Real or fake, test your skills

[cannonmn]

Back to the repro cannons as pictured below-

I talked to a representative of the Naval Historical Center today, who said these two cannons came from USS CONSTITUTION.  They were reproduced as part of the 1927 restoration of that famous ship.  As I suspected the museum inherited them after the ship got a new set of guns during a later restoration.

He said the guns were cast iron and made like the original guns, so they weigh the same as original guns would.

I'm guessing the straps are there to keep curious people from depressing the barrels and possibly getting hands caught etc.  I don't know what the preponderance of the guns is but it must be little enough to allow some people to depress the barrels, maybe by sitting on the muzzles.

I think since the cannons were aboard CONSTITUTION for I guess many decades, even though they are reproductions, they are in a sense historic objects.  I think they'd be a whole lot more interesting to visitors if a simple sign was posted on them giving the information I got from the Naval Historical Center.

I was sure the guns were iron, but I'm not sure what made me think they were hollow-cast, perhaps because I had heard that many older museum repro cannons were made that way.

[Double D]

I can fully understand the historic value of such reproductions, but some how or another, I cannot see in 100 years fiberglas guns having a similar value.

[Bob Smith]

Now we have the story, it finally makes sense. And I hope you persuade the authorities to put a label on; the public would find the fact they are copies much more interesting than if they were the real thing.

Bob Smith

[cannonmn]

For Bob Smith,
I finally got to the Library of Congress and got the two articles you mentioned above.  Thanks again for recommending them.  I learned a few things from them aside from the latest interpretation of the markings on British iron guns.

I didn't know the weights marked on the guns in the "hundredweight" system (i.e. 56:1:26) were sometimes rounded to the nearest stone or half-stone (14 and 7 lbs. respectively); I thought they were always marked to the exact pound, but the article says otherwise.  That certainly makes sense given that the scales back then weren't as precise as those we have today, and also that fiddling around trying to let the scales or balances settle on an exact pound would take precious time and slow down production.

I always wondered exactly what size of swivel gun was used in the Royal Navy.  It is clear from the article that the RN used the 1/2 pounder exclusively at least during the period covered by the article, as evidenced by the production records of 836 of them, cast by the "Harrison partnership" from 1742 to 1746.  691 of those were cast by the Gloucester foundry, one of several foundries operated by the partnership. 

I do have one question for you though, the mark on the trunnion of the replica gun I posted a picture of is the letter "A" with a crossbar on top.  I did not find that mark in either of the articles, and I thought you had matched the mark to a particular foundry.  If it is in the articles I missed it.  The marks in the article seem to be pure letters with no artsy monograms or embellishments.

I'd recommend those articles to anyone interested in English iron cannons, particularly naval guns.  Carriages are not discussed.