False advertising of "Confederate Armstrong Cannons"

[cannonmn]

These ads seem to be cropping up on various online auction sites.  The cannons they are trying to sell, I can guarantee you, came from Nepal recently, and were manufactured in the 1880's and 1890's.  The rifling is the Beulieu system, three grooves, for studded shells.  Many of the shells, of several different sizes,  came back also and were sold in the US at Civil War and antique gun shows, often by a Maryland-based antique dealer.  The typical shell for them is cast iron, 3" diameter, various lengths, and has two rings of three studs each.  The studs can be copper, zinc, or whatever.  There were also a number of smaller-diameter shells imported, and these are about 2.25 inch.

The ads for the cannons are fairly brazen and hopefully no one will get "stung" by them.  You have to be careful about buying any unmarked cannon but especially these.  They may have marks on one trunnion but if so it is typically a two-digit number.

Here are some excerpts from the falsified ads:

Typical ad title:

Two Original US Civil War Bronze Armstrong Cannon!

Part of typical ad description:

"These are almost impossible to find - A pair of British Armstrong Bronze cannons imported to the United States for the Confederacy's use during the Civil War."

I could care less if someone with more money than brains buys these but I'm quite concerned that some honest, average, well-meaning collector will be duped by these ads and make a very bad mistake, and wind up with something that has no relation to American history.

Here's what they look like:

[Double D]

John you are linking to one of you own posts.  It's an important post and deserves more than a link.  Why don't you go back to that post copy it an post here.  You can post it in your original post by clicking on the modify button at the top of your post.  That will ope your original post and you will be able to  paste that other post in here.

If you post your message for us over here, it will make it much simplilier for all of us to see and discuss.

I have some questions for you about the guns, but I am not going to talk to a link.

[cannonmn]

Done.

[GGaskill]

Looks like the carriage in newly made American pattern.

[Artilleryman]

It is a Mountain Howitzer carriage.

[guardsgunner]

Try looking here          http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=103188241   they have been for sale there for about 2 months that I know of.

[KABAR2]

This guy is a broker,  I believe his stuff hails out of Kentucky, the brokered items are all over the U.S. and over seas, gee I wonder what internet wonder who has cannon from all over the world is in Kentucky..........


This IS "THE ANTIQUE CANNON SUPERSTORE!"


http://www.cannonsuperstore.com  (you can open this with internet explore everything else it don't play nice with.)


I'm sure he will claim no knowledge of fraud just being a "BROKER"........

[cannonmn]

It would be interesting to see how they'd answer a question like:

"How can I be sure it was really imported for the Confederacy during the Civil War?"

"What battles were these guns used in during the Civil War?"

"Since they were used in the Civil War, some of the peculiar shells must have been recovered on Civil War battlefields; can you point to some examples in museums?"

Unfortunately they already know who I am, but if anyone else wants to try that, let us know what answers come back, they should be reeeeel interesting!!

[Frank46]

Looks like the origional touch hole has been plugged and then mover further back towards the cascabel. Wouldn't this be dangerous as it may not be safe to fire in that condition?. All we need are some more reports from inexperienced users of these nepali cannons to get seriously injured or even worse. I could be wrong but maybe more knowlegable users of cannons could better say wether or not this would be safe. Frank

[Double D]

I hate Wildblue satellite interent.  Lets see if I can get the whole post uploaded this time

Okay first of all John, I beleive what you are saying. Could you share your knowledge with us.  Convince me what you say is correct.

I am going to use your same questions on you.

What about these two guns make the Nepalese and not Civil war. How can you be sure they were really imported from Nepal?  Don't just say "I know"  Be specific and educate us.

The original vent is still there.  The hole towards the back is for a sight.

[seacoastartillery]

     I just looked through a fascinating book I bought 3 years ago at the big Wannamacker Gun Show in Tulsa, OK.  It is  Treasure is where you find it...The thirty year quest to save the Royal Armory of Nepal, by Christian Cranmer of (International Military Antiques/Atlanta Cutlery).  It's a pictoral history of finding tens of thousands of military arms from pistols to cannon.  There are mountains of Martinis, endless piles of Enfields, cornfields of cannons.  That's right; they ran out of room in the armory so they just threw them out into the fields and speculation has it that crops have been cultivated AROUND the cannon tubes.  I looked at every picture they had and could see none which looked like the two pictured in the ad in question.  However, this observation really doesn't prove anything because the sheer volume of everything boggles the imagination.  Considering that 430 tons of arms were packed up in Nepal, just a very few photos of each representative type were included in the book.  We think cannonm is correct, they most likely were a part of this huge importation.

Tracy and Mike

[cannonmn]

>Could you share your knowledge with us.

I've personally inspected over 100 Nepalese cannons.   Almost all the rifled guns used the Beulieu system.  I noticed that the Nepalese implementation of the Beulieu system seemed to be unique in that their bronze guns had only three grooves, whereas guns of that system made or converted in other countries had six grooves, obviously to better distribute the wear on the grooves.  Some similar guns (3"  bore, 3-groove studded shell Beulieu system) came out of Afghanistan (my company, Springfield Arsenal LLC owns 8 or 9 of them) but they are all steel.

The more definitive way to "prove" it would be to get someone more familiar with Armstrong's production to assure you that Sir W.G. Armstrong's company never made a 3-groove bronze cannon.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they didn't make bronze guns at all, but I don't know that much about Armstrong.

If you want more proof, talk to any of the many Civil War artillery projectile experts and ask them how many studded shells of the Beulieu type have been recovered from Civil War battlefields.  They will tell you, I have no doubt, that there are none.  Some CW shell experts have shown and described them on their websites to educate collectors as to what they really are.  They are identified as either French or Spanish shells, and I don't think any of those folks will tell you they were ever used on American soil.

[Victor3]

 I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could shell out $89K for anything on an internet auction without first inspecting the item in person and have documentation that it's exactly as described.

 Do people actually bid, or are such auctions just cheap advertizing?

 Note that the seller does offer free shipping if you buy the pair

[Double D]

Thanks, John that's what I was looking for  Experts such as your self often make statements like you did and just assume the rest of us understand.  We don't.  Thanks for explaining.

Would the absence of markings also support your postion. Were all Civil war era cannons marked?

Could Armstrong have made bronze smooth bores that were later rifled. Wasn't rifling a smooth bores and practice during the that time period?

[cannonmn]

>Were all Civil war era cannons marked?

The vast majority on both sides were marked distinctively, but I think if you go into the popular books by Olmstead and others, yoiu will find a few exceptions.

>Could Armstrong have made bronze smooth bores that were later rifled.

Anything is possible but since I don't know much about Armstrong I'll have to leave the question for someone who does.

>Wasn't rifling a smooth bores and practice during the that time period?

Yes very much so.  The James Rifle was a name given to both older smoothbores that were later rifled, as well as new-made guns that were rifled at the factory.  The British, Spanish, French and probably others rifled a large number of older guns, many dating from the late 18th C.  The Spanish and French rifled their guns on the 6-groove Beulieu system

[cannonmn]

Since you mentioned it, here are some pix of an M1841 heavy 12-pounder gun that was rifled for experiments.  It has 18 grooves RH twist, but some with 12 grooves survive.  The gun shown is well-travelled.  It was first documented (this century) as having been one of eight heavy 12's inspected in the basement of Ford's Theater, Washington DC, by Edwin Olmstead.  I first saw it in a Miami antique dealer's shop in 1975.  Then it went to a collector in Key West FL. where I saw it in 1987. Then a Civil War dealer bought it and sold it to a collector in PA, where these pictures were taken.  I definitely saw the same gun in these different places, I remembered the rifling and the registry number, as well as the missing vent bouch which was a very distinctive feature (it has a brass one now but that's not correct.)  How many cannons have you seen with only the large empty threaded hole for the vent bouch? 

This particular gun is also well-documented as one of the pieces studied in William Wade's interesting 1856 report "Report on the Manufacture of Bronze Cannon" available as Antique Ordnance Publishers report no. 19.  That report notes that the tensile strength of the bronze in this gun is 29,739 psi.  The density is 8.765.  The gun was cast on May 20, 1850, using 1862 lbs. of Cliff Mine copper and 232 lbs. of tin, plus bronze consisting of 1379 lbs. of gun heads, and 527 lbs. of chips.  Total charge of metal listed as 4010 lbs.  It took 3 hrs. 25 minutes to melt it, and the molten metal was held in fusion for 13 minutes before pouring.  This is Army gun registry no. 17, Ames foundry no. 47.  There were small bars of bronze cast separately but within the same mold that were tested, and the results of those tests are also given in the report. 

[Double D]

Thanks John, you have educated us a whole bunch!

[KABAR2]

From everything I have seen on the subject of Armstrong cannon I have yet to find anything supporting the manufacture of Bronze guns,
that and the fact that there would be markings on these guns as to manufacturer I doubt they can give any true provenance to their use or 
existance during the Civil War

Cannonmn, those are some nice photos of the rifled 12 pounder, there is one of those at one of the monuments in Gettysburg I doubt that the park service even knows what it has.

[Double D]

Why are these guns being referred to as Armstrong's, Markings, configuration?

[cannonmn]

Why are these guns being referred to as Armstrong's, Markings, configuration?

I think it is because what I'm calling the "Beulieu" rifling design is somewhat similar to one of the designs used in some Armstrong guns.  I'm fairly sure the rifling groove profile is different from Armstrong's  "shunt" rifling, but you'd have to look hard to tell the difference.  I'm probably misusing the term "Beulieu" if that system only includes the six-groove pattern, but the Nepalese rifled guns use a very similar system, just with three grooves instead of six.  If memory serves, the big Armstrong 150 pounder at West Point has the "shunt" rifling design.  Maybe Seacoast will clarify, I'm sure they know more about that one than I do.

[seacoastartillery]

     We have studied this big Armstrong rifle at both West Point and Fort Fisher.  There are many interesting features on this Seacoast Gun, but one which really catches your eye is the very unique rifling configuration.  The shell above was on loan to Ft. Fisher by the Naval Historical Center when we made arrangements to study the gun for four days in Dec. of 2005.  Looking at the shell with its rows of copper studs, you can understand the concern of the gun's designer about how difficult it would be for a gun crew  to align such a heavy shell at the muzzle before ramming, with all of it's studs projecting, while under fire.  Kind of like trying to shove a Hedgehog down a Badger Hole with the Badger protesting! 

     Armstrong's rifling design was a brilliant solution, although it did complicate the rifling process.  His idea was to allow the projectile to be initially loaded into a deeper groove that we call the "Loading Grove" adjacent to the shallower "Firing Groove".   Axial alignment would not be nearly so critical with this "extra space" for the studs.  These shells and bolt's were "Bore Riders" as are almost all seacoast guns of the era.  In other words, the tops of the studs have some clearance even after being "shunted" from the loading to the firing groves and the diameter of the projectile is centered in the bore as it rides the tops of the "Lands". 

     Now we get to the extremely unique "Shunt" features.  Armstrong solved the rapid loading under fire challenge, but how do you get all those helixed rows of studs to bear on the side of the groove which will force rotatation about the projectile's axis?  His unique solution was what they called a shunt, or in this case a series of shunts.  Probably most of you have seen rail cars "shunted" from the main line to another secondary line or a siding.  Instead of throwing a switch, Armstrong added a unique ramp which rotated the shells into the shallower firing groove just before they reached the bottom of the bore.  That's right, you fellows are among the very few in the world who now know that this 8" seacoast rifle's rifling has two sets of shunts, one at 39" from the muzzle-face, and one much deeper which can be felt, but seen only very faintly with our Cannon camera with it's powerful flash.

     Each of the six grooves is provided with two .35" wide loading grooves each with it's own set of shunts which are at an angle of approx. 37 deg..  The projectile studs follow these loading grooves almost to the "rammed shell" or "loaded position" before shunting, once again, into the "Firing Grooves" which are .36 wide.  The depth of each "Loading Groove" is .128".  The depth of the firing grooves is .098".  The total width of the multi-depth rifling grooves is 1.060" of which .700" is devoted to the equal depth, side by side loading grooves, and .360" is the width of the firing grooves.  The "Bore Diameter" (tops of the lands) measures right at 8.00"

     Well that's about all we have on this big seacoast gun's Armstrong "Shunt Rifling", so if any detail is unclear, please ask us a question.  We will not be releasing our drawing of this tube to the public until after our 1/6th scale re-creation of this elegant brute is into production about three years from now.  Detail carification?  Ask away!!


Regards,

Tracy and Mike

[cannonmn]

Thanks for the explanation.  Nice bore in that gun, let's cook us up some bullets and go shootin'!  You bring the powder, OK?

[seacoastartillery]

     If you get all the permission documents from the Army folks, including their chief "Arborist" whose trees you would be shattering on the way to a Hudson R. splashdown, and if you agree to produce authentic, copper studded, 150 pound projectiles, then we will do our part and produce enough powder for say, three rounds which would be 105 lbs. for full service loads.  At today's prices we would be forced to roll our own powder!  $400 VS. $1,600.

Let us know,

Mike and Tracy

[Double D]

105 lbs of Cannon grade would be $1260 from Powder Inc.  But remember, that includes the hazmat fee!!!

[cannonmn]

OK let's fire blanks, I'll bring the wadding.

[seacoastartillery]

     Thank you Cannonmn; sounds like a better idea.  As you know, we are slaves to authenticity; we have plenty of willows for making charcoal here in Colorado, sulfur is easy to get, but we were not looking forward to collecting "leeching soil" from dirt floor stables or scraping bat guano off of cave walls for saltpeter production.  Yuk.

M&T

[intoodeep]

Ok Guys,

 If you stick with the original plans.  I'll spring for the hazmat fee. That should help equal things out a little . Only condition is I get to watch.....

P.S.- I'm not holding any pie plates.....



 

[Cannoneer]

West Point has a three inch Armstrong steel muzzle loading rifle in their collection. This barrel was manufactured by Armstrong's Elswick Ordnance Company in 1864 and is rifled with three grooves with a right hand twist. Does anyone on the forum have a photo of this cannon?

[A.Roads]

Some contemporary info & modern notes on the very interesting "Shunt"rifling system:
When a gun is being loaded the shot's studs fit easily into the deep part of the groove in the muzzle, with a play of .025″. When the shot has reached the distance of 33 ½ inches down the bore,  it meets with a sudden incline, by which the shot is shunted into a manouver groove in continuation of the shallow part at the muzzle.  Down this part of the groove the shot travels until it reaches its seat. When the gun is fired,  the studs bearing against the driving edge of the groove do not turn off- when they come to the Shunt. At 24 ½ inches from the muzzle the driving side of the grooves becomes gradually shallower. The incline is 14 inches long, and there is a difference of .03″ between the top & bottom,  consequently the studs which had a play of .025″ are now compressed .005″,  and under this compression, it travels through the remainder of the bore - a distance of 10 ½ inches. There is a little additional shunt in one of the grooves at the bottom of the bore where the rifling terminates. This is to bring the studs up to the driving edge before the gun is fired.  There is a lateral play of .15″ of the studs in the groove - the groove being .6″ and the stud .45″.
   
The examination of fired projectiles showed that, in fact, strictly the intended centring action of the shunt grooves did not take place. The greater part of the compression of the copper studs was taken mainly by one row, not all three rows equally. The studs were also discovered to be worn with steps, indicating that they had overridden the grooves and overlapped the lands of the gun’s rifling. The objections to the shunt rifling that led eventually to “Plain Groove” rifling being adopted instead were:
1).   That it was complicated.
2).   It was not found to answer well in practice.
3).   The projectile was gripped at the muzzle when it was at its highest velocity.
4).   The sharp angles at the edges of the grooves rendered the tube liable to split.

[cannonmn]

Thanks to Seacoast and Roads for very interesting photos and info which, I think can tell you without fear of contradiction, is simply not available in any modern published works on ordnance.  I think between the descriptions given by Seacoast and Roads, this post contains the most detailed description of the design and practical operation of the Armstrong shunt rifling system that I've ever seen.