber wall that takes a long time and special-made tools to get out.

I'm sure I've put pix of Beaulieu projecties here before, I'll look for one now. They are a PITA for you and I to make at home.

cannonmn · « **Reply #15 on:** August 30, 2009, 02:38:05 PM »

Here's one, made for a six-groove weapon, two rings of six studs each. A shell for Vicky would only have three studs per ring.

http://www.civilwarartillery.com/projectiles/rifled/SpanishShell.htm

GGaskill · « **Reply #16 on:** August 30, 2009, 03:22:17 PM »

The original projectile was cast iron with two rings of three studs each, studs were zinc.

So why not make new shot the same way. Turn a mild steel cylinder, drill holes for the studs (a little undersize) cast the studs in a simple mould and press them into the holes in the steel.

cannonmn · « **Reply #17 on:** August 30, 2009, 03:41:59 PM »

Quote

So why not make new shot the same way. Machine a mild steel cylinder, drill holes for the studs (a little undersize) cast the studs in a simple mould and press them into the holes in the steel.

Sure sounds like a good idea, that'd be a fallback if trash cans don't work. If you have the right machines and are good at using them the machined idea sounds good. My machines are a bit deficient, and I'm not the greatest machinist. Last time I tried to make them like that I made a mistake setting up the indexing head and the holes weren't lined up properly.

RocklockI · « **Reply #18 on:** August 30, 2009, 06:03:41 PM »

thats a good idea ! GG .

what if you cast a zinc projo and just put it a jig , drill and seat some copper studs , like you say .

that just sounds like a lot of machining to me ?

cannonmn · « **Reply #19 on:** August 30, 2009, 06:38:49 PM »

When I first tried to make one of those projectiles, I was using aluminum rod, cut to appropriate length, for the stud. It was easy to turn a chamfer on the outside end, to make it fit the groove much better than a squared-off end would do. I think I'd stay with aluminum since it is at least as strong as zinc in this application, and a lot easier to work with. The idea of casting a zinc projo is also a good one, I think it would work better for me than trying to turn a steel one.

The lazy b_____d in me keeps saying "hey just go and find some pvc pipe that's about 3.6 inch OD, drill holes, insert long knurled aluminum studs, fill pipe with with concrete" but I just don't think I want to listen to that little voice now. That sounds like a half-a__ projectile if ever there was one.

GGaskill · « **Reply #20 on:** August 30, 2009, 08:08:22 PM »

What are the bore dimensions? Bore dia, groove dia, groove width, rifling pitch.

Victor3 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 30, 2009, 08:58:35 PM »

Since some use cast aluminum slugs for similar bores....

As a simplified version of the machined/studded slug, you could try a 3.5" dia (your bore being 3.6") piece of aluminum bar stock saw cut to length. One row of 3 holes 120 degrees apart at the rear, with aluminum studs pressed in.

It would require only minimal machining. If it looked good in testing, you could make future slugs a little more nicely without too much additional expense.

Just my opinion, but the rough bore and three groove rifling doesn't look like it would do well with an expanding base lead projectile.

cannonmn · « **Reply #22 on:** August 30, 2009, 10:54:39 PM »

Quote

what are bore dimensions...

Most of that info is here:

http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,181566.0.html

Twist is one turn in nine feet (108 inches)

cannonmn · « **Reply #23 on:** August 30, 2009, 11:20:10 PM »

Just as an aside, I've always been amazed that John Dahlgren got paper mache' to work just fine at the base of the Schenkl shell, to spin up the projectile. The only problem that system had was it couldn't take moisture, which is always a part of the marine environment. Someday I'd like to try and replicate the Schenkl, since I could easily keep my sabots dry until fired.

Ok, now back to what to feed Vicky.

BTW, I'm in full agreement with "start simple." Might even see if a 3.56 in. dia. cylinder backed by wadding (to seal rifling grooves if nothing else) would fly straight enough to hit targets at 100 yards, the range we normally shoot.

(little voice still saying "pvc, pvc." ) Shaddup aready!

Cannoneer · « **Reply #24 on:** August 30, 2009, 11:50:33 PM »

The tube looks good on the carriage. After reading your opening post, I found a book titled "The Victorians at War. 1815-1914, An Encyclopedia of British Military History." I'm not posting the book here because its a partial text review, but there's more than a few conflicts that follow the date of the guns manufacture. The only dificulty would be in finding a war where using a cannon of that weight would have been practical. Whatever the case, that cannon sure looks like it was involved in a good 'dust up' somewhere in the regions that the British controlled in that general time period.

KABAR2 · « **Reply #25 on:** August 31, 2009, 12:22:05 AM »

Cannonmn,

Do you think the condition of the bore could be improved the way Dominick Cleaned a section of 40mm barrel?
the electrolysis solution in the bore? if it took any scale rust or roughness away it would be an improvement to accuracy and less
chance of galling the studs leaving material behind.

I have two thoughts on projo's

1) My first thought was what about a hotchkiss style projectile? Where a band is upset and grabs the rifling rather than the stud design.

2) if you could take a cast off the bore at the muzzle a section of bore diameter steel could be machined with the exact angle of the rifling
this could be used as a swedge block, Aluminum projo's could then be CNC machined with two bands and pushed through the swedge block forming your studs.

Allen <><

dan610324 · « **Reply #26 on:** August 31, 2009, 07:19:05 AM »

I would go for a 65 mm aluminum bar and turn them to the correct diameter. 2,5 cal in length
insert 3 studs in the bottom area
dont even need an dividing head to do that
just an old lathe and a drill press

GGaskill · « **Reply #27 on:** August 31, 2009, 12:58:36 PM »

Any idea what that 1.35" dimension is referring to? It certainly can't be the radius to the bottom of the groove. Also, how about the width of the groove at the outside.

cannonmn · « **Reply #28 on:** August 31, 2009, 02:03:27 PM »

Quote

Any idea what that 1.35" dimension is referring to? It certainly can't be the radius to the bottom of the groove.

The dimensions given in inches seem to always have arrowheads at either end of the indicator line. Since the line you mention has no arrowheads, I suspect it is other than linear measure. The superscript after the number looks to me like a minute of angle symbol rather than the inch symbol. Therefore the number could be indicating 1.35'. That's an unfamiliar way to do it, could it mean "one degree, 35 minutes?" All I'm pretty sure of is that it isn't a linear measure due to lack of arrowheads.

GGaskill · « **Reply #29 on:** August 31, 2009, 02:20:21 PM »

If you are in the presence of the gun, how about simply measuring the diameter from groove to opposing bore and also the width of the bottom of the groove with a caliper?

Thanks.