Cannon diagram

Topical Discussions include anything pertaining to Gunsmithing.

Moderators: Harold_V, JackF, GeorgeGaskill

User avatar
xo18thfa
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:59 pm
Location: Las Vegas NV

Cannon diagram

Postby xo18thfa » Sat Dec 26, 2015 7:54 pm

From this image on the internet. Did not know all these parts had names.

Have a Happy New Year, Bob
Attachments
Cannon.jpg
Bob Sorenson, Las Vegas, Nevada

JackF
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:56 pm
Location: Caldwell, Idaho

Re: Cannon diagram

Postby JackF » Sun Dec 27, 2015 12:31 pm

Interesting Bob, I didn't either. :o Are you planing to make a cannon? If so , it would be nice to see another thread on this subject. :)


Jack.

User avatar
mklotz
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Cannon diagram

Postby mklotz » Sun Dec 27, 2015 12:44 pm

I'd be interested to know what logic or mathematics was used to decide where to place the various reinforcing rings.
Regards, Marv

Home Shop Freeware
http://www.myvirtualnetwork.com/mklotz

JackF
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:56 pm
Location: Caldwell, Idaho

Re: Cannon diagram

Postby JackF » Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:16 pm

Maybe just by examining earlier failures?


Jack

User avatar
steamin10
Posts: 6495
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2003 11:52 pm
Location: NW Indiana. Close to Lake Michigan S. tip

Re: Cannon diagram

Postby steamin10 » Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:03 am

First, dont go crazy over one picture of a late European design, with a bunch of scribbles on it. This gun is typical of designs through the 16-1700's, for the English channel nations. The designs varied with the nation and gunworks that cast and bored the tubes. Early guns were all bronze. Later years made Iron cannon as it became cheaper, and easier to produce. Later guns into the civil war (where the aging Napolean design was prevalent) became Parrot rifle, Ordinance rifles, Dahlgrens, and others. These guns were mostly abandoned by 1900, as steels became usable for tubes, and the powders became cordite and Nitro-celulose based, with cased or bag charges. The advent of breech loaders.

Remember the Chinese invented gunpowder about 1000 AD and were casting brass and bronze before that. Asia had working hand cannon, and land sledge cannon, when discovered by Europeans many years later. (alegedly, Marco Polo, who had bargained for, or stolen the recipe for gunpowder). Actually, the Moores were using black powder before the whole of Europe, so the magic may have come from there.

It is the details of information, after you ask the curious question, that boggles the mind. Making a sword is much the same. All of the parts and shapes of a simple combat blade has names, and are specific if you ask an armorer to make one.

This drawing does not show any 'dolphins', a typical ornament for the unshipping of a tube from its carriage, for movement or repair, on shipboard mounts.

User avatar
xo18thfa
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:59 pm
Location: Las Vegas NV

Re: Cannon diagram

Postby xo18thfa » Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:34 pm

JackF wrote:Interesting Bob, I didn't either. :o Are you planing to make a cannon? If so , it would be nice to see another thread on this subject. :)


Jack.



Hi Jack. A cannon has been on the "to do" list for 40+ years. I had a quarter scale 12lb mountain howitzer in 3/4" bore. Got it from Dixie Gun Works around 1970. Made a carriage. Shot it often. Then my mom sold it at a garage sale when I was in the Army. Women!!

I like the mountain howitzer look. Looking thru "the stuff" I found this diagram. If I ever do a cannon, it would be 1/4 scale of this in 3/4" bore. Like the one I had.

The example above has a nice shape, but would that not be a real job to turn??
Attachments
model1835a.jpg
Bob Sorenson, Las Vegas, Nevada

JackF
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:56 pm
Location: Caldwell, Idaho

Re: Cannon diagram

Postby JackF » Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:18 am

Bob, That looks like a nice project. I made a copy of that drawing for a possible future project. :D


Jack.

pete
Posts: 1288
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:04 am

Re: Cannon diagram

Postby pete » Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:32 pm

mklotz wrote:I'd be interested to know what logic or mathematics was used to decide where to place the various reinforcing rings.


It's quite likely Marv that actual logic and mathematical based facts didn't enter into most of those cast barrel designs. From my reading gun explosions due to poorly refined materials and casting defects were more than common in the English navy prior to 1770 when a Jan Verbruggen was finally brought in from Europe to overhaul the whole cannon casting and machining process at the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich England. One of his methods was to cast the barrels in a compacted earth filled pit that surrounded the casting mold and standing vertical with the muzzle end up so the least amount of inclusions should have been at the breech end. And the molten metal would in theory be the densest where the pressures would be at the highest level. He also started casting the barrels solid without an undersized bore for later machining since that was the usual practice at that time. It was more work to do it that way but they found it made a much stronger barrel and with the wooden framed machine tools they had at the time easier to get a straight bore. My thoughts are that the reinforcing rings were cast into those barrels for hundreds of years by best guesses, traditions, tea leaf reading or other divine leadership about where it was best to add them. :-)

The very first early cannons were wooden staved barrels reinforced by rope and/or metal banding and likely the barrel reinforcement practice just continued with the cast barrels. By about 1799 you can see they deleted any reinforcing rings on the cast Napolean 6 and 12 lbrs since by then they knew they weren't needed. Some later breech loading artillery pieces did or may still do add heavy shrink fit barrel reinforcements for the first 1/3rd or more of the barrel at the breech end and at least some of those reinforcements had the trunnions as well because it was cheaper to do it that way. The muzzle swelling shown on that drawing is still in use today on modern artillery that aren't using muzzle brakes since it's used to help guide the firing back blast energy so it's angled away from the main parts of the gun and crew. So for that part there was some actual logic used for why it was needed. It's easy to see that swelling in pictures of WW II naval deck guns.

Some of the terms or descriptions used for various areas and rings on the barrel were borrowed from architectural terms. I know you already know some or maybe all of this Marv but others may not. Once the cast guns started to become more mathematicaly engineered what they did after a whole lot of trial and error was base each and every part so it was sized as a percentage of the bore diameter. At least the British and American naval guns were during and a bit before the American civil war. I'm still not sure if that was 100% true for the land based artillery during that same time period. At around the same time they started proof firing the barrels at the foundrys using double or sometimes a bit more charges of powder and shot so in field gun explosions became a lot less frequent. Government inspectors were usually required to be present and they stamped the barrel as passed after the proof firing. Very accurate go/no go bore gages we also being used by those inspectors before a barrel was accepted. Most of my knowledge is about British and American built smooth bore artillery so the little I know may not be very accurate for other parts of the world for the same time periods.


Return to “Gunsmithing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests