Rifled breechloading boat howitzer, I think

[cannonmn]

This tube is about 5 feet long, has a rifled 3.4 in. bore, and is functionally a "strap gun" breechloader.  When the barrel is depressed the strap remains horizontal since it is attached to the elev. screw of the gun (lower end held in a bearing in the carriage.)  The breech door can be opened as soon as it clears the strap.  Breech door is pivoted at bottom.  Fixed ammo (projectile with powder bag attached) is inserted, then the barrel raised again to close the door and lock the breech.  Ignore the "carriage" which is some piece of farm wagon junk.  The piece has an underloop and is meant to mount on the light Dahlgren boat howitzer carriage in place of the smoothbore m/l tube. 

No one told me any of that, I made it up, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct.

Unfortunately, I've never seen any documentation regarding this experimental rig.  I do know a 12-pdr smoothbore mate to this rifle was made, since I saw it in the same museum collection.  There are no marks anywhere.  I was a bit surprised to see that when a keeper bolt was needed, the designer of these guns used a two-holed spanner wrench drive instead of hex nuts or whatever.  I can't recall seeing spanner-driven bolts on anything else this early.  I'm guessing this is early 1870's, but have no way to tell for sure until some paper trail is found.  Anyone have any info to share?

If anyone knows how they got the trunnion band onto this tube, please tell me.  There's a forged or machined-in flange in front of the band to keep the barrel from slipping out in recoil.  The breech area has lots of projections which are much too large to go thru the band in the other direction.

[cannonmn]

It bears sort of a family resemblance to what's pictured in this 1861 H.F. Mann patent, but I'm not positive that Mann designed it.  Maybe some years after he patented this design, he made some "adaptations" to make it work on a boat howitzer carriage, I don't know.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=ff1tAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=breech+loading+ordnance&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[cannonmn]

An interesting point to note regarding Mann's patents (the one linked below is the second one I've found) is that he doesn't seem to have used any type of shoulder to take the strain of firing off of the "strap" or stirrup as he calls it, so that strap is always massive in his designs.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=PkhfAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=breech+loading+ordnance&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

The neat thing about the design you can see in my photos above is the shoulders on either side of the breech, which should take all of the stress off of the strap between them and the trunnions.  That's why the strap gets much thinner in that area, since it only has to support pivoting the barrel, and not the stress caused by chamber pressure pushing on the breechblock.

In fact now I'm thinking the shoulders and the breech door are part of someone else's patent, one I still need to find!

[Cannoneer]

Cannonmn,

Is that the vent? There are numbers on the rear of the barrel; what are they?

[dominick]

If anyone knows how they got the trunnion band onto this tube, please tell me.  There's a forged or machined-in flange in front of the band to keep the barrel from slipping out in recoil.  The breech area has lots of projections which are much too large to go thru the band in the other direction.

Cannonmn,  It appears as if the loop and trunnion band is split at the bottom.  Is that so, or is it the photo?

[Cannoneer]

Dominick,

I thought I saw the same thing on that photo, so I went and looked at a slideshow Cannonmn has posted on the CMH forum, and it shows a photo of the other (smoothbore) cannon on the floor with the under barrel lug/loop shown to good advantage; most of the paint is missing, showing the oxidized surface of the metal, and there is no visible seam there, so unless the rifled version is made differently, that's not a seam.

[cannonmn]

Is that the vent? There are numbers on the rear of the barrel; what are they?

Yes, that's the vent coming out of breech plug at about a 45 deg. angle.  Those white marks looked like white grease pencil to me so I ignored them, will be able to check again tomorrow.

[cannonmn]

Here are more photos of the inverted smoothbore.

http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums42/?action=view&current=c528a8f8.pbw

[cannonmn]

From 1925 Bannerman catalog:

[GGaskill]

Those were the days, although the prices in today's debased money wouldn't seem so cheap.

[Cannoneer]

 Is it getting more reasonable to think that these two Henry Mann experimental breechloaders are the only two of this configuration that exist?

[cannonmn]

I believe that now that I see the Bannerman's text.  The fact that they included the funds spent for these tells me they had some very
specific info on that project, and when they say only two were made, I tend to believe it.  I've never seen another, nor (unfortunately) have I ever run across so much as one word of info on these, until I found the Bannerman's writeup.

I also know the owner of the resort where these things were was known to do most of his cannon shopping on Bannerman's Island.

[Victor3]

"If anyone knows how they got the trunnion band onto this tube, please tell me."

 Looking at the cutaway view in figure 1 of H.F Mann's patent, you can see  dotted lines in the cross-hatched area above and below the bore, aft of the step in the middle of the barrel (this step is also seen in figure 3). Are those dotted lines showing the top and bottom of the strap on the far side of the barrel, or something else Looking at Figure 3, it appears that the front ends of the straps extend too far fwd of the step in the barrel to be what the lines are depicting. It might just be a crummy drawing though.

 These dotted lines could be there to show that the rear portion of the barrel is turned down and inserted into the breech area, shouldering at the step. The breech area (aft of the step) may be a separate outer sleeve into which the strap mounts and other features are cast/machined.

 Maybe the boat howitzer you show is made similarly, with the joint between the front and rear sections of the barrel concealed at the band. The band may even be integral with the rear breech section. Hard to tell from the pics.

 If the above is correct, you may be able to see where the inner barrel 'liner' meets the outer breech 'sleeve' when you open it up.

[cannonmn]

These dotted lines could be there to show that the rear portion of the barrel is turned down and inserted into the breech area, shouldering at the step. The breech area (aft of the step) may be a separate outer sleeve into which the strap mounts and other features are cast/machined.

Victor, that's possible I guess, however here's my take on the top figure in the Nov '61 patent.  The dotted lines you refer to, outside of the bore area but kind of outlining it for rear part of barrel, are for the strap location.  That's the only indication of where the strap is on that view, so IMO it has to be the strap.  The location of the dotted lines corresponds to where the strap is shown in other views.

Also, keep in mind that that patent is for a significantly different variation from the two pieces at the auction, which both have shoulders to transfer loads from thick rear part of strap to the barrel.  The patent shows no bottom-hinged breech plug or door as in the auction pieces.  It may be that the auction pieces were Mann's first design, and he found he had to have the breech plug "headspace" adjustment screw due to heating expansion, so all his subsequent patents show that feature.

I need to keep looking for an earlier patent I guess.   Google patents doesn't seem to have any earlier patent than the Nov '61, so I need to look at USPTO site for an earlier one by Mann which better matches the boat howitzers.

[Cannoneer]

I tried to find some different Mann cannon patents, but other than the two that you turned up, the only other ordnance related patent I could find was this one.

  Henry F. Mann Patent

[cannonmn]

Thanks.

I did find that the National Archives has a file, something like "the proposals of Henry F. Mann and Charles T. Ames for various ordnance" covering the years 1862-73.  This is within Record Group[ 156, records of the Chief of Ordnance USA, so it might not have anything "Navy" anyway.  Within that group it has a series number of something like 985, can't recall precisely.  But I'm not sure these boat howitzers were intended for the Navy, Mann could have just wanted to make use of the boat howitzer carriage design.  It'll be at least a few days before I can get a look at that file.

In case no one has mentioned it yet, Mann was associated with McCormack Farm equipment, and apparently designed some of the machinery they sold.

[cannonmn]

Assuming these two pieces date from ca. 1860, I wonder if they were the first full-sized all-steel breechloading cannons made in the US?  I say "full sized" because as we know hundreds if not thousands of working models (prototype models, patent models) were made in the US duiring the 19thC. and some may have been steel.

Since steel production was in its infancy at that time, and steel was quite expensive, I wonder where those guns were cast?  The Washington Navy Yard cast some rifled steel boat howitzers as an experiment in 1863 (I may have posted a photo of one at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard here a few months ago) but I have no idea whether the Wash. Navy Yard had much of a connection to these two guns, other than perhaps having been the site for testing.

[cannonmn]

Some of Mann's testimony in the 1880's, before the "Logan Board."

"Now, to go back. In 18ß2 I brought to the city of Washington a 3- iuch breech-loading steel field-piece, that was fired here at Battery Fox under the direction of Admiral Dahlgren 437 times. There is a representation of that field piece [exhibiting photographs of the gun]. During the firing, when the men who had charge of the gun were down in the hollow, the officer in charge and myself sitting in a tent on the hill near by in conversation—it was a hot July afternoon—and the gun was flred 96 rounds in 70 minutes without interruption ; that is, without any interruption of the working of the gun whatever ; and the men who fired the gun afterwards said if they had known we were noting the time they could have fired it three times as fast—96 rounds in 76 minutes. Upon this successful trial of that field gun to that extent I accepted an order from Admiral Dahlgren for an 8-inch breech-loader rifle, to be made on the same plan. Mind you, this was in 1862, when there was no 8-inch rifle of any kind in this country that was known to be reliable. I took a contract to make that gun at my own risk and responsibility. The gun was made and completed in September, 1863, and here are photographs [exhibiting photographs of the 8-inch gun] of the gun as it was fired on the proving-ground, an 8-iuch gun made in 1863 and tested."

The full report is here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=rXYDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP7#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I'd like to find the images he presented showing the gun tested under supervision of Adm. Dahlgren in 1862.  Mann said it was a 3" bore, I wonder if 21 years or so could have clouded his memory and it was really one two I'm studying?

Skimming quickly over Mann's testimony a lot of it appears to be "dirty laundry" within the ordnance department, which he was airing in front of a Congressional committee to enhance his own stature, or discredit the department.  It looks like he had a particular desire to discredit Col. Crispin.

There are lots of interesting drawings in the book linked above, mostly after about page 130.   The drawings before that are mostly fold-out plates, and as you may know, Google doesn't take time to fold them out so you can only see the edge of the page and usually only 10% of the image if that much.

[cannonmn]

These may be Moffatt howitzers, not Mann.  I was still bothered by why the howitzers were functionally different from Mann's patents.  I also thought it strange that Mann never mentioned these items in his Congressional testimony.  Today I decided to try to find the weapons in the large volume of Miscellaneous Guns at various Navy yards, which was apparently compiled about 1865-1890 or so.  Here's a very interesting page showing two 12 pdr. howitzers, steel, breechloadiing, one smooth and one rifled, received from the South Boston Iron Co. in Feb. 1877.  These are on a page showing items at the Boston Navy Yard.  It also references several letters to Moffatt.  Here are the images of that page and a cropped section of it.  Now I'll go Moffatt hunting!




Here's the direct link to the cropped image, since it is barely legible the way it is displayed on this site.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums42/RG74E113etcRG181b150a.jpg

[cannonmn]

Well this is more like it.  This Moffatt patent shows the bottom-hinged breech door.  I don't see the sharp shoulder cut in the breech to take the stress off the strap, but since it was many years between this patent and the time the howitzers were made, Moffat could well have improved his design.   The patent also shows Moffatt wasn't relying on normal trunnion location to connect the gun to the carriage.  Another improvement must have been his change over to the underloop vice the pintle mounting shown in this patent drawing.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=GFhwAAAAEBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=r.r.+moffat&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[cannonmn]

I just read the patent description, and the lugs on the breech are shown in the figure by P-P.  The description specifically mentions that the lugs cast onto the breech take the strain created by firing, off of the breech strap.  To me, this is the most important distinction between Moffat's  and Mann's patents.  Mann always has to use huge, heavy breech straps that bear the entire force exerted on the breech plug, and ordnance officers always objected to this.

[Cannoneer]

Eureka! Good detective work, Cannonmn. By the patent drawing you posted, I'd say R. R. Moffatt seems to be the more likely father of those twins. To me, the designs of the breech mechanisms themselves, (the Mann patent drawings)  seemed even more problematic than the breech strap construction.
Do you know what names Moffatt's initials represent?

[cannonmn]

Do you know what names Moffatt's initials represent?

There's a Richard R. Moffatt I've seen other references to, but he was from Brooklyn, NY.  Maybe same guy who moved?  Good question anyway, since the more names you have, the more info you can find. 

Here's an excerpt showing an R.R. Moffatt from Brooklyn, NY.  I don't know exactly what his heavy ordnance proposal was for but I ran across another reference saying one of them was for lining the barrels of cannon with different materials to reduce heat transfer or whatever.

http://books.google.com/books?id=s9CgAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA171&ots=lqAeC11NG7&dq=%22r.r.%20moffatt%22%20ordnance&pg=PA171#v=onepage&q=%22r.r.%20moffatt%22%20ordnance&f=false

[Cannoneer]

Here's a patent for "Consrtuction of Ordnance" for Richard R. Moffatt of Brooklyn, New york, 1875.

 http://www.google.com/patents?id=Fu4_AAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=R.R.+Moffatt+Ordnance&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[cannonmn]

Thanks.  Both were signed using the syntax R.R. Moffatt, although it looks like first patent was physically signed by his attorney, preventing signature comparison.  Probably the same person.

[KABAR2]

Cannonmn, I would say your on the right track, the patent drawing for the muzzle loading ordnance have the same angled
touch hole/vent as the breech loaders, seems to be sort of a signature.

[cannonmn]

Good observation Allen, the man did seem to like his vents at that angle.

[cannonmn]

Last winteir while I was at the National Archives looking up info on models, I took thousands of digital pix of info I might need in the future, especially any indexes of reports of testing of cannons.  I just looked through the pix and found what I need to locate a test report on Moffat's gun.  He must have submitted a full-sized cannon in the early 1860's, well before the two boat howitzers were delivered by South Boston Iron Co.  (1877.) 

Here are the photos, which will save me many hours when I get back to the archives.   All i'll have to do now is have the ledgers containing the actual reports of the tests pulled out.  This information is filed chronologically so it shouldn't be hard to find.

I'll also look for test reports for 1877-78, which I don't think I got into last time.

 



Here's the direct link to the handwritten page so it is more legible.  You can see that at least Moffat's gun is in good company on that page-the Gatling gun is toward the bottom.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums42/ArchivesRG74Inventions366.jpg

[cannonmn]

I just found some information on a 6-inch Army howitzer which Moffatt had built for the Army.  As you can see the breech mechanism is nearly identical to those on the two smaller howitzers.  The Army piece was also built at the South Boston Iron Co.

Link to the brief Army report:  http://books.google.com/books?id=svYRAAAAYAAJ&lpg=RA7-PA649&ots=FAKmZNJnYa&dq=moffatt%20howitzer&pg=RA7-PA649#v=onepage&q=moffatt%20howitzer&f=false

[cannonmn]

Something on Capt. Moffatt from the Abraham Lincoln papers in the Lib. of Congress, via the American Memory website:

Log-book.

From Norman Eastman to Abraham Lincoln1, June 1862

1 Eastman was a clerk in the General Land Office.

Sir:—

In behalf of the surviving, and in fact, sole inventor, Capt. R. R. Moffatt, of La Crosse, Wis I wish to call your attention to the accompanying model of a Breech Loading Cannon—

The working of this Gun is so obvious to the most common mind, that it will hardly be necessary to refer you to the accompanying engraving and description—

The principal distinguishing features of this Gun, are, its simplicity of construction, its ease of working, and the ease with which its working parts can be kept clean. A common field piece of 6 or 12 lb. caliber, can be handled by two men. This advantage, is one, the importance of which is obvious to all.

The great desideratum, so long sought for in a “Breech Loading Cannon”; viz: “a perfect prevention of the escape of Gas,” is here attained, as perfectly, it is believed, as is possible for human ingenuity to accomplish it, and at the same time secure ease of working and rapidity of handling In these respects it is believed to be immeasurably superior to any Gun in existence.

The rapidity with which this Gun can be safely fired — twenty times per minute, by three men, shows its superior value, in every respect, over every known Gun, for use in fortifications, and on vessels of war—

The men who handle this Gun are safe from the many accidents which occur to those who handle muzzle loading Guns.

Finally, the ease with which the Breech Piece can be detached, and the Gun made useless in case of abandonment to the enemy, is worthy of notice

I might here stop, believing as I do, that all I claim for this Gun, will be apparent to you upon even a casual inspection of this model. However, one of these Guns, roughly made, has been partially tested, first at Chicago, Ill., next at Madison, Wis., & finally by order of the Ordnance Bureau at West Point.

To the following extracts from the statements of the various persons & officers, who witnessed these partial tests, I would most respectfully invite your attention, and more particularly to those of Major Smith, formerly of West Point, now of the 12th Infantry, & of Capt S. V. Benet, now of West-Point. As to the test at Chicago, see the statements of officers in accompanying Circular— As to the test at Madison, — Maj. R. S. Smith, says—

“I have carefully examined this Canon, and in strength, simplicity of construction, lightness, capability of rapid discharge without heating, it appears to me to combine all that is required in field artillery. Among its peculiar advantages are the great security from accidents to the small number of men working it; its total uselessness after removing the Breech-piece, & the perfect ease with which it can be unspiked.

J. H. McFarland, State Armorer, Madison, Wis, says —

After firing it sixty eight times — “I believe the principle, & working of the Gun to be perfect and successful in all respects.”

The late Gov. S. P. Harvey, pronounced the above “to be high authority” with him” — & certified that McFarland was State Armorer.

Col. B. Allen. Col. 16th Reg't. Wis. Vol's. witnessed the trial of the Gun in McFarland's hands — he says —

“I have no hesitation in pronouncing it a great improvement in Breech Loading Guns — & I see no reason why it should not prove a very valuable & successful arm for military purposes.”—

Col. Hans C. Heg, Col. 15th Reg't Wis. Vol's. & late State Prison Com'r.

“ A. G. Maloy, Lt. Col. 17th “ “ &

Maj. Thos McMahon, Maj “ “ “ all unite in recommending it to the favorable consideration of the Ordnance Department at Washington—

Hon. E. D. Campbell, late Lt. Gov. of Wis, who knows the inventor well, after endorsing at that had been said of it by the others — says: —

“The last but by no means the least of its good qualities is the fact of the almost entire safety of the cannoniers while loading, there being no danger from a premature discharge, and the far less liability to danger from the enemy's sharp shooters—”

Augustus Gaylord, Adj Gen'l for Wis, says —

The exhibition of a new “Breech Loading Cannon” in this City by Capt. R. R. Moffatt, has been of the most satisfactory character. The extreme simplicity of its construction — the ease & rapidity with which it may be discharged, & the entire freedom from difficulties by expansion or escapage of Gas, promise an effective arm for Artillery service, & render it in my opinion worthy the attention of Government.” “I most cheerfully recommend Capt Moffatt to the favorable consideration of any interested in this branch of Military Service.”

The Members of the Legislature of Wisconsin, having witnessed the various tests of this Gun, made under the Superintendance of J. H. McFarland, State Armorer, passed the following Joint Resolution—

Resolved — by the Assembly, the Senate concurring —

That the experiments here made in firing the “Moffat Breech Loading Cannon” have been eminently successful. And, in view of the testimony adduced from Military men, to the utility of the invention, that the same be, & is hereby recommended to the War Department for such other or final tests as are by the laws of the United States authorized to be made at the public expense, under the supervision of the Ordnance Bureau”.

The Ordnance Bureau having ordered the Gun tested at West Point, the only one now constructed was taken there from the West, by Capt. Moffatt. The Gun being a roughly constructed one, & there being no projectiles at hand to fit its bore, the test was a partial one — with blank cartridges — only testing the working of the breech arrangements, without any regard to its strength. The officer in charge, in his report to his superior, gives a description of the Gun, & the manner in which it operates. Not having tested it as to its strength, he expresses no opinion as to its merits— However, he speaks very commendatory of it in several respects—

Capt. S. V. Benet — of West-Point, to Brig. Gen'l J. W. Ripley, says —

“Seventy-two rounds were fired — the last sixty without cleaning the Gun at all — the breech arrangements fouled very much, though not enough to prevent its free & easy working. The last nine (9) rounds were fired in twenty-seven (27) seconds — one man loading, & two men priming & firing— x x x The Gun has this advantage, that the parts can be kept clean by the occasional use of a wet sponge. x x x x The invention is simple, easily repaired if deranged or broken — its strength depends on the strength of the wrought-iron breeching or strap that holds the cone in place”—

Capt. Benet was inclined to admit the feasibility of this invention for field Guns, while he doubted the ability to construct, the breeching of sufficient strength for Guns of large Caliber. The inventor thinks there need be no apprehension on this score. The great question was to make the Gun light enough for field service & yet have the breeching sufficiently strong—

I would, most respectfully ask what Breech Loading Cannon there is in existence that will bear discharging Sixty (60) rounds in succession without cleaning and yet not foul enough to prevent its free & easy working, so easy — that the last nine (9) rounds were fired at the rate of twenty (20) rounds per minute—

I would suggest that this invention is of suffient importance to warrant the Government in ordering the construction of a perfect Gun, & giving it a fair & thorough test—

All of which is most respectfully submitted on behalf of Capt. Moffatt—

Norman Eastman

Clerk—