Author Topic: Long Cecil (Read 13026 times)

Double D · « **on:** October 22, 2011, 03:19:51 PM »

Several years ago, Freddo- Colin sent me a a copy of plans for a mdel of the Long Cecil the gun designed by George Labram at the deBeers mine during the siege of Kimberly during the second Anglo-Boer war.

I flled these plans away in a safe place for future reference...well the Future is here and i cannot find the plans.

Does any one have a copy of the plans. The came from an 1900's publication.

Long Cecil-Williams-727 [Public domain or Public domain], by Book: Williams, Gardner Fred, 1842-1922, Photos not attributed, from Wikimedia Commons.

I can find bits and pieces all over the net, but I can not find a complete set.

I know the library at Kimberley South Africa supposedly had a the original drawings. I have some feelers out in the direction, but I can't find a current contact for them.

Does any one hava copy the might share?

shooter2 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 22, 2011, 03:58:31 PM »

Douglas,
I thought for a moment I had what you needed, an article from American Machinist Magazine published August 30 1900 titled 'The construction of Long Cecil at Kimberley during the Seige.' However this is more in the way of a discussion of the actual engineering adaptions that were made to construct the gun itself and not a model. The diagram you have shown is reproduced along with several interesting photos.
It was reproduced more recently by Lindsay Publications

Shooter2

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #2 on:** October 22, 2011, 04:52:02 PM »

I have not found a drawing yet, Douglas, but I thought the membership might like to know what this famous gun looked like. It was a 30 Pdr. rifled gun (gain twist) with a 4.1" bore designed by an American, George Labram who was Chief Engineer at the DeBeers Mine in Kimberly, S.A. During the siege. It kept the Boers at a respectful distance during the Seige of Kimberly in 1900. It was known to have hit Boer encampments at ranges as great as 6,500 to 8,000 yards when 5 Lbs. of BP was used. Until the Boers brought up their 98 pounder, "Long Tom" seige rifle, the defenders of Kimberly were relatively safe. Less than two months before the Boers gave up the seige, they sent a final evening shell into the city from Long Tom. It blew up Labram's room at the Grand Hotel, killing him instantly. Such are the fortunes of war.

Tracy

From wiki.org, photo by Hancock Cassel taken from his book, Cassel's History of the Boer War 1899-1902 with Richard Jones. That's Labram leaning on the gun.

Long Cecil from a different angle ref. Springfield rediscovery site, photographer unknown. They have a model made by Pratt and Whitney in Hartford, CT.

Double D · « **Reply #3 on:** October 22, 2011, 05:14:57 PM »

Shooter2,

Would I be able to get copy of that article?

I believe that is the magazine that had the model plans.

This gun was made in 1899 so I need to get a copy of the plans to submit to ATF for permission to build. Actually, I don't think I need permission to build if under 50 cal. I just need ATF to say that, so I can cover the build here, beside I might want to build it bigger, say 30mm bore with would be just overd but not exactly 1/4 scale.

There is available on line a book that also includes a good description of how the gun was made. The Diamond Mines of South Africa: Some Account of Their Rise and Development http://www.archive.org/details/diamondminesofso00willrich/cassellshistory00danegoog

It is an interesting book covering the era of the start of diamond mining in SA. I ordered a print on demand copy...

Another online source about this gun is from the South African Military history Society. http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol041dp.html

shooter2 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 22, 2011, 08:55:00 PM »

Douglas,
I will try and scan it into a PDF format and PM you with it. My computer skills are weak in this area, so bear with me.

shooter2

KABAR2 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2011, 12:30:42 AM »

There are several models of this around, from what I understand several were made by various machinists at Prat&Whitney I saw one up close once at a guns show very well made.

Double D · « **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2011, 05:04:07 AM »

Any toughts on why the threads on the breech plug might be left hand?

armorer77 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 23, 2011, 06:33:58 AM »

The interesting is that they are right handed in the assembly drawing but left hand in the detail pics.

KABAR2 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 23, 2011, 06:38:31 AM »

It may have had to do with the direction of the rifling so things didn't "unscrew"

Double D · « **Reply #9 on:** October 23, 2011, 07:13:36 AM »

It is a common error made by draftsmen...I just don't know if it is an error in the case.

Double D · « **Reply #10 on:** October 23, 2011, 07:40:22 AM »

Quote from: seacoastartillery on October 22, 2011, 04:52:02 PM

... It was a 30 Pdr. rifled gun (gain twist) with a 4.1" bore designed by an American, George Labram who was Chief Engineer at the DeBeers Mine in Kimberly, S.A. During the siege. ...

Tracy

Tracy where did you find that 30 PDR reference. I have not seen it referred to in any of the writings, I have found yet on the gun. Do you have a reference I haven't found yet?

The PDR reference in the era was a carry over for British martial pieces. The British Military initially kept their distance from this gun and it was never officially called anything but 4.1 inch according to what I have found so far.

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #11 on:** October 23, 2011, 09:29:21 AM »

Double D., Since when did you become a citation wonk? If it looks like a monkey, if it's the same size as a monkey (4.1-4.2 Inch Bore), if it spits as far as a monkey (6,500 to 8,000 Yards), if it's chew weighs the same as a monkey's (28 Lbs.), then I call it a monkey. There is no uppity citation involved, just common sense.

If someone really wanted to add to this discussion, they would mention the name of the South African man who made several of the Long Cecil and Long Tom models, among others about 5 years ago in S.A. that were the best I have ever seen. Anybody save any of his website advertising pics? A computer crash deleted ours.

Tracy

Double D · « **Reply #12 on:** October 23, 2011, 02:12:58 PM »

Quote from: seacoastartillery on October 23, 2011, 09:29:21 AM

Double D., Since when did you become a citation wonk? If it looks like a monkey, if it's the same size as a monkey (4.1-4.2 Inch Bore), if it spits as far as a monkey (6,500 to 8,000 Yards), if it's chew weighs the same as a monkey's (28 Lbs.), then I call it a monkey. There is no uppity citation involved, just common sense.

If someone really wanted to add to this discussion, they would mention the name of the South African man who made several of the Long Cecil and Long Tom models, among others about 5 years ago in S.A. that were the best I have ever seen. Anybody save any of his website advertising pics? A computer crash deleted ours.

Tracy

Citation, my left hip pocket...you said 30 PDR, I have not seen this gun referenced this way before....I am collecting data on this gun, everything I can find. I thought you had a reference , I had not found yet. If you have a reference calling it a 30PDR... don't hide it, share!!!!

I posted those pictures of Zane Palmer and Phillip Spencer guns. http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,100451.msg1098264940.html#msg1098264940

shooter2 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 23, 2011, 08:58:25 PM »

Douglas,
Still trying to make the article into a PDF. As to the discussion about shell weight, the article written by a Mr Edward Goffe who was present at the seige and participated in the construction of the gun and shells lists in the construction notes the shells weighed exactly 29 pounds each when filled and fuzed. I will get this article copied and sent to you as I am able.

shooter2

Double D · « **Reply #14 on:** October 24, 2011, 06:44:43 AM »

Quote from: shooter2 on October 23, 2011, 08:58:25 PM

Douglas,
Still trying to make the article into a PDF. As to the discussion about shell weight, the article written by a Mr Edward Goffe who was present at the seige and participated in the construction of the gun and shells lists in the construction notes the shells weighed exactly 29 pounds each when filled and fuzed. I will get this article copied and sent to you as I am able.

shooter2

Just phjotcopy and put in the mail....

partsproduction · « **Reply #15 on:** October 24, 2011, 08:38:31 PM »

You said it was made in 1899, I thought the magic number was 1898. I'm thinking the American "Screw gun" might be a good design to avoid offending the BATFE, and the stepless interrupted thread is easy to make.

I bought plans for a Whitworth, sort of anyway, they don't show much detail. I'd sure like to find better plans.

shooter2 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 24, 2011, 10:04:58 PM »

Douglas,
Sue finally got it converted to PDF for me. PM sent, copy ready to send.

shooter2

KABAR2 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 25, 2011, 05:12:39 AM »

Quote from: partsproduction on October 24, 2011, 08:38:31 PM

You said it was made in 1899, I thought the magic number was 1898. I'm thinking the American "Screw gun" might be a good design to avoid offending the BATFE, and the stepless interrupted thread is easy to make.

I bought plans for a Whitworth, sort of anyway, they don't show much detail. I'd sure like to find better plans.

While it is a breech loader it does not use fixed amunition comercially avalible, it would be fired with a seperate primer system and although it's build date is 1899 the design does date earlier it may be advisable to check with ATFE on this build but I doubt there will be much issue unless DD decides he is going to build and sell them....

And yes I am not a lawyer.

Double D · « **Reply #18 on:** October 25, 2011, 05:55:33 AM »

The magic number actually is made before 1899. It is less to comply with ATF regs, but more to follow the requirement of this forum that has me writing to ATF for clarification. Board policy is for 1899 and newer design builds, you must provide the moderators with a letter from ATF okaying the build before you post.

I truly believe I do not need ATF clearance to build this gun .50 caliber and under, but before I can post the build here, I have to have the letter.

DaveSB · « **Reply #19 on:** October 25, 2011, 06:45:08 AM »

I believe you are correct. Over .500, post 1899 is a 'destructive device'.

"Any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may readily be converted to expel a projectile, by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore greater than one-half inch in diameter."

KABAR2 · « **Reply #20 on:** October 25, 2011, 07:43:06 AM »

Quote from: DaveSB on October 25, 2011, 06:45:08 AM

I believe you are correct. Over .500, post 1899 is a 'destructive device'.

"Any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may readily be converted to expel a projectile, by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore greater than one-half inch in diameter."

Even if ATFE says it is a DD then all DD needs to do is apply to build a DD...... anyone can legally build a DD even DD, you just need to file the proper paper work and wait 4 to 6 months for approval (200 dollar tax stamp envolved)....

Soot · « **Reply #21 on:** October 25, 2011, 08:30:42 AM »

Quote

I am collecting data on this gun, everything I can find. I thought you had a reference , I had not found yet. If you have a reference calling it a 30PDR... don't hide it, share!!!!

Cassell's History of the Boer War, 1899–1902 by Richard Danes (1903), p. 557
Lists this gun as a 4.9 in or 28 pdr.
I think 4.9 is a mistake.

DaveSB · « **Reply #22 on:** October 25, 2011, 08:39:15 AM »

Quote from: KABAR2 on October 25, 2011, 07:43:06 AM

Quote from: DaveSB on October 25, 2011, 06:45:08 AM
I believe you are correct. Over .500, post 1899 is a 'destructive device'.

"Any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may readily be converted to expel a projectile, by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore greater than one-half inch in diameter."

Even if ATFE says it is a DD then all DD needs to do is apply to build a DD...... anyone can legally build a DD even DD, you just need to file the proper paper work and wait 4 to 6 months for approval (200 dollar tax stamp envolved)....

I think I follow you.... DD can build a DD if he follows the class 3 paperwork of a DD with the ATF. Wait the 4-6 months for the DD stamp, then DD with have no issue with the laws for a DD.

Double D · « **Reply #23 on:** October 25, 2011, 08:53:17 AM »

DD does not fear ATF in this build, no ATF permit, no build...DD fears the heavy hand of the Moderators of this board....no ATF permit, no post!

Double D · « **Reply #24 on:** October 25, 2011, 08:56:24 AM »

One of the reason, I really would like to get my hands on the plans, is that the drawing shows a left hand thread breech plug.

Scribners error? Or is there a reason?

Soot · « **Reply #25 on:** October 25, 2011, 10:11:32 AM »

Here is a pic of the breech showing what looks like right hand thread: Click here.
Bigger: Click here.

Double D · « **Reply #26 on:** October 25, 2011, 10:39:45 AM »

That is right hand isn't it? Wonder why the drawing is left handed?

DaveSB · « **Reply #27 on:** October 25, 2011, 11:08:45 AM »

dyslexic?

Mike H. · « **Reply #28 on:** October 25, 2011, 03:45:59 PM »

Quote from: Double D on October 25, 2011, 10:39:45 AM

That is right hand isn't it? Wonder why the drawing is left handed?

Only the blow-ups are backward. The one in the gun is correct. The blow-ups were probably drawn on onion skin tracing paper before lettering, flipped over for some reason, then lettered on the reverse side.

Soot · « **Reply #29 on:** October 25, 2011, 04:49:11 PM »

I think he just solved it.