Author Topic: Revolutionary period 1775-1776 (Read 1319 times)

ironglow · « **on:** June 04, 2011, 06:13:15 AM »

I am reading a couple books by Jeff Shaara which give a vivid picture of the war of the Revolution. Just finished reading about Ft Washington on Manhattan, almost directly across from Ft Lee, NJ..both fell to the British early on. i went top the web and discovered a cannon which is on display at Ft Lee. I noticed it to be interesting for the several diameters along the length of the barrel.
I am not a cannoneer, so can you give me some info on it...and it correct for the period and post ?

rampa room artillery · « **Reply #1 on:** June 04, 2011, 04:13:48 PM »

I see a mold line down the length of the tube, and that to me screams repro. but still looking gun.. cool,

rick bryan

ironglow · « **Reply #2 on:** June 04, 2011, 04:41:26 PM »

Good observation Rick..at least to my inexperienced eyes. Now here's an amateur's question.. Are many of the guns we see at historical sites "repros"? Frankly, I didn't even know repros were being made..
Seems like the maker would at least grind off some of the seam..

keith44 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2011, 06:36:15 PM »

that definately looks like a parting line on a two or three piece mold from an injection system. Even grinding that line will leave porosity marks if the injection is not a high pressure system and the material injected has small enough molecules and the injection and mold temps are high enough to prevent occlusions. So if all that was done it would be too expensive for public display in a park or landmark setting.

brokenpole · « **Reply #4 on:** June 05, 2011, 03:14:51 AM »

Ironman, as someone else who is a novice when it comes to telling whether a cannon is the real deal or a repro I always try to go to the source. I usually go to the head or historian of the group that is responsible for the the piece being there. You might even be able to get a little history of the gun.

dominick · « **Reply #5 on:** June 05, 2011, 04:01:47 AM »

I suspect that it is a reproduction British iron 6 pounder. SBR casted several very similar type barrels some years ago that went to Stony Point Battlefield Park, NY. His were much nicer finished barrels that did not have the mold separation ridge down the side. It's difficult to tell the size of the barrel from the photo though.

dominick · « **Reply #6 on:** June 05, 2011, 04:15:53 AM »

Now I think it's a replica British Iron 24 pounder. I found a diagram that appears identical in every detail, including the crest shape and location. The diagram is in "NAVAL GUNS 500 years of Ship and Coastal Artillery by Hans Mehl, Page 31."

KABAR2 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 05, 2011, 02:35:57 PM »

I Have not been to fort lee in some 20 years..... they had a fiberglass 24 pounder inside the building
it was just the weight of the fiberglass I have a photo somewhere of some re-enactors clowning around
with it one fellow acting as a carrage and another trying to light it and two others with their fingers in their ears.....
if that is a 24 pounder being displayed they may have filled the fiberglass on with concrete and used it outside.....

Cannoneer · « **Reply #8 on:** June 06, 2011, 02:06:54 AM »

There are three reproductions outdoors on a platform facing the George Washington bridge that are used for live demonstrations. This contemporary Ft. Lee battery consists of two guns and a mortar. I think Dom's right about the gun on the garrison carriage being a 24-pdr, and I believe the other is a 6-pdr.

Photos by Taranto & Santucci

Microboomer · « **Reply #9 on:** June 06, 2011, 02:18:32 AM »

Is the casting seam a sign of a reproduction simply because it hasn't been cleaned up properly?
Wouldn't the original have had a seam at the same place when it was fresh out of the mold?
andy

ironglow · « **Reply #10 on:** June 06, 2011, 06:54:17 AM »

Hey Guys;
Thanks for a quick, concise education of some basics. ..And here I thought all those old guns I saw at historical sites were indeed 'historical' in themselves.
True, such historical sites would lose some of their interest without a few guns around to 'flesh things out' and give better "context".
That gun featured in my thread starter post...have I been wrong in assuming that type carriage was primarily for naval/marine applications ?

Cannoneer · « **Reply #11 on:** June 06, 2011, 09:24:41 AM »

Microboomer,
That isn't necessarily so, I've seen real cast iron guns that show parting lines, but as a general rule the foundries did work off the lines (although they weren't trying to win any beauty contests with the finishes on iron cannon).

ironglow,
You could have the same type of four truck carriage, and it would be called a naval carriage if it was on a ship's gun deck, or a garrison carriage if it was positioned on a seacoast fortification. The wheels on a garrison carriage were often made of iron, while a ship's carriage had wooden trucks.

KABAR2 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 06, 2011, 12:01:01 PM »

The field gun is a 4 pounder, they have had it for many years, it used to be kept indoors,
I was friends with the fellow who ran the museum, I believe he is now retired, but he relayed
a story about the time (early 1970's) the cannon was fired down into the Hudson river with
a cannon ball made of Bondo or concrete...... the cannoneer's timing almost caused an international incident ....... the round made a nice water plume across the bow of a Libyan tanker.... from what I am told the crew was running up and down the deck in a frenzy not knowing what to do..........
...........Those were the days...........

Here is a little talked about fact.. the actual sight of the fort no longer exists.... the museum sits
some 20 feet lower than where the fort was.... in the early 1800's it became a rock quarry and
the cobble stone needed for a growing New York City was supplied from this site and many others
along the palisades.

dan610324 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 06, 2011, 12:14:01 PM »

Ive never seen a parting line on a cast iron cannon
on bronze cannons there is no parting line as the molds are made in 1 piece
dont know if they did the molds the same way for iron cannons , but I guess so for at least the early cannons

KABAR2 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 06, 2011, 01:08:10 PM »

I doubt you would see a parting line on any lost wax process cannon,
sand casting on the other hand could leave a parting line usually there is
enough material there that a grinder or a file should remove it, only if the
parting line was sunken in and it could not be filed down is there an issue
and if the metal sunk in I would consider that more a defect than any thing else.

dan610324 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 06, 2011, 01:56:43 PM »

yeah correct
but how about iron cannons , how was the molds for them ??
lost wax there also or did they actually use sand molds ??

Cannoneer · « **Reply #16 on:** June 06, 2011, 10:36:01 PM »

Here's one that was left in a really rough state, the famous Athens, Georgia double barreled cannon cast at the Athens Steam Company in 1862.

webshots - photo by buckn21
http://community.webshots.com/photo/fullsize/1283906833049876650BCjKQg

This very rare cannon casting flask and the solid cast iron gun that came from it were recovered from the James River in Virginia in 1962. Workers from Bellona Foundry tossed them in the river in 1864 during a Federal raid of the area.

flickr - photo by Craig Swain
http://www.flickr.com/photos/50467989@N05/5489884241/sizes/l/in/photostream/

The early European cast iron cannon were cast using the same methods developed to cast bronze guns, so there wouldn't be parting lines on the guns. I don't know the timeline of when different casting techniques started to be used to cast iron guns from master wooden patterns.

bluelake · « **Reply #17 on:** June 07, 2011, 02:40:57 AM »

Quote from: dan610324 on June 06, 2011, 01:56:43 PM

yeah correct
but how about iron cannons , how was the molds for them ??
lost wax there also or did they actually use sand molds ??

Interesting piece:

http://bwpowell.com/archeology/salisbury/salisbury2.html

Microboomer · « **Reply #18 on:** June 07, 2011, 05:39:10 AM »

Thanks for the education, everyone! Bluelake, I particularly enjoyed the Salisbury foundry link.
I didn't realize that investment casting was the major casting method for cannons.
Even though I know that investment is used in some modern manufacturing, i have this unfortunate tendency to associate it with art projects!
andy

dan610324 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 07, 2011, 09:05:28 AM »

OLD bronze cannons is the highest artform you can rest your eyes on

Cannoneer · « **Reply #20 on:** June 07, 2011, 10:27:39 AM »

Quote from: dan610324 on June 07, 2011, 09:05:28 AM

OLD bronze cannons is the highest artform you can rest your eyes on

Why Dan, your statement surprises me; what about pin-ups?

dan610324 · « **Reply #21 on:** June 07, 2011, 12:17:29 PM »

anything printed on a paper comes a long way down in my list
but if you talk flesh and blood Im not sure if it should be first or second place

but I always prefer both of them in real and not on paper

dd always tell me that this is a family forum
if it wasnt for that I could send some photos

so now I can only post a sketch

Zulu · « **Reply #22 on:** June 07, 2011, 02:23:59 PM »

Dan,
What's wrong with a pin-up?

Zulu

dan610324 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 08, 2011, 02:02:44 AM »

tooooooo much clothes ;-)
ok back to topic again

exlimey · « **Reply #24 on:** June 08, 2011, 03:17:54 AM »

Its a 32 pdr repro and is fired on a regular basis for visitors and school groups. Call the Fort and ask for the Director whose name is John Muller...no relation to the 18th c artillery book writer ;-)

ironglow · « **Reply #25 on:** June 08, 2011, 04:29:26 AM »

Closest old post anywhere near me is Old Fort Niagara, built by the French, taken by the British (French & Indian war) and finally, by the Americans (Revolutionary war).
http://oldfortniagara.org/visit/virtualtour.php?PHPSESSID=14d6894a39544f8521ffd10c0b454372

Most of the buildings are originals, especially the "French Castle", largest of the buildings (behind the cannon). This building was originally built by the French..who told the Iroquois that it was merely a house or "castle". Truth was, it was actuially a fort in itself, with 3' walls and a well inside..along with places to store foodstuffs etc.
At least some of the guns are originals...perhaps many of them.

http://www.wargame.ch/wc/nwc/newsletter/Dec2000/Niagara/OldFortNiagara.htm

KABAR2 · « **Reply #26 on:** June 08, 2011, 06:58:50 AM »

Quote from: exlimey on June 08, 2011, 03:17:54 AM

Its a 32 pdr repro and is fired on a regular basis for visitors and school groups. Call the Fort and ask for the Director whose name is John Muller...no relation to the 18th c artillery book writer ;-)

Well! Glad to hear John Muller is still there, I had thought he might have retired by now, Jonh is a good fellow I bought an original Spanish M1752 musket from him years ago....when I was portraying a provincial Spanish unit.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #27 on:** June 11, 2011, 12:14:31 PM »

I spoke with John Muller on Thursday and here's what he had to say: The large gun on the garrison carriage is (as exlimey stated) a 32-pounder, and it was made by "Cannons Online." The field gun is a three pounder, and it was made by "LaPan's Foundry" in New York, as was the 8-inch mortar. All of these sized artillery pieces (there was also one 13-inch mortar) would have been present at the time George Washington ordered the fort to be abandoned (the British made an inventory when they took control of the fort). The retreating Continental garrison force could only take a few light pieces of artillery with them when they retreated, so all the artillery that was left was absorbed into the British artillery train.

http://www.hmdb.org/Marker.asp?Marker=7740

flagman1776 · « **Reply #28 on:** July 05, 2011, 02:04:11 PM »

delete