Keeping on the cannon path

[fernando]

I am deeply enjoying this new acquisition .
Having being orientated for its purchase by an expert fellow member ( ), no wonder this is the real good stuff ... excelent stuff, if you don't mind.
The bore is 21 mm. Have not yet checked if it is tapering to the breech; will have to find some kind of stick to verify that.
The total length, as it is now, is 43 cms. The weight is 2,935 Kg.
The seller dated if from circa 1400 but our expert fellow member ( )corrected it to circa 1450.
Typical early rought iron; you can even discern the welded junction of the reinforcement rings.
Amazingly the touch hole is not in perfect alignment with the tail square section; however the difference is not such as to let us think that the touch hole is deliberatly deviated to the (right) side, which i read it happens some times.
A pity that its iron tiller/tail is broken, or deliberately cut off (?).
Who knows one day i come across a similar specimen in its complete status; then the tail secret would be revealed.
Say Michael ( ), is there any chance that the tail has always been like it is now, to be lodged into a shaft, or some other device?
... And, don't hit me too hard for all the nonsense .
Fernando

.

[Philip]

Congratulations, Fernando, on another fine acquisition! What is supposed to be the locale of origin for this one? I am impressed by the proportions of the piece, noting the taper to the barrel, the expanded breech and the muzzle reinforce, and the way it balances on your display pedestal. There is something about its dimensions and shape that seem much more refined than the simple tubular form of the full-sized bombard cannons of there era, rather, it seems to foretell what direction cannon design was to take in the following centuries, down to the end of the muzzle-loading era.

I have a feeling that the "tail" was originally longer and came to a point, to be embedded in the end of a wooden shaft. In such case it was not crucial that the touch hole be oriented exactly at midpoint on any one face of the square-sectioned tail since this extension would have been buried in the wood anyway and thus not be noticeable.

To check to see if the bore is more or less a true cylinder: do you have access to balsa wood? If so you can shape a cylindrical piece the diameter of the bore at the muzzle. When you carefully tap it in, all the way to the breech, the end will be compressed into a taper or cone if the bore narrows towards the breech and the difference can easily be measured once the stick is removed.

[M ELEY]

Fernando, who is this mysterious fellow member of which you speak? ( )

Absolutely a beautiful piece, my friend. Green with envy again. Its amazing how these pieces have held up over the many centuries, considering the rough way they were used. I am assuming that this one had a heavy wooden framework that was stationary? Or was it possibly mounted on one of those frameworks that allowed for upward/downward movement. Too bad my finances are as they are. Otherwise, I too would seek out Michael's advice on landing an amazing piece such as this.

[fernando]

Dear Philip,
Thanks a lot for your input.
The origin is said to be Northern Europe; obviously i would like to have a more precise definition, but i am afraid i wil have to live with such one.
Alright, assuming that the tail was longer; could either just be a bit longer for the purpose you suggest, but also be a long tiller, to be held under the armpit, in the typical tiller gun manner. Well, in the field of giving wings to imagination, it could even have had its finial in the form of a ring, to be used by horsemen, tied to the chest, like the famous scopitus (sclopitus), as we see illustrated in several early firearms publications. Its barrel is a bit long and heavy for that, i suppose, anyway .
I am expecting that Michael has a look at these pictures, to confirm his assumption that this is a so called tiller gun. He has seen zillions of these things, his eye is most experienced in this area.
I will keep in mind the balsa wood resource ; thank you for the hint. Meanwhile i have checked this bore with some devices i had at hand and it appears to be cylindrical. What happens is that some rust is located at the first third but, igoring that, the section at the breech looks as wide as the muzzle opening.
Best
Fernando


.

[fernando]

Hi Mark, thank you for your kind words.
I don't think this is a stationary weapon, but a portable one, more likely to be hand held; but let's hope that the mysterious fellow member ( ) gives us some enlightening on the subject.
Anyway, i should have added its length in inches, to give a better idea of its dimensions to the inch people, that being 17".
My finances are not (never) better than mediocre, either. It is a question of option. I love these early things. To balance the budget, i am letting go a few pieces i like less.
Best
Fernando

[celtan]

Nando, the "monkey's tail" extension sometimes was just a metal extension with a loop, designed 2b inserted in the cascabel or rear prong: A separate piece, although sometimes it was fixed by soldering in place.

Your Falcon / Verso doesn't truly need a longer rear projection, its OK as it is.

There were all sort of contrivances made to be attached momentarily to the rear. Short wooden poles mated to the stump,for aiming and then removed after firing. This also protected from the blast coming out the vent/ oido/ fogon. Those early iron Falcones had the nasty habit to blow up like a fragmentation grenades when you least expected. The farther away the shooter, the safer he was.

These small cannons were sometimes carried on ship's wales, on tripod-like mounts, and even on thick vertical wood mount-stands. When smaller, there were even mounts designed to be inserted in a cavalryman's saddle!

Looking at the shape of the cannon, it wouldn't surprise me if the barrel was made in two sections, then soldered together ant the seam covered by that middle "reinforcing ring". The rear of the gun seems to have been similarly made. Heck, it boggles the mind, but what if it is threaded..?

Congrats on your new "child"! The table and support also make for a nice presentation...

: )

SuperManuel

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Mark, thank you for your kind words.
I don't think this is a stationary weapon, but a portable one, more likely to be hand held; but let's hope that the mysterious fellow member ( ) gives us some enlightening on the subject.
Anyway, i should have added its length in inches, to give a better idea of its dimensions to the inch people, that being 17".
My finances are not (never) better than mediocre, either. It is a question of option. I love these early things. To balance the budget, i am letting go a few pieces i like less.
Best
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Philip

To check to see if the bore is more or less a true cylinder: do you have access to balsa wood? If so you can shape a cylindrical piece the diameter of the bore at the muzzle. When you carefully tap it in, all the way to the breech, the end will be compressed into a taper or cone if the bore narrows towards the breech and the difference can easily be measured once the stick is removed.

Hi Philip,

Thank you for asking so many demanding questions in one single post that I have to work my way thru them step by step, so please forgive my being slow!!!

As to this quotation: according to my experience, it would be quite unusual to expect a tapering bore with a narrowed powder breech after ca. 1430. As I stated, though, your idea of testing the bore using balsa wood is just brilliant! Furthermore we should keep in mind that many medieval bores involuntarily deviate quite a bit from exactitude up to ca. 1500. Actually, quite a lot of early barrels seem to have been re-bored on the occation of their re-use during the Thirty Years War (by the latest).

Best, and please do keep driving me to my limits,
Michael

[Matchlock]

Here is another possibility how your barrel could originally have looked like, of course with an iron rear extension instead of a wooden.

From Cod.icon. 222, Bartholomäus Freysleben, Inventarium von Büchsen und Zeug, 1495-1500.

Best,
Michael

[fernando]

Thank you all gentlemen, for making this develop into such great thread, which leaves me and my cannon full of joy .
I have been weaving some considerations, after your various propposals.
The tail, Manuel, as you mention; indeed the berços had most times these devices detachable, to minimize problems of limited space aboard early ships.
These tails were then called over here 'rabos de ferro' (iron tails), but berços (breech loading falconets) appeared at a stage later than that of this cannon.
Thinking of Philip's sugestion, i confess i envisage hand cannon tails being more often of the socket form, having their wooden poles 'plugged' in; the other way round wouldn't be an harmonious and secure connection, to my view ... but i am a rookie in this area.
On the other hand, if the missing part was not so lengthy, and coming to a point in projection of its tapering angle, it would be improbable that it has been broken by accident.
If instead, and following Michael's later hints, it has been cut off, from being either a short tail or a long tiller, the reason would be its conversion, from a hand held piece into another type of gun; a stationary version, who knows which... a tripod stand cannon, a niche cannon, what else?
Definitely many long leaving weapons (and not only), ended up being sumitted to one or more modifications through their lives.
We are together, guys .
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by fernando

A pity that its iron tiller/tail is broken, or deliberately cut off (?).
Who knows one day i come across a similar specimen in its complete status; then the tail secret would be revealed.
Say Michael ( ), is there any chance that the tail has always been like it is now, to be lodged into a shaft, or some other device?
... And, don't hit me too hard for all the nonsense .
Fernando

.

No nonsense at all, Nando, but questions worth a discussion which I have already partly tried to enliven.
Looking at one of the beautifully details that you gave us clearly shows traces of hammering at the end of the stick, so that most probably denotes that the sharp iron edges were smoothened with the hammer after shortening the tiller. If you look at my post of today with the attached pieces of my small Nischengeschütz it is evident that its tiller was sawn off too and, as you put it, lodged into the stock, or rather wooden square base.
Honestly, as all conceivable variations of original finials are possible, I am afraid we will never find the perfect ending for your barrel. There is need, either. It is just fine the way it is.

Besides, you have certainly noticed the small and still tentative earliest molding around the touch hole, which actually makes it one of the very rare most 'primeval' beginnings of an igniting pan found on medieval barrels! At the same time this perfectly confirms my dating of your barrel to 'ca. 1450'.

Moreover, it can be distinctly seen where the reinforcing muzzle ring was drawn over the muzzle when in yellow or red hot condition - a superb and rarely enough noted discerning detail!

Best, and congrats again,
Miguel