Author Topic: ********* (Read 1927 times)

OoooOOoo1010010 · « **on:** September 17, 2011, 06:46:38 PM »

**********************

Cannoneer · « **Reply #1 on:** September 18, 2011, 03:32:59 AM »

OldSalt1841,

Thanks for opening this topic and posting the photos; good work.
Your first pic shows an original "3-inch wrought iron rifle", but that's a reproduction in the second photo. The fact that it's not rifled is a dead giveaway, but even if the barrel was rifled, the muzzle face marks aren't right. Genuine 3-inch ordnance rifle's have distinctive, deep and pronounced lettering and numbers marked on their muzze faces; compare the markings on the muzzle of the gun in the first photo with those seen in the second pic.

Cannoneer · « **Reply #2 on:** September 18, 2011, 08:40:30 AM »

Well, OldSalt1841, I love a good mystery, and it appears like we've got one here. Just out of curiosity I checked the 'National Registry of Known Surviving CW Artillery', and the Registry does list a gun inspected by Theodore Thaddeus Sobieski Laidley, with a 'U.S. Army Ordnance Registry Number' of 32, and a weight of 807 lbs.; but it's supposed to be located in Andersonville, Georgia, not at Fort Dickerson in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Was it from signage by the three guns at Ft. Dickerson, that you got the information that two of them were original 3-inch Ordnance Rifles?

little seacoast · « **Reply #3 on:** September 19, 2011, 02:18:49 AM »

I've known they were there for years but just never wandered over to check them out. That's on tomorrow's agenda. Any particular markings or details anyone wants photographed?

OoooOOoo1010010 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 19, 2011, 07:09:00 AM »

****************

Cannoneer · « **Reply #5 on:** September 22, 2011, 09:56:56 PM »

There's no doubt that the gun seen in the second photo that OldSalt1841 posted is a replica, but I’m also now beginning to think that No.32 probably isn’t original either. It’s possible that this 3-inch Ordnance Rifle was moved to Knoxville from Andersonville, and it’s also possible that the National Registry contains an error, but the more I look at the rifling in that barrel, the more I’m convinced that this gun is not genuine.
I have been studying muzzle shots in seven photos of different 3-inch Ordnance Rifles that I have saved, and not one of them shows rifling as pronounced as the rifling of the gun shown in OldSalt’s photo. I’m even beginning to conjecture that that rifling isn’t cut into the bore, but is simply cast dummy rifling traveling a short distance down the bore to where the plug begins. I also made this observation which may turn out to mean nothing, because I haven’t had the opportunity to view the muzzle faces on all 570-something still extant rifled guns manufactured by the Phoenix Iron Co.; but of the seven pictures of muzzle faces that I have looked at, the U.S. Army Ordnance Registry numbers are all marked at 12 o’clock, and the Registry number marked on this gun’s muzzle face isn’t.

little seacoast,
If you could get there to check out this gun, these things would be of real interest: Take a good look at that bore plug and rifling. Is the plug made of iron, and does it look to be cast integral with the bore walls? If it does, then that would either mean that the barrel was originally cast that way (a replica), or molten iron was poured down the bore of the upright gun at a later date; and why would anyone bother doing the latter?
Look at both trunnion faces to see if there are markings there . This would be your call to make (if it’s even doable): The foundry numbers of these guns were stamped at the top of the right rimbase face, but you’d have to be able to lift the capsquare to view it, and many of these gun’s numbers have been worn away because of corrosion and friction with the capsquare (the foundry number of this gun is supposed to be 34). OldSalt already said that U.S. is marked on the top of the barrel, which is as it should be. The only other thing that I can think of, is to check the entire surface of the barrel for the name of a modern manufacturer that may be marked on it.

OoooOOoo1010010 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 23, 2011, 04:40:00 AM »

**************

OoooOOoo1010010 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 23, 2011, 08:32:47 AM »

*********************

OoooOOoo1010010 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 23, 2011, 08:36:52 AM »

******************

Cannoneer · « **Reply #9 on:** September 26, 2011, 02:29:33 AM »

OldSalt1841,
Thanks for the additional observations and photos. On the barrel with the rifling that extends about 4-inches down the tube, did you have the impression that the plug blocking the bore is iron (it sure looks like it's rusting)? Do you think that it is a plug that's been jammed down the bore, and if so, did you notice any visible seams between the edge of the plug and the lands and grooves of the rifling ?
While getting accurate measurements on the tube could tell us if it's a replica (if they don't jibe with Army Ordnance drawings), they cannot in turn tell us if it's a real period 3-inch Ordnance Rifle, because a replica might have been made to exact scale.
I'm going to go with the guess that all three of these guns are modern replicas, but I will say that it's possible that the cannon with the 4-inches of visible rifling could be the real deal.
Were you able to get in contact with that Knoxville Civil War Organization yet?

OoooOOoo1010010 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 27, 2011, 10:42:14 AM »

*****************************

Cannoneer · « **Reply #11 on:** September 27, 2011, 01:03:50 PM »

OldSalt1841,

Maybe you should'nt try the acid test just yet, we don't want to see a member in handcuffs.

The authorities might not be all that understanding of our enthusiasm,

so maybe just check the plug with a magnet for now, and see if there's any visible seam between the rifling and the so-called plug.
While you're trying to contact the CW Roundtable, I'm going to send Jim Bender (keeper of the National Registry) an email, and try and find out the exact location (Andersonville, Georgia) of No. 32, and anything else he might know about the gun.

OoooOOoo1010010 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 27, 2011, 01:39:38 PM »

****************

Cannoneer · « **Reply #13 on:** September 29, 2011, 06:12:29 PM »

I received a reply from Jim Bender, and his records show that No. 32 was first documented for 'Registry' purposes on Dec. 31, 1986 when it was located at Andersonville, Georgia; but of course he also agrees that it's possible that the gun could have since been moved from Andersonville to Knoxville,TN.
This gun also has some interesting history to it, Jim Bender attached this pdf: http://sz0121.ev.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/Official%20Records%20Chap%20LV%2C%20page%20411%2010-18-1864.pdf?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=523841&part=3
No. 32 is first on this list of cannon captured from the CSA, in fact for 3-inch Ordnance Rifles No.32, No. 339, No. 141, and No. 194 it would be more accurate to say that they were recaptured from the CSA by Brigadier-General George Armstrong Custer's forces on October 9, 1864 near Columbia Furnace, Virginia.
This is entirely new to me, but evidently the CSA was installing side mounted rear sights on (at least those on this list) 3-inch Ordnance Rifles at this time; so I'm assuming that they didn't then have access to pendulum hausse sights.
This photo is courtesy of Jim Bender, and it shows three holes on the right side near the breech on 3-inch Ordnance Rifle No. 194, which is now privately owned.
http://sz0121.ev.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/3-in%20Ordnance%20Rifle%20No%20194%20Anomolies%20RH.pdf?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=523841&part=2

OldSalt; did you take any photos of this area on No. 32, or do you remember seeing any holes/plugs there when you looked the barrel over?

Edit: George Armstrong's forces, huh; that would probably be better understood if I added Custer's last name.

OoooOOoo1010010 · « **Reply #14 on:** September 29, 2011, 06:33:20 PM »

**************

Cannoneer · « **Reply #15 on:** September 29, 2011, 06:43:46 PM »

Thanks, OldSalt1841. When you post the pics I'll attach them (if it's OK with you) on my next email to Jim B., as he said he's also interested to know if this gun has the holes; he's fairly certain that if this gun doesn't have the bored holes, then it's not the real No. 32.

OoooOOoo1010010 · « **Reply #16 on:** September 30, 2011, 01:07:44 PM »

*****************

Cannoneer · « **Reply #17 on:** October 01, 2011, 06:15:30 AM »

OldSalt1841,
I sent Jim Bender your first photo (muzzle face & bore) of No. 32 yesterday, and this is his response: "This is a repro, rifling is to crisp and the markings do not match the early Ordnance Rifles I have seen and/or have photos of.
Attached is a photo of No 38.
No 55 & 64 still had the large muzzle markings.

Jim B."

http://sz0121.ev.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/3-in%20Ordnance%20Rifle%20No%2038%20Chick-Chatt%20May%202011%20Muzzle.jpg?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=524600&part=2

I didn't have photos of any lower numbered Ordnance Rifles, the earliest I had were in the 200's; but now with Jim B's opinion on the muzzle face stampings, along with the rifling, and the fact that no holes exist on the right rear side of the barrel, I think we've got to conlude that this gun is definitely a replica.

Thanks for opening this topic, I learned a few new things here.

OoooOOoo1010010 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 01, 2011, 08:28:27 AM »

******************

flagman1776 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 01, 2011, 09:23:21 AM »

Zulu · « **Reply #20 on:** October 01, 2011, 09:37:35 AM »

Quote from: flagman1776 on October 01, 2011, 09:23:21 AM

I don't get someone going to this amount of trouble for a non-firing replica. Very strange.

I do!
There is great value in an authentic looking static display. My hat is off to the artist. He obviously cared about his project.
Zulu

OoooOOoo1010010 · « **Reply #21 on:** October 01, 2011, 10:39:35 AM »

********

flagman1776 · « **Reply #22 on:** October 01, 2011, 01:02:48 PM »

OoooOOoo1010010 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 01, 2011, 01:12:21 PM »

***********

GGaskill · « **Reply #24 on:** October 01, 2011, 05:30:45 PM »

South Bend Replicas offered rifling of the muzzle of rifles which were otherwise smoothbores for display purposes. It was less expensive than boring for and installing a rifled sleeve.

OoooOOoo1010010 · « **Reply #25 on:** October 02, 2011, 11:52:35 AM »

**********

OoooOOoo1010010 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 02, 2011, 12:00:09 PM »

*************

Cannoneer · « **Reply #27 on:** October 04, 2011, 03:52:31 AM »

Thanks for posting the pics, OldSalt1841. You'll get no argument from me about this M1841 bronze 12-pdr Field Howitzer not being the real thing, but that carriage is another story entirely. I mean, man, that thing is no less than pathetic; is there any contact info there for this KA Fraternity, that's supposed to be in charge of this Howitzer?

OoooOOoo1010010 · « **Reply #28 on:** October 04, 2011, 06:57:02 AM »

***************

Cannoneer · « **Reply #29 on:** October 04, 2011, 12:02:39 PM »

OldSalt1841,

I had the pleasure of speaking to a gracious southern belle named Jessie today, and she belongs to the "United Daughters of the Confederacy," which (as you have already stated) is the organization in charge of 'Bleak House'. She told me that it is actually the Kappa Alpha Fraternity at the University of Tennessee which owns, and is still responsible for maintenance on the M1841 Field Howitzer. She said that there were games (capture and hide, recapture etc.) played by rival fraternities, so Kappa Alpha decided to make a long term loan of the piece to the "Confederate Memorial Hall" site. She was kind enough to give me the name and number of the person to speak with at the fraternity, so I'll send you the info on a PM.