Author Topic: Is this iron correct for this Bailey and Pegg carronade (canonade)?  (Read 3688 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GGaskill

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5668
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is this iron correct for this Bailey and Pegg carronade (canonade)?
« Reply #30 on: December 18, 2012, 08:48:31 PM »
I read Commander Martin's articles and saw the drawings included, the one below representing the Model of 1807.



That drawing and the following one of the carronade were what I referred to as reminding me of railroad folio drawings; that is, no dimensions and sufficiently undetailed as to believe they are general depictions only.

Most of the drawings in your slide show appear to be the kind of engineering drawings one would send to a supplier specifying exactly what you wanted.  That style is what would be needed to be confident you were making an accurate model or reproduction.
GG
“If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.”
--Winston Churchill

Offline cannonmn

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
Re: Is this iron correct for this Bailey and Pegg carronade (canonade)?
« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2012, 02:23:17 AM »
Z, look a little closer, I see a definite chamfer, or short very short conical section on some of them, which I suppose could have been implemented in different ways at different foundries.

Offline cannonmn

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
Re: Is this iron correct for this Bailey and Pegg carronade (canonade)?
« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2012, 03:01:03 AM »
G2, ok, that's the only published drawing I've seen of the model 1807, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better one hidden away in the archives or more likely in some founders' papers in some smaller institution somewhere.  I know there's quite a bit of material in the MD. Historical Society related to an early Baltmore area founder who cast cannon for the US during the Revolution and for some time after, but no "cannon people" have ever rooted around in it as far as I know.
If someone wanted better dimensions on the model 1807, they might get them quicker by finding a surviving example.  Seems to me since there are three surviving specimens of the M1794, there's probably at least one M1807 perhaps sitting in some cemetery somewhere, as yet unidentified.  People have sent me photos of iron guns in that size range in cemeteries that no one has identified, but when I got them I knew nothing about the Navy model 1807.  Now that I have a little info on the Model 1807, I may spend some time over the holidays trying to find those photos again.

Offline cannonmn

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
Re: Is this iron correct for this Bailey and Pegg carronade (canonade)?
« Reply #33 on: December 20, 2012, 02:19:44 AM »
Quote
If someone wanted better dimensions on the model 1807, they might get them quicker by finding a surviving example.

Lemme do better than that.  There's a thick Congressional document dated 1835 which is a super-detailed survey of thousands of individual cannons in the princpal U.S. Navy yards of that time.  All gun, carronades, gunades, etc. have their somewhat-detailed measurements (up to 5 or 6 important dimensions) listed for each individual weapon, not just the type.   Markings, such as they were on those early weapons, are also given, along with some general comments on the group of like weapons at that yard.  When known, the ship they were "landed" from is also given.

Anyone doing a serious study of early US Navy cannon must use this document, or wind up with huge voids in is work, since nothing else since published has the range nor depth of information.
The cover reads:  "[Rep. No. 141] National Foundry.  March 3, 1835.  Read, and resolution concurred in.  Congress of the United States."
 
Someone asked about CONSTITUTION's armament, and 30 of her long 24's are listed and described in detail on pp. 54-55 of this report, detailing all the guns in the Charlestown, MA yard.  The guns have obvously been landed from the ship for ship repairs or whatever at the time of the survey, and on pp. 55 is stated:
 
"From 56 to 85 inclusive (gun numbers) long 24 pounders, all have raised vent fields, bored for locks, breech rings, with trunnions in the centre, except Nos. 77 and 71, which have trunnions below centre.  They are English Crown guns.  The rest are American maufacture.  From 56 to 85 incusive, are part of the Constitution's armament."
 
To the left of this paragraph is a table of data with measurements,weight, marks of each gun, in columns spanning two pages.

Offline SLEEPY BEEPER

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Is this iron correct for this Bailey and Pegg carronade (canonade)?
« Reply #34 on: December 23, 2012, 05:30:02 PM »
Aboutguy, Looks like we don't have the answer you want on your iron. Which says a lot. I would clean it up and use it. That way you have it. Until someone proves it one way or the other. Which I bet isn't going to happen.

Offline aboatguy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: Is this iron correct for this Bailey and Pegg carronade (canonade)?
« Reply #35 on: December 26, 2012, 07:47:33 AM »
Aboutguy, Looks like we don't have the answer you want on your iron. Which says a lot. I would clean it up and use it. That way you have it. Until someone proves it one way or the other. Which I bet isn't going to happen.

Sleepy Beeper, I wasn't looking for a particular answer  (in regards to Yes or No).  The iron axles and other remaining iron work intrigued me.   The carriage previous to this one had wooden wheels which le me to believe that the axles were originally wood.      However, I've seen pictures of Bailey and Pegg cannon/caronades captured by the Brits in Africa odd looking carriages.  So as you posted the answer right now is inconclusive in regards to the carriage this tube used in its life on the German Merchant ship at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries.  The previous owner is certain that her father procured it in 1906 from unknown German ship.
 
I should know more in a couple of months when I have the time to remove the paint.  I'll attempt to remove the paint without damaging the iron in order to legibly preserve any remaining foundry marks.
 
Mike   

Offline Iron Balls

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 131
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is this iron correct for this Bailey and Pegg carronade (canonade)?
« Reply #36 on: May 06, 2013, 08:50:26 AM »
New here and I know next to nothing about cannons. But it seems there is a question about the shape of navel gun carriages. When I see the "stepped" carriage, I see a lot of sharp corners. I do know that a lot of injury's were sustained when the ship was being handled in rough seas. Many of these were caused when men fell against the cannons. Seems to men these sharp corners would be quite a liability. Sounds like a statement but, really, it's a question.
Sorry if I over stepped on my first post.