Author Topic: Carriage plans arrived, Overwhelmed (Read 2030 times)

cjensen · « **on:** March 30, 2010, 05:41:00 AM »

For my 2/3 1841
My carriage plans arrived yesterday and overwhelmed is an understatement.
Looks like I need to figure out how to make a field carriage look KINDA right.
I need to really take a lot of shortcuts if I plan on building this.
My hats off to anyone who builds a true scale carriage.

GGaskill · « **Reply #1 on:** March 30, 2010, 07:30:16 AM »

Don't start with that kind of attitude. It consists of a lot of individual pieces which are generally not too hard to make. Just start with one and make it, then pick another and make it, etc., until you're done.

Of course starting with the primary pieces will get you a shootable gun sooner.

Double D · « **Reply #2 on:** March 30, 2010, 08:17:18 AM »

Good advice from George...One piece at a time...building a carriage from start to finish it would get tedious and boring real fast...I think that kind of project has a dirty name attached to it, J-O-B. Keep it recreational and you will enjoy it much more.

cjensen · « **Reply #3 on:** March 30, 2010, 08:27:46 AM »

Quote from: GGaskill on March 30, 2010, 07:30:16 AM

Don't start with that kind of attitude. It consists of a lot of individual pieces which are generally not too hard to make.

A man has to know his limitations.
I am not talking about this kind of shortcuts.
http://mysite.verizon.net/gfg/images/bronzehowitzeroncarriage.JPG

carronader · « **Reply #4 on:** March 30, 2010, 09:43:01 AM »

don't you be listening to barrel bashers propoganda, they got milling machines , grinders , lasers , plasma cutters , all kinds of hardware just to make a damn tube , the true artistry is with the carriage. yes ok Muskie and the bronze casting.

The Jeff · « **Reply #5 on:** March 30, 2010, 09:59:06 AM »

Quote from: cjensen on March 30, 2010, 08:27:46 AM

A man has to know his limitations.
I am not talking about this kind of shortcuts.
http://mysite.verizon.net/gfg/images/bronzehowitzeroncarriage.JPG

I thought that carriage was simply for testing various barrels. Not really a shortcut.

GGaskill · « **Reply #6 on:** March 30, 2010, 10:07:02 AM »

I thought that carriage was simply for testing various barrels. Not really a shortcut.

Yes, that carriage was designed as a test bed to allow the students of my cannon making classes to test fire their pieces without having to wait for making their own carriages. It in no way is intended to look like a correct wooden carriage, only function like one.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #7 on:** March 30, 2010, 10:09:15 AM »

Quote from: cjensen on March 30, 2010, 08:27:46 AM

Quote from: GGaskill on March 30, 2010, 07:30:16 AM
Don't start with that kind of attitude. It consists of a lot of individual pieces which are generally not too hard to make.

A man has to know his limitations.
I am not talking about this kind of shortcuts.
http://mysite.verizon.net/gfg/images/bronzehowitzeroncarriage.JPG

Cjensen,
Welcome to the forum. I don't remember the exact post, but I think GGaskill originally meant that as a temporary mount used to mount/fire the cast bronze howitzer, and a few other types of Civil War cannons that he was teaching how to make in a barrel making class he once conducted.

George; I saw your reply, but I already had it typed so I figured 'what the heck', and hit post.

cjensen · « **Reply #8 on:** March 30, 2010, 10:59:58 AM »

Well. I apologize for my attitude, but my first Cannon will not be sporting an accurate 2/3 reproduction of a #1 field carriage.
I just don't think that's a realistic starting point.
The previous three owners of my barrel never got the barrel fired, and I see no reason to wait for perfection to enjoy this.

Double D · « **Reply #9 on:** March 30, 2010, 01:18:14 PM »

You don't need detailed perfection down to nuts and bolts and hangers and loops. None of my gun's carriages are exact replications, just good representations. Shooting is more fun than building. Lots of minor details left out that in my use aren't useful, but were necessary to shot the originals.

No training loops on my M-1841 42 PDR, no handles on my golf ball mortar. No implement hangers on my parrot rifle. But my M-1841 Carriage looks like a real Naval carriage, my mortar base looks like a real mortar base and my Field carriage looks like a real carriage.

On the other hand, I shoot my M1841 for 25 or so years before I got around to painting it the correct color deciding that side shackles really were necessary.

So go for correct form and start with the basic details, and later you may find a need to add a detail or you just might not need a detail, but want it.

For instance, I said I don't put handles on my mortar beds. The mortars I am talking about I can pick up in one hand.

My 6PDR replica of a confederate 24 PDR weighs a bit over 100 lbs. We have been muscling it to load and its a pain. It doesn't have handles. It needs handles. When I finish it out, I will make handles for the base.

dynomike1x1 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 30, 2010, 02:23:25 PM »

If you wait and do it right you will have something to brag about. If you dont wait it seems pointless. It only took 2 years to build mine. If you do 1 piece at a time it's not bad. When i got my plans i went into shock but i made it.

little seacoast · « **Reply #11 on:** March 31, 2010, 03:09:40 AM »

I've got to agree with dynomike, you CAN do it but it will take time. When the plans from AA arrived, like you I went into shock. A couple of very patient people here walked me through steps in fabrication that seemed beyond me. With a minimum of tools and some persistence you will do it too. One thing to consider is a simpler design like a naval or fortess mount. If I can be of any assistance please feel free to ask. I can send you pics of the building process that I took and make a few suggestions. Best Regards, LS

dan610324 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 31, 2010, 03:24:34 AM »

why not post them here ??

its always nice to see in progress pictures

little seacoast · « **Reply #13 on:** March 31, 2010, 03:50:20 AM »

Dan, don't really want to hijack his thread. I will post some on the other thread I have regarding this carriage. Regards, Pete

cjensen · « **Reply #14 on:** March 31, 2010, 04:49:09 AM »

"good representation", that is my goal.
Example: On Dynomike's Avatar is a carriage with 12 spoke wheels, I think they should be 14 spoke wheels.
That would be a short cut in my opinion, I'm not saying Dynomike is wrong to have them, just trying to make a point.
I have seen a lot of photos on this site where shortcuts have been taken, and the result is still a fine looking gun.

Shortcuts I am considering;
I do not plan on painting the carriage.
The bolt running from the rear of the trunnion to the front of the axle looks like I will modify that to to straight down.
The trunnion Caps will be bolted down instead of the chin bolt arrangement,
My axle will probably end up with a oak 4X4 grooved out to take a 2x2 steel bar with the stub ends machined to take the wheels.
These are a few examples of shortcuts I plan on taking.
Any suggestions along the lines for making a carriage easier to build while still maintaining a good representation will be greatly appreciated.

Zulu · « **Reply #15 on:** March 31, 2010, 04:57:56 AM »

Aren't mountain howitzers supposed to have 12 spokes? Unlike a #1 field carriage which has 14. That is no short cut. That is doing research and attention to detail.
Zulu

cjensen · « **Reply #16 on:** March 31, 2010, 05:27:17 AM »

Quote from: Zulu on March 31, 2010, 04:57:56 AM

Aren't mountain howitzers supposed to have 12 spokes? Unlike a #1 field carriage which has 14. That is no short cut. That is doing research and attention to detail.
Zulu

Could be, I got my plans on Monday, and really don't know much at this time.

carronader · « **Reply #17 on:** March 31, 2010, 05:35:31 AM »

Correct Dan.......post them and be damned..........too many people missing out on help , somebody on here will have come across the same problem, and found a solution.No reason not to show really...unless you're a sneaky Colorado Muskrat who wants to produce a fancy bronze barrel out of a hat.. or you're bashfull..............or it's a secret.

Double D · « **Reply #18 on:** March 31, 2010, 05:58:32 AM »

Quote from: cjensen on March 31, 2010, 04:49:09 AM

"good representation", that is my goal.

Shortcuts I am considering;
I do not plan on painting the carriage.

Not painting is not a short cut. It requires much more sanding to remove imperfections, that can be covered with paint. And now every one know why I paint...I'm lazy.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #19 on:** March 31, 2010, 06:36:53 AM »

Cjensen,
The wheels are historically correct on the Mt. Howitzer rig that Dynomike1x1 shows as his avatar. For your carriage you'd scale down from 57-inch diameter, 14 spoke wheels.

ETA: historically

carronader · « **Reply #20 on:** March 31, 2010, 06:52:32 AM »

if he wants to build from scale...........is not a necessity glass cases

gary michie · « **Reply #21 on:** March 31, 2010, 03:20:15 PM »

The MH does not have 57" wheels.They use 42" for #1&2 and 38" for the pack.
Never mind I miss read.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #22 on:** March 31, 2010, 08:53:24 PM »

Gary's post made me think of something that I've never thought about before for some reason. I know that the N-SSA has very defined rules about the construction and appearance of artillery barrels, for the sake of authenticity and safety; but what about the carriages? Suppose someone had a carriage that had some errors in hardware, say the capsquares weren't correct, or there were no prolong hooks on the trail; would they be called on it? What if someone had gotten a great deal on some British 12 spoke artillery wheels, and had them on their U.S. No.1 field carriage; would they be told that that's not allowed?

Cannoneer · « **Reply #23 on:** April 10, 2010, 09:09:31 AM »

I'm going to preface this post by stating that I am not a member of the N-SSA, so as to the extent of scrutiny that their artillery inspectors display when examining pieces of ordnance for first qualification, and later random inspections at skirmishes I really couldn't tell you, but I'm going to do my best to answer your question. Wait a second, I'm answering my own question here, and there's something not quite kosher about that, but then again neither am I.

Here are some quotes from the N-SSA Artillery Rules:
18.5 ARTILLERY PIECES, EQUIPMENT AND AMMUNITION
"Artillery pieces and equipment shall be inspected by the Artillery Ordnance Officer or his
deputies the first time each piece is registered. Thereafter, they shall be subject to spot
inspections. Ammunition shall be spot inspected at each skirmish in which the piece shall
compete or demonstrate. This inspection of ammunition shall not be scheduled and no
notice shall be given. Violation of regulations with regard to charges and projectiles shall
result in the withdrawing of registration to fire at that skirmish. Any appeal in this case
must be presented to the Board of Directors as an official protest as prescribed elsewhere in
these rules."

"All cannon, either fullsize or scaled replicas, must maintain the same construction and ratio to the original in all components, including the carriage, bore and exterior of the barrel."

"Replica mortars must utilize a bore and chamber conforming to the dimensions of the original mortar. No auxiliary chambers will be allowed. In addition, the bore must be at least 4.5 inches (12 pounder) in diameter, and the carriage or gun mount must conform to the style of original Civil War mortars."

Knowing this, I would guess that using British 12 spoked artillery wheels would not be a good idea, and furthermore, it would probably be in a members best interests to match the original equipment as closely as is possible.

Double D · « **Reply #24 on:** April 10, 2010, 09:19:02 AM »

If a British 12 spoke wheel could shown to be used in the Civil war, it probably would be accepted.

The person to ask is Artilleryman, I think he is a Director or Advisor at NSSA.

cjensen · « **Reply #25 on:** April 10, 2010, 09:30:18 AM »

I am building this for Me, Myself, and I, not necessarily in that order.
I could care less what some Civil War Fun Police dictate, thats for them, not me.
Just so everyone understands I do not, and will not get my woolies in a bunch over all of the details.

Complete Cannoneer Book/Bible recommends Douglas fir over white oak for a carriage material. After a hunt for adequate sized oak this is where I'll probably head.

Big C-Clamp in the grudge is looking like a sight elevator to me.
Big forged eye bolt is looking a lot like a lunette.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #26 on:** April 10, 2010, 10:02:25 AM »

Cjensen,
I think you've arrived at the right conclusion to not get your woolies in a bunch,

but my two posts about the N-SSA had nothing to do with neither making suggestions nor recommendations concerning your build, to the contrary, they were soley meant to satisfy my own curiosity about N-SSA rules.

carronader · « **Reply #27 on:** April 10, 2010, 11:47:15 AM »

Douglas Fir is a beech to work with

ok I know that was bad........but true none the less

Zulu · « **Reply #28 on:** April 10, 2010, 01:10:17 PM »

I do a lot of stuff with Douglas fir. Usually large pieces (4 X 8 or 6 X 10). The stuff I use is usually wet and always full of sap. It is not unusual to make a cut and have a tablespoon of sap run out on your table when you're not looking.

It cuts easily but the stuff I use is heavy!

Zulu

cjensen · « **Reply #29 on:** April 10, 2010, 01:38:16 PM »

Thanks for the info on Douglas Furr being dripping sap.