Author Topic: An English Bombard of 1450 (Read 1429 times)

Incitatus · « **on:** March 11, 2007, 08:12:12 AM »

Hi all.

I obtained these plans from the RA and I thought that it would be an interesting project to make a scale model. Unfortunately, though the woodworking is not a problem, creating the barrel is something of a challenge. I was wondering what you folks think and who I might get to do the machining.

I have posted the original dimensions which I suspect could be reduced by a factor of 10. While I wouldn't shoot it much, I would like it to be shootable, I am thinking golfballs.

Take a look and let's discuss.

Don Krag · « **Reply #1 on:** March 12, 2007, 04:45:11 AM »

You could do an exact scale model at 11.3% the original size (for 1.7" bore and .39" powder chamber). If you could find someone with a radius cutter for their lathe, it would be short work.

You could always make a ~2/3 scale and shoot bowling balls.

Looks like a fun project!

Incitatus · « **Reply #2 on:** March 12, 2007, 04:56:42 AM »

Quote from: Don Krag on March 12, 2007, 04:45:11 AM

You could do an exact scale model at 11.3% the original size (for 1.7" bore and .39" powder chamber). If you could find someone with a radius cutter for their lathe, it would be short work.

You could always make a ~2/3 scale and shoot bowling balls.

Looks like a fun project!

Whoa!!!! A response!!!

It could be very fun, I have sort of a thing for medieval artillery. I was in contact with a gentleman who was concerned that the walls were too thin and suggested that I post here to get an opinion. I figure that the powder chamber would hold about 30 grains and that didn't seem excessive to me. There is a lot more material around the powder chamber of this thing than my Colt Army.

Anyhoo ... just standing around, whistling, waiting for the Kool Kids to weigh in.

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #3 on:** March 12, 2007, 05:08:26 AM »

Material from which it's made should be a concern - if well chosen you shouldn't have a problem. The 'thin' walls on the tube are normal - look into the whole concept of COEHORN mortars. Principle dates back to the 1700's. Put your strength where you need it - around the powder chamber.

Don Krag · « **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2007, 06:58:14 AM »

*sniff, sniff*...you mean I'm not in the Kool Klub?

The wall thickness to bore ratio on yours is almost identical to the one I'm making (6" bore medieval mortar). I went with a 2" powder chamber bored into 6" dia 4140 steel. I'll let you know how it works the end of March. If you hear a loud bang followed by a bright spot on the horizon from down around central, TX, you know it didn't work.

Hah...I have every confidence it will work just fine.

Incitatus · « **Reply #5 on:** March 12, 2007, 10:10:39 AM »

Quote from: Don Krag on March 12, 2007, 06:58:14 AM

*sniff, sniff*...you mean I'm not in the Kool Klub?

The wall thickness to bore ratio on yours is almost identical to the one I'm making (6" bore medieval mortar). I went with a 2" powder chamber bored into 6" dia 4140 steel. I'll let you know how it works the end of March. If you hear a loud bang followed by a bright spot on the horizon from down around central, TX, you know it didn't work. Hah...I have every confidence it will work just fine.

Don, they don't cqall you "Stumpy" by any chance, do they? If not I am sure that it will be fine.

Actually it occured to me that all that needs to be done is to increase the size a bit and maintain the bore and powder chamber dimensions.

And, yes, you are a Kool Kid

Having said that, I trust you will still talk to me.

Don Krag · « **Reply #6 on:** March 13, 2007, 04:34:41 AM »

Hah...nope, no stumpy nicknames. I generally make up for it with lacerations and burns from knifemaking hobbies, though. I'm almost 40, but my kids still think I'm Kooool!:P Our youngest is the funny one. He absolutely loves the "guns". "More guns daddy, more guns"...he yells every time I take one out to proof test it.

I printed out the schematics you posted. Looks like a cool design. I have something similar planned for a barrel, but I really liked the carriage plans. Those were from the Royal Armoury at Leeds? Was it from a specific book of theirs? I have an office mate over in manchester right now....I can send him on up to leeds to pick up a copy if it's one of their publications! Books with plans are great. A buddy down here has a book...somthing and Rammers ( I can't remember the name) and it had schematics with all the peices for quite a few napoleonic through CW artillery peices.

Incitatus · « **Reply #7 on:** March 13, 2007, 05:01:56 AM »

Quote from: Don Krag on March 13, 2007, 04:34:41 AM

Hah...nope, no stumpy nicknames. I generally make up for it with lacerations and burns from knifemaking hobbies, though. I'm almost 40, but my kids still think I'm Kooool!:P Our youngest is the funny one. He absolutely loves the "guns". "More guns daddy, more guns"...he yells every time I take one out to proof test it.

I printed out the schematics you posted. Looks like a cool design. I have something similar planned for a barrel, but I really liked the carriage plans. Those were from the Royal Armoury at Leeds? Was it from a specific book of theirs? I have an office mate over in manchester right now....I can send him on up to leeds to pick up a copy if it's one of their publications! Books with plans are great. A buddy down here has a book...somthing and Rammers ( I can't remember the name) and it had schematics with all the peices for quite a few napoleonic through CW artillery peices.

I've got a pretty big arms and armor library and there are some publications with plans. I'm not very interested in gunpowder weapons that come from the time when they were less likely to explode

I think you are referring to Roundshot and Rammers.

The thing from the RA is a single sheet. They evidentially have had a number of these things drawn over the years but this is the only one (I understand) that depicts an early cannon. If you let me know what you are interested in I can poke around and see what plans I have. Also, I will post a connection to the Ordnance Society. You should check those good people out.

Don Krag · « **Reply #8 on:** March 13, 2007, 05:45:15 AM »

Got any drawings of Maximillian's guns? Specifically...I'm trying to get info on this one:
http://www.graybeardoutdoors.com/smf/index.php/topic,108471.0.html

From the best I've found, it's ~1.9" bore, ~58" long barrel. I've emailed the museum a couple times for info on it, but have yet to get a response. I have the barrel worked out well based on a couple pics and I'm going for 1.7 (golfball bore), but the carraige is what I'm curious about. Is this original...is it repro of original...is it victorian remake....questions, questions, questions!

Most everything I do is pre-1600. It's always nice to meet another "early" person! Any good reference books you could recommend? I have quite a few, but am always looking for more!

Incitatus · « **Reply #9 on:** March 13, 2007, 06:15:11 AM »

Quote from: Don Krag on March 13, 2007, 05:45:15 AM

Got any drawings of Maximillian's guns? Specifically...I'm trying to get info on this one:
http://www.graybeardoutdoors.com/smf/index.php/topic,108471.0.html

From the best I've found, it's ~1.9" bore, ~58" long barrel. I've emailed the museum a couple times for info on it, but have yet to get a response. I have the barrel worked out well based on a couple pics and I'm going for 1.7 (golfball bore), but the carraige is what I'm curious about. Is this original...is it repro of original...is it victorian remake....questions, questions, questions!

Most everything I do is pre-1600. It's always nice to meet another "early" person! Any good reference books you could recommend? I have quite a few, but am always looking for more!

No need to clutter up the thread. PM me your email and I'll make some suggestions.

I will take a look at the literature that I have.

Double D · « **Reply #10 on:** March 13, 2007, 06:40:12 AM »

Clutter the thread by all means, we are all listening...

Incitatus · « **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2007, 06:48:49 AM »

Quote from: Don Krag on March 13, 2007, 05:45:15 AM

Got any drawings of Maximillian's guns? Specifically...I'm trying to get info on this one:
http://www.graybeardoutdoors.com/smf/index.php/topic,108471.0.html

From the best I've found, it's ~1.9" bore, ~58" long barrel. I've emailed the museum a couple times for info on it, but have yet to get a response. I have the barrel worked out well based on a couple pics and I'm going for 1.7 (golfball bore), but the carraige is what I'm curious about. Is this original...is it repro of original...is it victorian remake....questions, questions, questions!

Most everything I do is pre-1600. It's always nice to meet another "early" person! Any good reference books you could recommend? I have quite a few, but am always looking for more!

hmmm ... looks familiar.

I own this:

It is:
64" long (not including the tang)
1.06" bore
32 pounds +/-

I am pretty sure that wall guns such as this were converted to very light artillery. There is an "Amussette" in the RA that looks pretty darn close.

GGaskill · « **Reply #12 on:** March 13, 2007, 08:40:30 AM »

somthing and Rammers

Round Shot and Rammers is available from South Bend Replicas and is worth your $20.

Double D · « **Reply #13 on:** March 13, 2007, 08:53:30 AM »

www.abebooks.com has round shot and Rammers in hard cover starting at $10 going to all the way $163.

Incitatus · « **Reply #14 on:** March 13, 2007, 09:07:17 AM »

Quote from: Double D on March 13, 2007, 06:40:12 AM

Clutter the thread by all means, we are all listening...

You Kool Kids have no shame.

In any event, I have exerpted those books and articles that deal with early gunpowder weapons and have uploaded an xls file here:
http://www.mediamax.com/incitatus/Hosted/medievalartillery.xls

A few notes. This list is very comprehensive regarding references from the Journal of the Ordnance Society, there it is complete and current. It covers most of the run of the Journal of the Arms and Armour Society. Some of the references are a bit arcane and might be difficult to find, particularly the issue "Guns From the Sea". Clephan's "Ordnance of the 14th and 15th Centuries" is pretty difficult to get a hold of, the RA doubtless have a copy, the Watson Library at the Met do not. Forget about the Higgins.

The cut off for these references is about the year 1500 +/- therefore the excellet monograph by Abbot on CW ordnance is not included, neither are the excellent works by Dickey & George on CW projectiles. Similarly I have not included collection catalogs, notably the wonderful inventory of the RA nor the catalog of the Visser Collection. These contain early ordnance examples but the weight of their contents tends to be later.

In terms of "Goodness" I think that the works by my cyber-buddy Bob Smith are superb. For a good overview of the really cool stuff grasp onto "Mons Meg and Her Sisters". For a good feeling of the age as well as a comprehensive catalog, "The Artillery of the Dukes of Burgandy" is terriffic (BTW, Bob is Head Conservator at the RA and also founder of the Ordnance Society).

Though Clephan's stuff is rather old, he probably has written the best on ancient gunpowder weapons. His "An Outline of the History and Development of Hand Firearms, From the Earliest Period to About the End of the Fifteenth Century" is a must if you are interested in this stuff. He characterizes the classic Brit Gentleman Scholar. Old school and thorough. A note on this book. It regularly appears on ebay as well as on various rare book searches. Regardless of what the sellers say, if it is bound in yellowish-brown linen it is a reprint from the 1940's. There is one page that identifies it as such which is very easily removed. The rest of the book is a pretty good photo-offset copy of the original.

Dana's paper on Early Cannon is actually available on-line from our buddies at Google
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN142237260X&id=OVULAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA4-PA147&lpg=RA4-PA147&ots=x7sre7ZPK2&dq=dana+notes+on+cannon&sig=ccAetQWSyc_9h7MY4K4s_J6WK7c

That's about it, for the moment.

Don Krag · « **Reply #15 on:** March 13, 2007, 09:10:54 AM »

Yep, that's the book, abebooks is a valuble resource! I should own stock in them by now with all I've bought.

With regards to lathework and the original topic......do you live near a university? I often go to surplus auctions and have got to know several machine shop and physics dept guys from the university. They're always looking for something fun to do. Local astronomy clubs will often have a few guys with medium sized lathes as well. Just a few thoughts.

Incitatus · « **Reply #16 on:** March 27, 2007, 03:13:09 PM »

Quote from: Cat Whisperer on March 12, 2007, 05:08:26 AM

Material from which it's made should be a concern - if well chosen you shouldn't have a problem. The 'thin' walls on the tube are normal - look into the whole concept of COEHORN mortars. Principle dates back to the 1700's. Put your strength where you need it - around the powder chamber.

What would be a good material?

GGaskill · « **Reply #17 on:** March 27, 2007, 05:43:25 PM »

If you stick to golf balls, almost anything would be adequate material; their low mass precludes dangerous pressures with all but the most absurd charges. Since one pound lead balls are almost exactly the same size as golf balls, it is a good idea to be prepared for the worst. 1018 should be plenty adequate; 4140 is better but harder to machine, and much harder to weld well, although that design requires no welding.

Squire Robin · « **Reply #18 on:** March 28, 2007, 05:44:42 AM »

Does this look like a bombard from 1450 ?

Squire Robin · « **Reply #19 on:** March 28, 2007, 05:55:52 AM »

Perhaps that barrel in the line drawing looks a bit more like howitzer than bombard? Might need more of the narrow bit and less of the wide

I think the bombard depended on the stave of wood over the powder to push the ball, the powder didn't push the ball directly.

Wooden wedges hammered in from the front held the ball in place while the slow burning powder got up to a useable pressure.

best regards

Squire Robin