serious cannon accident at Plymouth NC this weekend

[KABAR2]

I know it isn't in the drill but for safety purposes how about twisting a couple of pipe cleaners together

and after sponging wet them an run them down the vent?  might be a good method of making sure there

were no sparks left in the vent.....

[Cannoneer]

The time between shots was less than two minutes.  However, in the years I have been a cannoneer, only at state parks have I EVER encountered the "3 minute+" rule and only for demonstrations.  Could it also be their way of saving powder since they usually supply not just the powder, but usually roll the rounds (asking the type of gun and bore we are bringing).  I have shot in battles and memorials from VA, MD to PA to GA and west to WVA (can't go any further east w/o using an ironclad) and haven't even heard of any group slowing down except in the attempt to stretch out powder supply.  I'm not saying it's a bad idea, the list of possible things we can do to prevent further accidents is as long as this blog.  For each pro, there is a con.  If after reading all ot the postings, I would double wet and dry sponge as normal (dip and spin), use HEAVY restaurant grade foil for rounds , and use a straight rammer, and slowly slide the charge down the tube, and use the ramming method of "spear chucking" the rammer and counting "5 dead yankees" while between the barrel and wheel and then removing the rammer.  I might would also use a welder's glove to tend vent.  The thumbstall protected #3's thumb, it was the area aroung it that suffered burns.  I think the fact that accidents like this are so very rare speak volumes for the fact that we as re-enactors must be doing something right safety wise. In fact, does anyone know when the last (non backyard goofing) accident like this happened?  I've seen infantry trip over roots when drilling and because of thumbs in the trigger guard end up in surgery re-attaching digits.  Thanks for indulging my rambling.  the BUZZARD

BUZZARD,
Welcome to the forum! I don't have the knowledge to speak to the first part of your post, I fire reduced scale artillery for my own pleasure, but just as an added precaution I do wait for at least three minutes before reloading. I've read your post four times over, and I agree with all of your loading practices, the routine you follow sounds good to me (not that that's going to get you much).

I've thought about the no.3 mans burns, and was thinking that if he had been wearing welders gloves, it probably would have been unnecessary to even make the trip to the hospital.

[Cannoneer]

I know it isn't in the drill but for safety purposes how about twisting a couple of pipe cleaners together

and after sponging wet them an run them down the vent?  might be a good method of making sure there

were no sparks left in the vent.....

Allen,
Just like Dominic suggested, I moisten a pipe cleaner, (only need one for my size vents ) and run it in and out of the vent before doing anything else. The type I use are the stiff ones with tough plastic feelers coming off of the stem. I also like Dom's idea about using a small maglite or strong beam diode flashlight to visually check the bore; I think I'm going to start doing that also.

[Cat Whisperer]

BoomJ -  as my mother used to say, thanks for them kind words (post #59).

Oscar Wilder is quoted as saying that Life is far to precious to be taken seriously.  

I've been wrapped too tightly around the axel too often, might just have learned a little from it.  

Been blessed far more than I deserve, only thing I can figure is that WE have a mighty big God who loves us.  Knowing that is the most stable thing in my life. Even Ben Franklin recognized that, crediting beer as evidence.

There are a whole BUNCH of good folks here - most very different from me.  Good for me to learn from.

[Cannoneer]

The use of a Thumb Stall over the vent when wet sponging creates a Vacuum which should deprive any sparks in the vent of oxygen...

I see this explanation given every time this is discussed yet simple thought would show that the seal of the sponge to the bore is not sufficient to achieve a true oxygen-free atmosphere in the bore between thumbstall and sponge head.  It does lower the pressure to some degree but we are fooling ourselves if we think that there is no combustion supporting oxygen present.  If a true vacuum were being achieved, the sponge could not be pulled from the bore (pi/4 times 4.62² times 14.7 lbs/in²=246 lbs.)

 I have for some time been under the impression that the reason for thumbstalling the vent was to stop the bellows effect that would occur from pushing the sponge and rammer down the bore with the vent open. I thought this safety step was really meant to retard the motion of forced air being blown over any small smouldering remnants that might have been missed when 'worming' the chamber; in the the hope that this precaution would prevent any ember/s from being fanned into burning with greater intensity.



Edit: Emended text, changed 'cleaning' to 'worming', which is what I meant in the first place.

[Zulu]

The use of a Thumb Stall over the vent when wet sponging creates a Vacuum which should deprive any sparks in the vent of oxygen...

I see this explanation given every time this is discussed yet simple thought would show that the seal of the sponge to the bore is not sufficient to achieve a true oxygen-free atmosphere in the bore between thumbstall and sponge head.  It does lower the pressure to some degree but we are fooling ourselves if we think that there is no combustion supporting oxygen present.  If a true vacuum were being achieved, the sponge could not be pulled from the bore (pi/4 times 4.62² times 14.7 lbs/in²=246 lbs.)

 I have for some time been under the impression that the reason for thumbstalling the vent was to stop the bellows effect that would occur from pushing the sponge and rammer down the bore with the vent open. I thought this safety step was really meant to retard the motion of forced air being blown over any small smouldering remnants that might have been missed when cleaning the chamber; in the the hope that this precaution would prevent any ember/s from being fanned into burning with greater intensity.

Boom J,
I too, am under the same impression. 
When I did my demonstrations to school children with my Parrott rifle I always asked them "what happens when you blow on a spark?"  They always knew the answer.
That's why we stop the vent.
Zulu

[GGaskill]

I'm not sure that fanning the ember would not be a better thing to do.  It would make it burn out sooner and it would make it a little more obvious if anyone were looking for it. 

It was interesting to note that the full sizers are still not willing to give up the period rammers in spite of their inherent danger.

[KABAR2]

It was interesting to note that the full sizers are still not willing to give up the period rammers in spite of their inherent danger.

I reenacted for 20 some years the American Revolution I witnessed only one crew using a shepherd's crook rammer  during that time
they had evidence that during the 18th C. the french used them and that was their providonce.

I understand the use of period rammers when portraying history and those that use them understand the risks involved and nobody
holds a gun to one's head and says do this. I have been at two re-enactments where there were artillery accidents both unfortunate
and one because of a law suite caused La Pan foundry to stop building cannon, I don't think units will change rammers anytime soon,
Perhaps those that make the rule should at least if not already written make it optional that the Sheperd's crook rammer could be used
in Competition

[subdjoe]

I'm not sure that fanning the ember would not be a better thing to do.  It would make it burn out sooner and it would make it a little more obvious if anyone were looking for it. 

It was interesting to note that the full sizers are still not willing to give up the period rammers in spite of their inherent danger.

Or, it might fan one that has almost died back to life. And you may not be able to see the glow at the back of a 60+ inch tube.

[dominick]

Or, it might fan one that has almost died back to life. And you may not be able to see the glow at the back of a 60+ inch tube.

On a bright day especially, I don't think the eyes can adjust quickly enough to view down the dark bore and see a burning ember.  That is not exactly part of the artillery drill anyway.   I think the safety rammer is the only way to avoid injury altogether. 

[Cannoneer]

The use of a Thumb Stall over the vent when wet sponging creates a Vacuum which should deprive any sparks in the vent of oxygen...

I see this explanation given every time this is discussed yet simple thought would show that the seal of the sponge to the bore is not sufficient to achieve a true oxygen-free atmosphere in the bore between thumbstall and sponge head.  It does lower the pressure to some degree but we are fooling ourselves if we think that there is no combustion supporting oxygen present.  If a true vacuum were being achieved, the sponge could not be pulled from the bore (pi/4 times 4.622 times 14.7 lbs/in2=246 lbs.)

I have for some time been under the impression that the reason for thumbstalling the vent was to stop the bellows effect that would occur from pushing the sponge and rammer down the bore with the vent open. I thought this safety step was really meant to retard the motion of forced air being blown over any small smouldering remnants that might have been missed when 'worming' the chamber; in the the hope that this precaution would prevent any ember/s from being fanned into burning with greater intensity.

I'm not sure that fanning the ember would not be a better thing to do.  It would make it burn out sooner and it would make it a little more obvious if anyone were looking for it.

I don't know (historically) when it became a widespread practice for artillerymen to cover the vents of their pieces when they were servicing them, but I do know that by the time of our Civil War (and in reality a lot earlier) that they must have shared a common knowledge that blocking the vent didn't prevent premature ignition of the powder charge, because of a deprivation of oxygen. The accidental discharges that they witnessed and heard about would have convinced them of this fact, so there must have been another reason for practicing this procedure; perhaps this would suggest that the vent was covered in an attempt to not fan any smouldering damp powder remnants that were missed when the bore was serviced, in the hope that by the time the new cartridge was rammed home that the ember would have died out.
As for the concept that it would be beneficial to intensify the burning of embers left in the chamber with the planned outcome of the powder remnants burning out; well, first of all that obviously wasn't part of the historic plan, because the drill was (and still is) to thumbstall the vent beginning right after the vent was cleared all the way up until the newly seated cartridge was opened by a vent prick run through the vent. To me the idea of trying to induce remnants missed and left in the bore to burn at a higher degree in the hope that they'll burn out before the next cartidge is rammed down the bore just doesn't seem like it's following a logical train of thought; especially in the heat of real battle where the artilleymen would be performing steps in their drill as quickly as possible in order to get the next shot off.
It has already been pointed out how it would be unlikely to be able to see a smouldering ember by looking down the bore of a cannon in bright daylight, it could also be that the burning powder could be on the breech side of a piece of flannel (now foil) left in the chamber, not to mention the fact that there is no (that I know of) instruction given to peer down the bore of cannon looking for any glowing embers in actual Civil War period manuals that contain the US Army Artillery drill. I also haven't seen any present day organized artillery events where I've noticed a member of a gun's crew peering down the bore once the drill has begun, although I might have missed it.

[Cannoneer]

I must ask.
Contest that the N-SSA has.
Has there been any accidents lately?
The N-ssa men follow the procedures very carefully ..

Oyvind,
I shouldn't be answering your question, because I am not a member of the N-SSA, I'm only doing so because no one else has. I am on the N-SSA forum, but I have yet to make a single post, although I do check it out every once in a while (it's not like here, where there is a large volume of new topics and posts, things move (at least on the artillery forum) very slowly there ). I think that there is no question the N-SSA artillery skirmishers follow their organizations drill/guidlines to the letter, and I have never heard nor read of an N-SSA artillery accident (though it's possible some may have occured) reported on their forum or elswhere, so I would make a (slightly) educated guess that they have an excellent safety record.

[GGaskill]

... especially in the heat of real battle where the artillerymen would be performing steps in their drill as quickly as possible in order to get the next shot off.

However, the first step omitted when accelerating the rate of fire is to stop sponging.  So the old guys didn't completely believe that sponging was necessary, although I suppose they were comparing getting overrun by charging infantry with bayonets fixed to the possibility of a premature discharge.

[Cannoneer]

... especially in the heat of real battle where the artillerymen would be performing steps in their drill as quickly as possible in order to get the next shot off.

However, the first step omitted when accelerating the rate of fire is to stop sponging.  So the old guys didn't completely believe that sponging was necessary, although I suppose they were comparing getting overrun by charging infantry with bayonets fixed to the possibility of a premature discharge.

GG,
I was thinking about this exact same thing when I was writing reply #70, but I didn't include it there because it just didn't seem like I could get it to fit in with the rest of the post. It is documented that there were instances in Civil War battles where an artillery battery (in an effort to increase their rate of fire) would dispense with a step in their regular drill if they felt that they were in a dire enough situation, such as being overrun by an enemy charge, or involved in a heavy duty direct duel with an opposing artillery battery; and I agree with you 100% that it is very telling that their choice of wich procedure to abandon was sponging. There's no way of getting around the fact that they had to have thought it the lesser of two evils, to forgo sponging in favor of continuing to worm.

[navygunner]

... especially in the heat of real battle where the artillerymen would be performing steps in their drill as quickly as possible in order to get the next shot off.

However, the first step omitted when accelerating the rate of fire is to stop sponging.  So the old guys didn't completely believe that sponging was necessary, although I suppose they were comparing getting overrun by charging infantry with bayonets fixed to the possibility of a premature discharge.

GG,
I was thinking about this exact same thing when I was writing reply #70, but I didn't include it there because it just didn't seem like I could get it to fit in with the rest of the post. It is documented that there were instances in Civil War battles where an artillery battery (in an effort to increase their rate of fire) would dispense with a step in their regular drill if they felt that they were in a dire enough situation, such as being overrun by an enemy charge, or involved in a heavy duty direct duel with an opposing artillery battery; and I agree with you 100% that it is very telling that their choice of wich procedure to abandon was sponging. There's no way of getting around the fact that they had to have thought it the lesser of two evils, to forgo sponging in favor of continuing to worm.

They would not have been worming as standard practice was one worm per battery and the powder bag was consumed. I'd like to see documentation on eliminating the sponging.. The worming by reenactors is the result of tinfoil wrapped charges. I could see forgoing the dry sponge but to forego the wet one would be like putting a match to the charge.



NG

[dominick]

I don't ever think we can discuss proper procedures enough because out of all of this discussion, hopefully, we or someone, may find a better and safer method of loading and firing a cannon or mortar.  I think there is always room for improvement in light of such an injury.  The problem is when someone believes their method is the safest or the best or the most correct  for the time period of their ordinance and will not see room for improvement.  This being said, I leave you with a video.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFJQUlDWVLI   What's important here is: Read the comments below the video.     I'm more afraid of these type of people ruining it for all of us than an unforseen [at the time] mishap at an organized event.

[Double D]

Dom,

The Comments are more disturbing than the video.  The poster of the video is  David Songer even defends his actions as safe!!!

[GGaskill]

He owns 7 cannons.  That makes him an authority.   

[Cannoneer]

... especially in the heat of real battle where the artillerymen would be performing steps in their drill as quickly as possible in order to get the next shot off.

However, the first step omitted when accelerating the rate of fire is to stop sponging.  So the old guys didn't completely believe that sponging was necessary, although I suppose they were comparing getting overrun by charging infantry with bayonets fixed to the possibility of a premature discharge.

GG,
I was thinking about this exact same thing when I was writing reply #70, but I didn't include it there because it just didn't seem like I could get it to fit in with the rest of the post. It is documented that there were instances in Civil War battles where an artillery battery (in an effort to increase their rate of fire) would dispense with a step in their regular drill if they felt that they were in a dire enough situation, such as being overrun by an enemy charge, or involved in a heavy duty direct duel with an opposing artillery battery; and I agree with you 100% that it is very telling that their choice of wich procedure to abandon was sponging. There's no way of getting around the fact that they had to have thought it the lesser of two evils, to forgo sponging in favor of continuing to worm.

They would not have been worming as standard practice was one worm per battery and the powder bag was consumed. I'd like to see documentation on eliminating the sponging.. The worming by reenactors is the result of tinfoil wrapped charges. I could see forgoing the dry sponge but to forego the wet one would be like putting a match to the charge.

NG,
My post is based on memory, and I know that that's not the best route to take when accuracy is the goal, because most of us know that our memories can often be very imprecise, if not worse. I did make a half-hearted attempt at searching for the source before I made the post, but I didn't have any luck and I gave it up; I think that the source is a history book relating specific (first hand account) details of famous battles of the CW, as opposed to a book that is primarily concerned with artillery. At any rate, I am now embarked on one of those intense "Holy Grail" type searches to try and find the source.

What source informs you that it was standard U.S. practice to allot only one worm for every artillery battery? Would you share the source that contains the information relating how the cloth cartridge bags were entirely consumed when the cannon were fired. I find the part about the bags being consumed especially interesting; because, then what explains all the period concern over remedying incidents of premature ignition?

[Cannoneer]

Dominic,
I agree all the way, with what you had to say in #75; it might even be more rewarding to all of our best interests if we concentrated more on contemporary knowledge of how to load black powder artillery, and maybe give a little less time to discussing historical aspects which are no longer in use; and for all the passion I have for history, it's even a little hard for me to think those thoughts. Of course this could also just be a ruse on my part, meant to get me out of having to look for that dang historical source.

One good thing about that video is that the young lady already has enough commom sense to realize; hey , it's time for me to turn around and get away from this maniac, even if he is my dad.

[navygunner]

BoomJ,
   The one worm per battery or section is from a spiel the former president of the NCWAA gives during his presentations no historical documentation that I know of that I could quote. As to the bags being totally consumed that is misleading as it's the embers of burning cloth one would be extinguishing with the wet sponging but Like you i'll kick my brain into gear (gets harder and harder) and see what I can find.

NG

[subdjoe]

I checked Patten's "Artillery Drill containing School of the Piece and Battery Manoeuvres" and it does not mention worming as part of the drill for firing.

"The Ordnance Manual for Officers of the United States Army, 1862"

Shows 1/2 of a worm per gun, which would suggest 1 per section.

[Cannoneer]

Subdjoe,
I think every gun was issued a worm, and it was carried on the gun's carriage. Artillery Drill, G. W. Patten, see p. 52, Dismounting Pieces, and also read the excerpt from the West Point instruction book, No. 199.
Navygunner and Subdjoe are right; it would appear that the worm wasn't used at all in servicing the bore when firing the piece. Read the West Point instruction book, and Benton's stated use for the worm. P.252. Another thing that's surprising, is that no dry sponging is mentioned; or are they only discussing dry sponging?

A course of instruction in ordnance and gunnery
 By James Gilchrist Benton, United States Military Academy
Cadet Ordnance Instruction Book

Chapter IX. Loading, Pointing and Discharging Firearms.

435. Precautions. After a piece has been discharged the bore should be well sponged, to extinguish any burning fragments of the cartridge that may remain; and to prevent the current of air from fanning any burning fragments that may collect in the vent, it should be kept firmly closed with a thumb stall in the operation of sponging. Experience shows that the use of a wet sponge is dangerous, as it contributes to form, from the fragments of the cartridge bag, a substance which retains fire.

P. 252,  4th. The worm (fig 74), is a species of double corkscrew, (2), attached to a staff, and is used in field and siege cannon to withdraw a cartridge.

199. Gun-carriages. Field carriages are characterized by great lightness, strength, and mobility. They are The 6-pdr. gun and 12-pdr. howitzer carriage. The 12-pdr. gun (light) and the 24-pdr. howitzer carriage. The 12-pdr. gun (heavy) and the 32-pdr. howitzer carriage.* These carriages are of similar construction, the only difference being in the size and strength of the several parts. The first is mounted on light, or No 1 wheels, and the second and third on No 2, or heavy wheels. Attached to each carriage are the following named implements, viz., two rammers and sponges, two trail handspikes, one worm, one sponge bucket, one tar bucket ,one watering bucket.

*The 10-pdr. Parrott and the 3-in. rifle guns are mounted on the 6-pdr. carriage, and the 20-pdr. Parrott rifle-gun is mounted on the 12-pdr. (heavy)carriage.

[guardsgunner]

Boom J
Oddly enough, the 1864 Feild Artillery Tactics manual does not mention the use of the worm in the load procedures.
Though this is my first year as not being a member of the nssa in 38 years, as far as I know there has not been any serious artillery accident's.

http://www.archive.org/details/instructionforf00deptgoog

Bob

[Cannoneer]

Guardsgunner,
That is a most astounding fact for me to grasp. I always just assumed (I've got to learn to quit doing that ) that because it is the present day practice of skirmishing and reenacting organizations to have their members worm the bore after firing, that the same procedure would have been performed by the Civil War artillerymen firing the original ordnance; in fact, I thought it was the contemporary cannoneers that were copying the drill of their original role models for the sake of both realism, and safety.
At least my assumption about the N-SSA artillery skirmisher's having an excellent safety record was on target. Thanks for the information, Bob.

[guardsgunner]

Boom J,
  The manual does state that the #1 should keep his eyes on the vent while sponging and ramming to make sure that it is covered.

[subdjoe]

I'm thinking that it may be a case of "Manual?  Which one do you mean?" 

In trying to find CW artillery manuals, drill, and other info, it sometimes seems as if each army, as in Army of the Potomac, Army of the Tennessee, etc, each had its own that was changed every year, whether it needed updating or not.  I'm not sure that any such animal as "THE Manual" actually exists. 

Boom J,
  The manual does state that the #1 should keep his eyes on the vent while sponging and ramming to make sure that it is covered.

[KABAR2]

Dom,

The Comments are more disturbing than the video.  The poster of the video is  David Songer even defends his actions as safe!!!

Well of course he does now that he no longer wears a tin foil hat..... he needed it to wad the cannon....... did you notice how much breech that
cannon has? The vent is above the trunnions.....



As far as searching the piece with the worm after each shot I may be wrong but it is a modern addition to the drill due to the use
of aluminum cartridges which need to be removed unlike the old fabric powder bags which were mostly consumed on firing
the sponge would take care of the embers and some of the bits of bag may have clung to the sponge when removed,
with aluminum it could hide an ember from the sponge or build up in the breech so the cartridge can not be pricked.

[guardsgunner]

subdjoe,
   The manual in this case refers to the one I linked to the page. There were many published manual's and not "the " manual usualy by a board of officers.
   As far as I can tell, KARBAR2 is right in that worming see to be new to the drill.

Bob

  Try here.             http://www.artilleryreserve.org/ringgold.pdf

[subdjoe]

I had kind of figured that.  But, the plethora of manuals may be what contributes to our confusion.  I do recall seeing one, but only one, that did call for worming.  Unfortunately, the link to that is on my dead laptop.

subdjoe,
   The manual in this case refers to the one I linked to the page. There were many published manual's and not "the " manual usualy by a board of officers.
   As far as I can tell, KARBAR2 is right in that worming see to be new to the drill.

Bob

  Try here.             http://www.artilleryreserve.org/ringgold.pdf