Author Topic: Whitworth Naval Gun  (Read 2952 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Whitworth Naval Gun
« on: August 23, 2009, 08:10:23 AM »

Five photos of an 1864 Whitworth, 1.9-inch, muzzleloading naval cannon, mounted on a British Navy-type rear-chock carriage.
I saved these pictures years ago, and the information above is all I know about the gun. Come to think about it, on second thought there is one more thing I know about it, and that is if fortune ever smiled upon me to the extent that I could have this cannon, and the mold for the bolt that Whitworth probably provided with the gun, everything between me and the world would be copacetic for decades to come. ;)











RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.

Offline dan610324

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2413
  • Gender: Male
  • bronze cannons and copper stills ;-))
    • dont have
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2009, 09:22:07 AM »
but if it is a muzzle loader, why then that brass thing in the breach ??
for me it almost looks like a hinge, its a bit to large to only hold the rear sight, or ??
Dan Pettersson
a swedish cannon maniac
interested in early bronze guns

better safe than sorry

Offline KABAR2

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2830
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2009, 09:32:43 AM »
The bronze piece on the rear of the cannon is very similar to the one on the Armstrong breech loading cannon

and serves the same function it is a mounting point for the rear sight.
Mr president I do not cling to either my gun or my Bible.... my gun is holstered on my side so I may carry my Bible and quote from it!

Sed tamen sal petrae LURO VOPO CAN UTRIET sulphuris; et sic facies tonituum et coruscationem si scias artficium

Offline Max Caliber

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 524
  • Gender: Male
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2009, 09:52:28 AM »
I like the barrel a lot but the carriage appears to have been built much later by a fine craftsman who was not well versed in carriage construction. Appears to have been built for display, not to shoot.
Max

Offline dan610324

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2413
  • Gender: Male
  • bronze cannons and copper stills ;-))
    • dont have
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2009, 10:26:16 AM »
1,9" ,  is that from corner to corner or from flat to flat ??
Dan Pettersson
a swedish cannon maniac
interested in early bronze guns

better safe than sorry

Offline cannonmn

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2009, 11:19:34 AM »
Quote
1,9" ,  is that from corner to corner or from flat to flat ??

The official way Whitworths are measured is from flat to opposite flat.  Since I don't know who measured this one, I can't comment on this particular item.

Boom J, do you know what was marked on the ends of the trunnions?


Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2009, 11:44:30 AM »
Cannonmn is right, the Whitworth bore is measured flat to flat for both his cannons, and rifles.
John, the information I posted is all I've got on this piece; I did zoom in on the trunnion face in the second photo, but I can't make anything out there.
RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.

Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2009, 11:50:36 AM »
The bronze piece on the rear of the cannon is very similar to the one on the Armstrong breech loading cannon

and serves the same function it is a mounting point for the rear sight.


Allen, save and zoom in on the "bronze cap" attached to the breech of this gun, and then let me know if you still think that it might be a breech loader; also take into consideration the elevation screw.
RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.

Offline cannonmn

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2009, 12:02:31 PM »
It isn't a breechloader, Whitworth made many muzzle loaders with cascabels shaped like that.  He didn't like breechloaders, only built them to try and compete with Armstrong.

Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2009, 12:59:08 PM »
Erratum: ;)  Mr. Whitworth wouldn't have provided a mold to cast his bolts, because they were machined; it was the CSA that attempted to cast the bolts for some Whitworth cannons, with the end result being that the Confederate artillerymen regarded them with disdain.
RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.

Offline KABAR2

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2830
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2009, 05:23:47 PM »
The bronze piece on the rear of the cannon is very similar to the one on the Armstrong breech loading cannon

and serves the same function it is a mounting point for the rear sight.


Allen, save and zoom in on the "bronze cap" attached to the breech of this gun, and then let me know if you still think that it might be a breech loader; also take into consideration the elevation screw.

I am not as knowledgeable on this era artillery but here is my thinking on the rear sight base,  is it possible that Whitworth and Armstrong standardized their bases to accommodate
the British Ordnance board?  If the British Ordnance board said that all cannon accepted into service must be able to use a "MK I* sight, adjustable, elevation only"  than it may be the reason both have these bronze sight bases,  what is interesting is on the Whitworth it looks like it may be removable there is a turn screw on the left that looks like it is there to lock it on
the breech.  The Armstrong bronze rings appear to have both a left and a right adapter for the rear sight....... was Armstrong thinking ahead? If one side was damaged could it be swung around so the second took it's place? and the gun could be kept in action......

 
Mr president I do not cling to either my gun or my Bible.... my gun is holstered on my side so I may carry my Bible and quote from it!

Sed tamen sal petrae LURO VOPO CAN UTRIET sulphuris; et sic facies tonituum et coruscationem si scias artficium

Offline cannonmn

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2009, 08:23:20 PM »
 
Quote
is it possible that Whitworth and Armstrong standardized their bases to accommodate

Good question.  Here's a very indirect answer.

From the small amount of reading I've done in that area, I get the impression Whitworth and Armstong = Oil and Water.

Armstrong had the lock on whatever artillery purchases the government did, nearly.  He was able to pretty much shut Whitworth out at least in the artillery area, so Whitworth's sales were largely private and foreign.  There were a few models of Whitworth cannon adopted for service, but I'm pretty sure the few pieces he was able to sell to the British government represented something like less than one percent of the very large number of Armstrong cannons accepted into British service.  Armstrong "walked on water" as far as the British government was concerned.

Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2009, 08:38:50 PM »
I like the barrel a lot but the carriage appears to have been built much later by a fine craftsman who was not well versed in carriage construction. Appears to have been built for display, not to shoot.

Max, I'm not trying to argue that this is the original carriage manufactured by the Whitworth Co., in Manchester, England, because I would guess that the only way to prove that would be by finding that information stamped somewhere on the bronze hardware. What I am saying, is that I think that it is a possibility that this is the carriage that was originally made for the gun. There's no question that this carriage has been completely refurbished, and (unfortunately) all the bronze work highly polished, but this is not a new carriage. I cropped a pic of the steps on the left cheek that shows the wear on the wood, and this carriage is similar to the type of British rear-chock naval carriages that were in use on the HMS Warrior in the early 1860's.





This unusual conglomeration is currently on the spar deck of the HMS Warrior at dock in Portsmouth, England. I have no idea what this bronze field gun in a black carriage that is stuffed inside of the rear-chock carriage has to do with the Warrior, but my only purpose in posting the pic was to show a similarly sized rear-chock carriage; the only other photos I have are of large rear-chock carriages that serve as mounts for the warriors large guns.
RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.

Offline cannonmn

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2009, 11:49:22 PM »
Quote
the rear-chock carriage

You probably already know this but the reddish-wood carriage like thing is a complete repro done within past 50 years, probably much more recently than that.  The hardware isn't right on it, and it appears it may be just some fanciful thing built to get the other item higher off the deck.  Notice the "blind" trunnion holes, just another inauthentic part of it.

I'd bet the overpolished bronze gun shown is a British light 3-pounder gun ca. 1800.  You can tell it is a real cannon and not a salute cannon because of the elevating screw eye cast under the cascabel. 

Offline KABAR2

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2830
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2009, 12:27:40 AM »
It was common in the 1800's for manufacturers who were looking for government contracts to give samples of their products to high government officials who's

sphere of influence could favor them with a contract, is it possible that this gun with mounted on such a fine carriage could be such a piece?

Presented to some minister or lord in hope of cracking the grip Armstrong had on the trade?
Mr president I do not cling to either my gun or my Bible.... my gun is holstered on my side so I may carry my Bible and quote from it!

Sed tamen sal petrae LURO VOPO CAN UTRIET sulphuris; et sic facies tonituum et coruscationem si scias artficium

Offline Victor3

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #15 on: August 26, 2009, 01:24:31 AM »
 I was thinking the same.

 What would the little bronze pieces on the steps do, other than add some "bling?" Are there other carriages made with them?
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Sherlock Holmes

Offline cannonmn

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2009, 06:07:26 AM »
I seriously doubt Whitworth had anything to do with that carriage.  Look at the capsquares, they are replicas of US CW carriages.  English makers such as Armstrong and Whitworth usually produced forged and machined steel capsquares with shapes quite different from US CW items.  The capsquare keys are rather crude; English makers would have neatly-fitted headed pins, or more complex shapes with positive-locking designs.  I think all the yellow metal is probably brass on that carriage; the yellow metal on an Engish carriage would usually be bronze.  The little strips with little screws in them just don't look like English cannon-maker work; at the very least such a strip would be sculptured or radiused and not just a flat strip, unless it was sunk into a groove cut out for the purpose. It is all very pretty but not original IMO.

Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #17 on: August 26, 2009, 10:29:41 PM »
I’ll repeat my earlier statement and say that I’m not arguing that this is a Whitworth Co, manufactured carriage, because opinions, even educated opinions can’t prove the veracity of an argument, but I will say that nothing that has been said so far seems anywhere near convincing enough to lead to the conclusion that this carriage was not produced by either the Whitworth Company, or another British carriage maker in the 1860’s.

The statement that the cap-squares are “replicas” of the type used on U.S. Civil War carriages doesn’t really make any sense to me, seeing that the vast majority of people writing on this subject make it perfectly clear that it was the U.S. that was derivative of European and British carriages, right up to the time of the Civil War, in fact it really wasn’t until a short period of time before the Civil War began, that Americans began to demonstrate some real originality in ordnance design.  I’m posting a photo of the cap-squares and straps from an 1860’s Whitworth Co. manufactured field carriage, and I think it’s easy to see they are similar to the bronze cap-squares on the naval carriage we’re discussing. In fact if it weren’t for the downward cant that follows the angle of the cheeks on the field carriage, these cap-squares would be very close in appearance. You’ll also notice the great similarities of the cap-square keys, key bolts, and chin bolts.

Now, onto trying to identify whether a given piece of metal is bronze or brass via visual inspection (of a photo, no less). This topic has been covered before on this forum, (a few times before) and I think it was GeorgeG that said he didn’t think it was that easy a task to make the distinction by eyeballing the metal, and the only sure way was to have the metal analyzed. Well, I agreed with GG then, and I still do, but if I was forced to make a guess, I’d say the metal on this carriage is bronze. To me, highly polished bronze has a more pale, lighter colored appearance than polished brass, which seems to have a richer more gold looking tone. Someone might ask how much money I’d be willing to bet on my hunch, and my answer would be that I’d probably go all the way up to a couple bucks.

“The little strips with little screws in them just don't look like English cannon-maker work; at the very least such a strip would be sculptured or radiused and not just a flat strip, unless it was sunk into a groove cut out for the purpose.”
I’m not really arguing against the veracity of this pronouncement (I can’t), but if this sentence is accurate in its assessments, it certainly displays an advanced degree of knowledge about British naval gun carriage manufacturing in the second half of the 19th century.
Is it a specific book that informed you of the work of English artillery carriage craftsmen of this time period, or is it knowledge acquired through empirical observation? I didn’t think that there was a great deal known about Joseph Whitworth’s carriage manufacturing.
Anyway, back to the little bronze strips; I’ve looked at them enlarged, and I’m pretty sure that they are inlet into the wood, meaning that the surface of the wood and bronze are flush with each other. As for “sculptured” or “radiused,” I’m not too clear on what you mean by these terms.
Of course, the reason for these plates were practical, they were intended to prevent wear on the wood from handspikes used in raising the breech of the barrel, but I think Victor has it right, that in this case, its evident that these plates are more decorative than utilitarian.

RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.

Offline cannonmn

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2009, 11:56:04 PM »
Any of this photo-guessing is just that since we can't go out and touch the actual item.  I get a feel from an object, overall then try to break down why I feel that way about it, and sometimes lose fidelity in that part.  But the shiny carriage with the copper alloy trim presented above just all looks newish to me.  Opinion, not fact obviously. 

Another part of this is the smallish iron or steel hardware.  The three bolts or threaded rod, whatever that go through the side pieces don't look proper to me, for even a small naval carriage of the 19th C.

The copper alloy stuff should be a repeat lesson for anyone interested in preserving the value of their antiques, if it has a patina, don't polish it!!!!.  Unfortunately if this yellow metal was really antique, someone has destroyed every indication of that by polishing it.  Even when that's done by unknowing collectors, usually there's some part of the metal they didn't get to, some dent, some scratches, that still contain traces of patination, but I can't see any of that here.

The wheels don't look large enough for that rig.

If I had it in front of me I'd want to flake a little paint off of those bolts and see if they are galvanized underneath, or if they are just allthread rod, or what, but  can't do any of that so I'm at my limit of guesstimating.  I'd also want to lift it up to see what the underside of the large block in the rear looks like.  It should be worn or scratched up just from being moved here and there.   We do that with all portable wooden antique items before making a pronouncement-just another clue.

If I run out of other things to do today (unlikely) I might drop those pix in front of a group of experienced assessors with no comment other than "is the carriage old or not?"


Offline cannonmn

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2009, 02:21:51 AM »
One more thing regarding the general topic of original carriages vs. original tubes vs. collectors.  I've been collecting original tubes for a long time and have talked to many other cannon collectors.  We all seem to be quite happy with original tubes.  There are so few original carriages to be had that the typical collection contains all original tubes mounted on all repro carriages or display stands or nothing (like most of mine.)  So original carriages are very nice to have with an appropriate tube, but the lack of same doesn't detract much from the value of a nice tube. 

The small Whitworth shown is exremely rare, there are probably only a couple of others if that many in private hands worldwide, I'm guessing, so that's really how collectors look at it.  An original carriage would be what we call gravy.


Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2010, 09:23:58 PM »
The other day I came across this photo of another Whitworth gun mounted on an "original" naval rear-chock carriage with bronze strapping and hardware located at the Royal Armories Museum of Artillery, Fort Nelson, Portsmouth, England.

RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.

Offline KABAR2

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2830
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2010, 11:39:28 AM »
The bronze piece on the rear of the cannon is very similar to the one on the Armstrong breech loading cannon

and serves the same function it is a mounting point for the rear sight.


Allen, save and zoom in on the "bronze cap" attached to the breech of this gun, and then let me know if you still think that it might be a breech loader; also take into consideration the elevation screw.

Just reviewed this thread and noticed this, I never meant that it was a breech loader, the bronze ring for the sight IS very much like those on the Armstrong guns
not being part of the gun it could be replaced if damaged I was talking about the method of mounting the rear sight that's all.

Nice find on the cannon & carriage,  the gun looks to be the same model type.
Mr president I do not cling to either my gun or my Bible.... my gun is holstered on my side so I may carry my Bible and quote from it!

Sed tamen sal petrae LURO VOPO CAN UTRIET sulphuris; et sic facies tonituum et coruscationem si scias artficium

Offline Cannoneer

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3950
Re: Whitworth Naval Gun
« Reply #22 on: July 12, 2010, 10:27:05 AM »
Just reviewed this thread and noticed this, I never meant that it was a breech loader, the bronze ring for the sight IS very much like those on the Armstrong guns
not being part of the gun it could be replaced if damaged I was talking about the method of mounting the rear sight that's all.
I knew that you knew that back on 8/23/09

Nice find on the cannon & carriage,  the gun looks to be the same model type.


Allen,
As soon as I saw the photo of the Whitworth from Ft. Nelson I thought back to this thread, and figured that this second pic went a long way in confirming that the Whitworth Co. originally delivered these guns mounted on these rear chock naval carriages.
RIP John. While on vacation July 4th 2013 in northern Wisconsin, he was ATVing with family and pulled ahead of everyone and took off at break-neck speed without a helmet. He lost control.....hit a tree....and the tree won.  He died instantly.

The one thing that you can almost always rely on research leading to, is more research.