Is this iron correct for this Bailey and Pegg carronade (canonade)?

[aboatguy]

I asked in my original thread and didn't get a response; so I'm starting a new thread with my questions.
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
From the bore I believe its a 6 pound trunioned carronade.   
I'll repeat the oral history from the 98 year old previous owner.  Her dad recieved it from a German ship in 1906.   She has pictures from the 1930s of it sitting on the beach at her parents home.  She got it around 1950 had the carriage redone and it sat on the slab shown in my original post ever since..    So to reiterate are the irons proper for this piece (were iron axles used with wooden wheels)  Or is this iron from the 1950s carriage restoration?
 
Thanks
 
Mike

[A.Roads]

I don't believe that the iron work, especially the axles, is as old as the barrel. Whilst the iron bolts look like the sort of thing that was used, the iron axle in my opinion should be a timber axle.
Adrian 

[Zulu]

Mike,
I'm pretty sure the iron axle is not original.  The capsquares look proper.  Here is a carriage I built for one of my wooden barrels.  More pictures can be seen here on my website. 
http://www.jmelledge.com/Carronade.html
Also a typical carriage drawing of the same period.
Zulu


 
 

[cannonmn]

I have one side of an orig ins gun carriage here, and it isn't stepped at all, but the top edge is just like the profile of a French Curve tool you may recall from art or drawing class.

[Frank46]

This is interesting. I'm thinking of the process that is used to flush out the chlorides (salts) in the metal when iron cannons are brought up from the sea. Much like the one used on the CSS Hunley. While far from an expert it would seem to me that having been exposed to salty atmospheres over the years it probably has absorbed some amount of chlorides. If that was mine I would contact a museum about conservation procedures to insure that your cannon does not end up as a pile of rust or iron oxide. And no way would I even think of sandblasting or other rust removal process. Frank

[cannonmn]

And no way would I even think of sandblasting or other rust removal process.

My apologies to the author, but this is well-meant but incorrect info.  I've been collecting and restoring cannon for about 40 years and have stripped, washed, primed, and painted many like this without having any of them flake apart or otherwise disintegrate.  The cannon shown in pix above has been away from saltwater for well longer than needed to see if the iron had absorbed enough chlorides to flake, and obviously it had not.  The paint that's on it would not have stopped chloride-induced flaking, which goes on under the surface of the metal and gradually causes all the iron above it to flake off onto the ground.

Had the piece ever been submerged in seawater for any length of time, yes, it would require long-term and expensive treatment to remove most of the chlorides that had worked down into the iron.

Strip-wash-prime-paint with sanding down in between coats if required.

If that was mine I would contact a museum about conservation procedures

Good idea but how many museums are going to have correct info on this topic?  My guess is that if you get any museum to even comment on this, they would take a "safe" approach and tell you that extensive treatment is required when it is not.  A better idea is to contact a collector with some real experience at this, meaning get a second opinion from somebody like me, but somebody else.

[aboatguy]

 Thanks for all the information.  AFAIK this piece has never been submerged.  Its been sitting on the shoreline since 1906 .   Right now its about 40 yards off of the high tide mark...   Which is as far away as I can get it from the water right now.  Cannon M please post a picture of that carriage side piece.  From the recollections of a very sharp 98 year old mind the wheels were wooden and the sides were stepped.  However, the 1906 carriage may not have been original either.   
 
 
Mike 

[Artilleryman]

You may not be able to determine exactly what type of carriage was used originally.  In that case your best bet is to build a period appropriate carriage for the barrel.

[Double D]

I wonder, since this isn't a sealed to pattern  British Government carronade but  a commercial gun for use on a merchant ship, would there even be a "correct" carriage.  What are the chances a ship owner, bought a barrel and turned it over to the ships carpenter and said make a carriage?  The correct carriage then being what ever the ships carpenter built.

[aboatguy]

I wonder, since this isn't a sealed to pattern  British Government carronade but  a commercial gun for use on a merchant ship, would there even be a "correct" carriage.  What are the chances a ship owner, bought a barrel and turned it over to the ships carpenter and said make a carriage? The correct carriage then being what ever the ships carpenter built.

Good point  and thats why I was posting the iron.   Iron axles don't seem correct however, IMO somone went threw a lot of work on those for a display carriage.  This set of iron originally went all the way through the wooden side pieces.   As a display piece short lag bolts would have sufficed and nobody would have been the wiser. 
 
 
 
I'd still like to see cannonm's curve side piece.
 
 
Mike

[lendi]

aboatguy,

There is a complete caronade with carriage in Greenport NY similar to yours at Prestons. I  check it out evrytime I get there.  Check out the USS Constitution website they have pictures of caronades with the style carriage you are looking for.  When I was building carriages I made 3 or 4 carriages for Dixie gunworks caonade
 barrels.  Here is the last one that I did.  Material is 3" white oak.  Just remembered,  when i was painting steel parts i would treat them with "steel etch" a product from NAPA.  It isphosphoric acid.  used in auto body shops to keep raw steel from rusting.lendi

[cannonmn]

dupe deleted

[cannonmn]

Check out the USS Constitution website they have pictures of caronades with the style carriage you are looking for.

Those images are fantasy and have led people astray for many decades.  The icing on the cake was when the USNA museum was re-done, the overpaid, underqualified contractor got those drawings and had a huge, plastic gunade constructed at a huge cost, then put a sign on it describing a carronade, which the ugly plastic monster was anything but.  Various board members have contacted the museum about the error but the director, Dr. Harmon, could care less, his plastic monstrosity will be there after we're all pushin' up daisies.

[lendi]

cannonman,

don't have a clue what you are referring to.  here is a an old photo of gunades on the Constitution that i was referring to    http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/46/0946021124.jpg.  Please give me more detail as to what you are talking about.
lendi

[Frank46]

Cannonman, no apologies are necessary. I was looking at the cascabell and noticed that there was flaking there. Not an expert and will probably never be one. It is I should who should be apologizing to you and the owner of the cannon. Frank

[cannonmn]

 

cannonman,

don't have a clue what you are referring to.  here is a
an old photo of gunades on the Constitution that i was referring to   
 http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/46/0946021124.jpg.
 Please give me more detail as to what you are talking about.

We're both talking about the same items, the fantasy gunades that someone dreamed up, and had made up and installed on Old Ironsides during a ca. 1930 restoration.  Those are all fakes.  Over the years when apparently no one in a position to do anything about it realized a massive mistake had been made, the restoration project's drawings for the fantasies were sold to the public on paper and later on disc, and may still be for sale for all I know.  That's where the USNA museum contractor got them, which caused the expensive old mistake to spawn an expensive new mistake.

[GGaskill]

So you are saying the the Constitution did not have carronades on the top deck or did not have trunnioned "carronades" on the top deck?  Seems like accurate information regarding the historical ordnance of the ship is hard to find.

[cannonmn]

CONSTITUTION, during all of her years of active service as a mobile warship, never mounted a single "weapon" like the fantasy weapons shown in the photo linked above.  Those are something someone involved in her ca. 1930 restoration dreamed up, or copied from somewhere, who knows where, then had produced and mounted for the viewing pleasure of the ship's generally unsophisticated visitors.  That's an easy thing for such as museum to do and get away with for decades, and they did, as I've never seen a critique of those fantasy weapons dated during the time they were on display there.

Similarly, how many people visiting the Museum of the United States Navy in DC have challenged the authenticity of the "Cortez Gun" and the sign dating it to 1480 and noting that Cortez brought it from Spain in the early 16th C. to use in the conquest of Mexico?  Answer:  Two people, Bob Smith and myself.

A bit of digging should uncover the composition of the batteries she did mount.  I think I saw an article by one of her recent CO's on that subject, will try and re-locate it.

[cannonmn]

Here's the article on the armament of CONSTITUTION up thru about 1815.  You'll see that she did acquire two captured British "shifting gunades" in 1814, but as you can see from the drawing of them, they were much different in form than the fat, stubby items in the photo linked above.
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/Warof1812/2006/Issue3/c_ussconstitutionguns.html

[cannonmn]

Here's one on CONSTITUTION's ammo loadout.   A nitpick:  The numbers for 32-pounder shot weren't added correctly.
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/Warof1812/2006/Issue2/c_constitutionsload.html

[GGaskill]

Those articles are certainly interesting.  Unfortunately, the gun drawings remind me a lot of railroad folio drawings of cars and locomotives, more a record of gross dimensions than a builder's plan. 

Are there any other drawings in the Archives to your knowledge?  THe NA are too far away for me to be making personal researches.

[cannonmn]

Are there any other drawings in the Archives to your knowledge?  THe NA are too
far away for me to be making personal researches.

Yes, thousands of them, but you have to specify what item you want.   DD wanted some carronade drawings back when, I think of one specific caliber, and I pulled out copies of maybe a half-dozen.  The cannon drawings in the archives are usually just one projection, what I think we'd call a "plan view" sometimes showing a 90 degree rotation on the same view so you can tell whether trunnions are centerline or low.

[GGaskill]

So are they of the same style as the ones shown in Commander Martin's articles or are they more engineering drawings with dimensions and accurate representations of the depicted item?

[cannonmn]

Those done by the USN Bureau of Ordnance or its predecessor org. are almost always dimensioned; those that came from other sources, particularly foreign ones, are sometimes only a profile with no dimensions or perhaps length only given.
Here's a rather long slideshow with images I happened to have on the 'puter, of some of the Nat. Archives naval ordnance drawings, which may or may not be representative of the entire collection, because as I said there are thousands.  Password if req'd is "attack."
http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums64/Naval%20Ord%20Dwgs%20from%20Nat%20Archives%202010-08/?albumview=slideshow
 

[SLEEPY BEEPER]

It's hard to tell from the pictures. But someone who knows machining. Could probably tell you if the axle is turned or forged. Probably by looking at the area where the iron axle goes from square to round. If it's forged. It has a better chance of being original. If it's turned. Probably not.

[cannonmn]

It's hard to tell from the pictures. But someone who knows machining. Could probably tell you if the axle is turned or forged. Probably by looking at the area where the iron axle goes from square to round. If it's forged. It has a better chance of being original. If it's turned. Probably not.

Sounds to me like you are convinced that axle was reduced at the ends from one bar of steel or iron.  I'm less certain.
 
If I were making it I'd drill two deep holes in the ends of the basic rectangular bar, then insert short pieces of round stock on either end to make the wheel-bearing parts.  The round stock could be inserted while the rect. bar was red hot, then shrinkage on cooling would lock the roundstock in place.  Or it could be secured via cold interference fit, pressed in, then give further insurance with a cross pin or dowel in a hole drilled transversely for the purpose. 
The perfect squareness of the ends of the bar leads me to believe the axle wasn't forged.  You could certainly use a lathe to turn the ends down from the rectangular piece, but that's a lot more work than drilling and filling.

[steelcharge]

I have photos of a 4-pounder Bailey & Pegg gunade on a carriage that looks (atleast to me) to be original, it has "curved" cheeks and iron axles, but the axles look slightly different. I'll see if I can post some photos tomorrow.

[GGaskill]

Those drawings are very interesting and could easily be used for construction.  Do you know if there are drawings for the 24 pounder long guns in the Archives?  Are the British pattern 24 pounders from the 1930's restoration completely wrong or could that pattern have been used when the short 24 pounders were replaced?

[cannonmn]

G2, drawings of both the Model 1794 and 1807 24 pdr. long gun are shown in the article linked above, and here; one is from the Nat. Archives. 
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/Warof1812/2006/Issue3/c_ussconstitutionguns.html

The second question, I don't quite understand but I don't think I'd have the answer anyway.  I'd refer you to Spencer Tucker's excellent book ARMING THE FLEET, by the USNI press. 

[Zulu]

I have been under the impression that the carronade had a "cupped" mouth.  The drawings do not show that.
Can someone enlighten me?
Zulu