Author Topic: A challenge to our Sponsors, and anyone else building cannons (Read 3047 times)

Double D · « **on:** September 12, 2011, 05:41:23 PM »

This years deadline for the GBO/South African Miniature Cannon Club postal is coming up. Lets start thinking about next year.

Every one who shoots and sends in a target encourages others to shoot also. Sponsors those others are all potential customers.

Here is the challenge--build a suitable cannon to use in the 2012 GBO/SAMCC postal match.

Criteria;
Smoothbore
less than .800 caliber
no sights.

Now we all know Brooks USA makes a copy of the SAMCC club gun. But that isn't t the only design that the club memebers used. The Napoleon with muzzle flare was vary popular. The bronze "ships" cannon was also popular. They had a wide variety of barrel and carriage configurations, some quite conceptual. One characteristic was to make the muzzle flare the same as the base ring to simplify aiming.

Here is a link to my fototime album with pictures of various Cannons used by the club to give you some idea what they use..
http://www.fototime.com/inv/82ABCC084C8913B

How about it sponsors are you up to it for 2012?

How about the rest of you who build cannons, lets see what you can come up with.

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #1 on:** September 12, 2011, 08:48:48 PM »

Quote from: Double D on September 12, 2011, 05:41:23 PM

This years deadline for the GBO/South African Miniature Cannon Club postal is coming up. Lets start thinking about next year.

Here is the challenge--build a suitable cannon to use in the 2012 GBO/SAMCC postal match.

Criteria;
Smoothbore
less than .800 caliber
no sights.

They had a wide variety of barrel and carriage configurations, some quite conceptual. One characteristic was to make the muzzle flare the same as the base ring to simplify aiming.

How about it sponsors are you up to it for 2012?

How about the rest of you who build cannons, lets see what you can come up with.

We think that this challenge is very intriguing, Double D. We would encourage anyone who has the equipment to go for it, after all next years contest is a long way off. We will certainly consider building something, but we can’t be sure if it will join our 1.00" Dia. rifled sleeves and cannon blanks, ready for exterior machining, or not. The very first time I saw the method of aiming used in this unique contest, I thought of the type of cannon shown in the following photo by Morgan Rum shot in 2010 in front of Government House in Bermuda and displayed in Wikipedia Commons.

The Carronade has several advantages over other types, we believe. There are no trunnions to block your view and the entire gun and carriage can be made of steel and cast iron to control recoil. We think a large bore division gun could be made at .799 cal. Shooting a .787 dia. RB. The gun would have a weight around 30 Lbs to assist in controlling recoil and maintaining stability. It would have a muzzle inserted aiming disk which is standard sighting equipment for those designs which do not have a muzzle flare. The Carronade is certainly one of those!

These are really different looking, we know, but they have a charm all their own, and if you see a full size one as we did at Old Fort Niagara near Niagara Falls, they seem pretty impressive in 24 pounder or 32 pounder size.

Tracy

Max Caliber · « **Reply #2 on:** September 13, 2011, 07:17:38 AM »

Tracy,

I have one of those in my pile of things that I need to finish.

KABAR2 · « **Reply #3 on:** September 13, 2011, 07:34:11 AM »

Max,
I like your casting, I had made arraingments with Cannonmn to borrow a carronaid model he had to pull a mold off of, arraingments were made and then we got the news that my Carrol was terminal ... I forgot about the carronaid for some months and found that it had been traded off so the opertunity was lost..... one of these days I am going to have to build one....

Double D · « **Reply #4 on:** September 13, 2011, 10:43:26 AM »

I think the Carronade would be a very poor candidate for a gun shooting the SAMCC postal. Short barrel and no muzzle swell would make it difficult to aim--the use of a muzzle disk would help but not that much. The better shooters in SA do not use a disk.

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #5 on:** September 14, 2011, 07:34:27 AM »

It's a good thing that you didn't decide to go into sales, Double D. We will be considering a variety of different types of cannon to build. If we decide to build the Falkirk gun, it will be after considering all the advantages And disadvantages of that design and the decision will be ours and ours alone.

Nice looking parts, Max. What is that tube made of?

Tracy and Mike

KABAR2 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 14, 2011, 07:47:57 AM »

Quote from: Double D on September 13, 2011, 10:43:26 AM

I think the Carronade would be a very poor candidate for a gun shooting the SAMCC postal. Short barrel and no muzzle swell would make it difficult to aim--the use of a muzzle disk would help but not that much. The better shooters in SA do not use a disk.

Actually Carronaides have sights cast onto the top of the tube.... though short range it might be an interesting challange to see just what the accuracy would be with one of these....

Max Caliber · « **Reply #7 on:** September 14, 2011, 08:47:52 AM »

Quote from: seacoastartillery on September 14, 2011, 07:34:27 AM

Nice looking parts, Max. What is that tube made of?

Tracy and Mike

The barrel is actually a two-piece wood casting pattern. I cast a barrel in bronze from it but didn't like the finish so I will make another pattern before I try it again.

Double D · « **Reply #8 on:** September 14, 2011, 10:47:31 AM »

Quote from: KABAR2 on September 14, 2011, 07:47:57 AM

Actually Carronaides have sights cast onto the top of the tube.... though short range it might be an interesting challange to see just what the accuracy would be with one of these....

There lies the rub Allen.

The goal is not a build a small caliber cannon, the goal is to build a small caliber cannon suited to shooting the SAMCC postal.

A smooth bore of under .800 with no sights.

The carronade is a lovely pattern and I have one on my to build list, but it is would not be be very useful for shooting the SAMCC postal. Nothing saying you couldn't shoot it in the SAMCC postal, no not at all. You can shoot what ever you want as long as it meets the criteria.

What I trying to encourage is our sponsors to build some dedicated guns for shooting the SAMCC postal. We need more selection.

I have been in sales and I am trying to promote a specific type of cannon that will generate sales for our sponsors and is less difficult to shoot in the SAMCC postal for the ordinary guy. A carronade is not that gun. It has no redeeming qualities to make it useful in SAMCC shooting.

Qualities that make a good SAMCC gun is muzzle swell and base ring the same diameter on a long heavy barrel. Look at the pictures in the link I provided and you will see that is the quality that almost all the gun in Durban have.

EDIT: a major "foo-paw" in this post a rim base and base ring are two different things...I said rim base and I should have said base ring. Error corrected...

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #9 on:** September 16, 2011, 07:50:02 AM »

As we have said twice before, we are considering quite a few different designs of cannon before making a final decision. One thing we know for sure is that it will be as close to a historical design as we can find and also it will not force us to dramatically increase the muzzle swell. ALSO, it will be an IRON GUN, not brass. Michael has done a beautiful job with brass that we will not try to duplicate. We are limiting search even more by including a further requirement. Some people can use the rimbases for the rear sight. We have lots of difficulty doing that, so we have been searching for a gun with below-center trunnions which means that you can do your sighting for deflection in the same manner as you sight for elevation, using the breech ring and the muzzle swell for both.

So, we wondered, what type of gun are we looking for which has these attributes? Revolutionary War American tubes have these qualities as do lots of French and British cannon of the 1700s. We decided to look in a binder of Rev. War guns we put together 5 or 6 years ago. Viola! On page 7 we located one that will work well. See pic of photocopy below:

It's fairly rare to see a Rev. War era tube in such good condition. At about five and a half feet long and about 8-9" O.D. at the base ring and 7-8" O.D. at the muzzle and having below-center trunnions, it fits the bill quite well. I will agree with DD on the subject of muzzle disks. They would be a pain in several different ways, Safety, Repeatability and violating the rule about reducing complexity to reduce the variables. A cannon somewhere around 1/4 to 1/3 scale would be expected from this piece, having a tube about 16.5" to 22" long and about 26 Lbs. in 1/3 scale with a .799" dia. bore and 11 Lbs. in 1/4 scale with a .50 cal bore.

Any opinions?

Mike and Tracy

KABAR2 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 16, 2011, 09:07:41 AM »

Should look good, very close to what I am building now though mine has a 1" bore, and 15 1/2" long. I can tell you that low trunnions are a pain, my thought of creating a saddle and setting the tube into it is not working out well, it puts the trunnions too low, I will have to either cut apart and create a fixture to keep them centered or go to center line trunnions......

lendi · « **Reply #11 on:** September 16, 2011, 09:56:12 AM »

from sackets harbor ny many cannons in great shape in this area. also in kingston ontario
lendi

GGaskill · « **Reply #12 on:** September 16, 2011, 01:44:24 PM »

Low trunnions ARE a pain. The bottom isn't in the tube very far if you maintain reasonable thickness at the top, or vice versa.

The Jeff · « **Reply #13 on:** September 16, 2011, 02:19:11 PM »

I think Queen Elizabeth's Pocket Pistol would be the perfect historical target cannon. Such a long barrel would give you a better sight radius and the muzzle swell appears to be close to the breech diameter. The trunnions are also bellow the centerline so Mike and Tracy's idea of sighting down the side would still work.

The cannon is 24' long, has a 22' bore length, and shoots a 4.75" ball. Scaled down to .79 caliber, the barrel would be 47.89" long!

http://v5.cache4.c.bigcache.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/5381732.jpg?redirect_counter=1
http://www.dover.freeuk.com/garrison/pistol.htm
http://artillerymanmagazine.com/Archives/2002/queen_f02.html

GGaskill · « **Reply #14 on:** September 16, 2011, 02:37:38 PM »

Even ignoring the surface details and engraving, that would be a difficult barrel to make without gun drills. Even with, it would take a while.

Another more practical model would be the 6 pounder "Walking Stick" of 1819. Anyone know where there are dimensioned plans for this gun?

KABAR2 · « **Reply #15 on:** September 16, 2011, 03:21:12 PM »

Yes and with the length of the pocket pistol you would be much closer to the target........

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #16 on:** September 16, 2011, 04:36:21 PM »

This has become a very spirited discussion. Jeff, wouldn't that piece turn heads at the range! Allen is correct; that gun would definitely get you closer. Practically speaking, GGaskill brings up an old favorite of ours. The 'Walking Stick' sure is a beautiful gun, even with that fairly pronounced muzzle flair. It couldn't claim to follow the 1/3 rule, however, at the breech.

T&M

The 'Pocket Pistol' is inside these days where it is harder to get a decent photo.

This 6 Pdr. 'Walking Stick' is just a tiny bit larger than 9.5" Dia. at the breech and not known for it's strength, but sure was a nice looking gun.

Sorry, can't place this first pic collected several years ago, but the 2nd is by Mark Swain in 2011, RE: www.markerhunter.wordpress.com

GGaskill · « **Reply #17 on:** September 16, 2011, 05:36:10 PM »

It couldn't claim to follow the 1/3 rule, however, at the breech.

True, I suppose, but I wouldn't be making it from questionable cast iron. The cwartillery site hosted by Robinson's Battery gives the breech diameter as 10" for the 3.67" six pounder bore and total length at 71.6" so if making a one quarter scale one (bore = .9175", length = 17.9", breech dia = 2.5"), one could under bore at .75" and easily make the 1:1 rule. A one third scale version would be 1.223" bore, 23.86" long and 3.33" breech dia which would make an interesting 1" bore gun.

KABAR2 · « **Reply #18 on:** September 16, 2011, 05:47:33 PM »

Well just for grins I dumped the pocket pistol into a scale converter it worked out in 6th scale very nicely if I got it right ...
.
Length 24 feet in 6th scale it would be 48" long
.
Caliber 4.75" in 6th scale would be 0.791666666
it would be like putting wheels on a musket barrel......
.
http://jbwid.com/scalcalc.htm

Double D · « **Reply #19 on:** September 16, 2011, 05:53:17 PM »

Make the walking stick 1/4 scale with a 2.5 inch breech and 17.9 long barrel and a standard .50 or 54 cal bore. Sound like a great gun for shooting the SAMCC postal

GGaskill · « **Reply #20 on:** September 16, 2011, 06:05:31 PM »

Regarding this picture, is the carriage believed to be period or from later development? I would have expected a split trail carriage in 1819.

KABAR2 · « **Reply #21 on:** September 16, 2011, 06:14:16 PM »

Quote from: GGaskill on September 16, 2011, 06:05:31 PM

Regarding this picture, is the carriage believed to be period or from later development? I would have expected a split trail carriage in 1819.

I don't think the French were using this type that early and since we copied their equipment....... Some where I have a drawing of a carriage for a 6 pounder let me see if I can find it and what the time frame is....

Cannoneer · « **Reply #22 on:** September 17, 2011, 02:35:20 AM »

The U.S. 6-pdr "walking sticks" would have originally been mounted on double bracket carriages. Capt. Alfred Mordecai returned from his European artillery fact finding mission in 1834, and the U.S. Army adopted the French "Valee System" block trail carriages in 1836.

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #23 on:** September 17, 2011, 02:56:18 PM »

Here is another really good looking iron field piece of the early 1800s. These photos were taken by us on our 6^th research trip in 2007 along U.S. Route 7 in Lancaster, New Hampshire and have been posted previously almost five years ago. This Model 1836 is another very slender gun of the same dimensions as the bronze Model 1835 according to www.robinsonsbattery.org which is hosting a large collection of identified artillery.

These are a few different views of this U.S. Model 1836, 'malleable iron', field gun. The carriage is not representative of the 'Valee System' that Cannoneer mentioned, which features carriages essentially the same as U.S. Field Artillery Civil War carriages. It was the best that the town could afford and the tube is in nearly perfect condition, showing excellent care in painting. Does anyone have a drawing for this one. Anyone live fairly close by?

We believe that this field artillery gun is worthy of consideration, because it has the large, beautiful ‘Tulip’ muzzle swell and is a long, slender gun of 65.6 inches only 6” shorter than the Model 1819. This gun, like the 1819 has rimbases which are suitable for sighting purposes with some practice. From Field Artillery Weapons of the Civil War by Hazlett, Olmstead and Parks we learn that 3 of the original guns cast by Cyrus Alger in South Boston still exist and weigh an average of 44 more pounds each than the bronze gun of 1835. Our Lancaster, NH gun cast in 1837 weighs 779 Lbs. Made of “Malleable Iron”, they were far more likely to survive Army handling and firing than the fragile, brittle, cast iron, ‘walking stick’. This fine looking field piece would likely have had more longevity if the Army did not vote to use bronze exclusively for field artillery shortly after these were cast. The iffy durability of the ‘walking stick’ and other iron guns caused this decision as well as the discovery of massive copper deposits in Michigan.

The Model 1836 Field Artillery piece tube would have a Breech Ring of 2.5" Dia., be 16.4” long and weigh 12 Lbs. if we made it in ¼ Scale with a .50 cal bore.
So, what do you think about this one?

Tracy and Mike

carmy53 · « **Reply #24 on:** September 17, 2011, 04:35:36 PM »

Quote from: seacoastartillery on September 17, 2011, 02:56:18 PM

Anyone live fairly close by?
Tracy and Mike

I live about 3 hours drive away.

Double D · « **Reply #25 on:** September 17, 2011, 05:28:44 PM »

I haven't heard from Dom or Ed on this yet.

I understand Seacoast Artillery quest for historical accuracy, that is what their business is about. The SAMCC guns are more a conceptual pieces, purpose built.

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #26 on:** September 17, 2011, 05:33:01 PM »

I will make a call to A.O.P. to see if they have the 1836 cannon tube drawing first and besides no one has indicated thumbs up or down and why on the 1836, Frankly there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in the contest gun idea, yet. We WILL NOT be making any field gun carriages, but here are what the American version of the Valee System looked like, Model 1836 U.S. Field Carriage, made in 1837.

These images of the 1836 carriage and the accompanying information is quoted from Matthew Switlik’s great artillery carriage and carriage irons site here: www.museumandcollector.com

“Two beautiful examples of the American version of the French Valee’ system are owned by the Concord Battery, Concord, Mass. The official conversion date to the stock trail carriage is listed as 1836 and these are dated 1837. Note the lack of “step” in the trail profile, low profile pointing ring, sponge chain hasp and key, wider and heavier lunette, all iron axle, rope hooks (bricole hooks) on linch washers and on the cheeks; no crosshead on elevating screw, tires are nailed on.” by Matthew Switlik

Double D · « **Reply #27 on:** September 17, 2011, 05:48:03 PM »

I got the idea for this challenge from reading Dom's Micro Dahlgren # 2 post and seeing the shooting results he got.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #28 on:** September 18, 2011, 03:53:21 AM »

Douglas,

To the best of your recollection, did one type of gun carriage (field or naval) generally outperform the other at the SA shoots?

Double D · « **Reply #29 on:** September 18, 2011, 04:33:00 AM »

Quote from: Cannoneer on September 18, 2011, 03:53:21 AM

Douglas,

To the best of your recollection, did one type of gun carriage (field or naval) generally outperform the other at the SA shoots?

The better shooters at the time I was there were shooting field carriages the best. There was a new young guy who was shooting "ships cannon" who was learning how to shoot who was doing very welll and challenging the old timers.