8-inch gun, 63 cwt.

[The Jeff]

My IX Dahlgren model is just about finished and I'm researching a new cannon that I've documented my great great grandfather would have been around. He was at Cedar Point Battery in 1861 until he transfered to the CSS Virginia. Looking around on the internet I found these orders:





I thought the 8-inch 63 cwt. gun would be interesting to model next. However, I haven't been able to find much in the way of plans or even pictures. I found where a guy claims the 8" gun was just a 10" gun scaled down to 106 inches. Later on his website I found plans for a 10" gun so I scaled those and ended up with this:





Do you think this is the profile of the gun referred to in the orders? Apparently later 8" 63 cwt. guns had a muzzle swell, different cascable, and slightly different shape. Which style do you think a small out of the way Confederate battery would be more likely to have been issued?

[Artilleryman]

According to the book "The Big Guns, Civil War Siege, Seacoast, and Naval Cannon"  by Olmstead, Stark, and Tucker the second pattern 8 inch shell chambered shell gun of 63 cwt was described as having a nominal length of 106 inches, weight ratio, 110.3 with round shot, bore length, 12.8 calibers in early tubes cast between 1841-1843.

There were four patterns of this gun.  There are no drawings for the first and third patterns.  Your drawing is very close to the second pattern.  The only noticeable difference is that the muzzle ring on the original is closer to the muzzle.

[The Jeff]

According to the book "The Big Guns, Civil War Siege, Seacoast, and Naval Cannon"  by Olmstead, Stark, and Tucker the second pattern 8 inch shell chambered shell gun of 63 cwt was described as having a nominal length of 106 inches, weight ratio, 110.3 with round shot, bore length, 12.8 calibers in early tubes cast between 1841-1843.

There were four patterns of this gun.  There are no drawings for the first and third patterns.  Your drawing is very close to the second pattern.  The only noticeable difference is that the muzzle ring on the original is closer to the muzzle.

Thanks for catching the muzzle ring. I adjusted it based on this picture and this description. If those drawings are right, the front of the muzzle ring would be about 7.5 inches from the end of the muzzle.


Of gun number 1 and 2 in the linked pictures, do you have any thoughts on which would have been the one most likely issued in the orders? Or could either have been equally possible?

[Artilleryman]

The image below was taken from "The Big Guns".  Jeff I don't have any information about which gun might have been the type specified in the orders.  Hope this drawing is helpful.

[seacoastartillery]

     Jeff,    I believe you have selected a real classic cannon to re-create.  I have been interested in that model ever since seeing one on the terraplein of Fort Macon near Morehead City, NC.   In 1862 the Rebel artillerymen chased the Federal Gunboats Gemsbok and Chippewa back and forth as they tried in vain to hit the fort.  I have read that this gun scored two hits on these ships during the battle.  The chop was so bad on the ocean on April 25th that the naval gunners didn't have much of a chance!

     I see Artilleryman beat me to it, but note the caption below for a hint on how to tweak it just a bit to become an 8 inch instead of a 10. 

Good Luck!

Tracy


See how the base ring is just a little bit bigger than the cylinder forward of it?  Dia. 22.6" VS 22.0".  It only protrudes .3" whereas the 10" gun has it a full 1/2" above the surrounding metal.  They recently installed the new replica made of cast iron.  The one we saw in 2004 was fiberglass, but very well done and the size is impressive.  Make yours as large as you can within reason; it will look better!

[The Jeff]

Thanks for the plans Artilleryman. It looks like there was a bit more to it than simply scaling the 10" gun to 106". I updated my drawing to conform to yours.


That's a good picture of the cascabel Tracy. I wasn't quite sure how wide those flat reinforcement pieces were from the drawing. This would make a good candidate for a large cannon since it seems fairly uncommon compared to the normal Civil War guns. But I'm staying at 1:28 scale to compare it to my IX Dahlgren. I've documented my great great grandfather would have either manned or been in close proximity to at least 8 different cannons and I'd like to make a set all in the same scale.


Here's this afternoon's progress. I'm using a piece of 4130 that was left over from another project. The bore diameter is just over .28 caliber.

[Artilleryman]

One of the things that I found interesting about the drawing I posted is a 1/2 inch flare in the bore diameter at the muzzle.  I have to assume that it was put in to assist in the loading process.