Need info on this old artillery ammo

fernando · 21st January 2013, 04:11 PM

Hi Adrian,
Thank you for coming in with your input in the subject, which i know you are familiar with.
I still admit that this shell might date to a prior period, in this case consistent with the 'primitive' fuze hole width, but am not in a position for a solid conclusion. So let's remain with the Peninsular war probability.
I have strongly scratched the interior contents and not much came out of it. It looks a bit darker than local earth ... and rather fine. I heated it with a lighter flame for some twenty seconds and nothing happened. At this stage i wouldn't feel like taking a more violent measure towards the contents ... not for fear of deflagration but for risking to take the 'patina' from the hole and similar damage.
Also i wouldn't go for the shot put hypothesis; a bit too old, a bit too wide, a bit overweight ...with its 13 cms and 7,8 Kgs.
I have emailed a Portuguese Colonel who is known for his expertize in Artillery mathers. I hope he reverts with some answers.
Attached i show a close up of the hole, some interior contents, before and after failed combustion atempt.
... And an overview of my cannon balls, the two largest ones in stone; probably not so large as the one you once got ... was it in Malacca ?

,

kronckew · 21st January 2013, 07:00 PM

casting sand for comparison: sand next to the metal gets burnt black, yours does appear to have some black specks. the bigger pebbles are atypical in casting material. may have dropped in for visit later & stayed.

adrian · 22nd January 2013, 10:21 AM

Hi Fernando, most likely it is dirt with rust particles, baked hard with heat & dryness. I once emptied a loaded cannon in which the powder had set like concrete from decades in the extreme heat of the Middle East - I had to chisel it out - it still flashed (weakly) when a small piece was lit. I agree its not likely to be a Shot Put & is perhaps a pre 1800s early shell. The British had a shell wall thickness of approx 1/6 the diameter, this was considered to be quite thick, whereas the French had a much thinner shell wall - I don't recall the French thickness to diameter ratio. What does your example's wall thickness measure?
Yes, good memory, my stone ball is from the Malacca Straits, a Portuguese shipwreck I am given to understand. Its diameter is 6 inch (15 cm) weight 10.5 lbs. Yours look to be close to this size?

fernando · 22nd January 2013, 01:13 PM

Thank you Wayne.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

casting sand for comparison: sand next to the metal gets burnt black, yours does appear to have some black specks. the bigger pebbles are atypical in casting material. may have dropped in for visit later & stayed.

This material is thinner than sand and lighter than earth. Dark tone achieved after burning atempts gets darker, but not black. Only one minuscle pebble showed up after four samplings, not enough to be representative, i guess.

fernando · 22nd January 2013, 02:00 PM

Hi Adrian,
I see your point. I have scratched hard again with a stiletto like, sharp pointed blade and again only residual contents came out. So probably only the chiseling opearation would result.
It is rather hard to measure or estimate the shell wall thickness, as part of the whatever contents is stuck to the walls right up to most of the hole aperture. Although easy to discern that, the small part that is not continued by the shell contents, measures some 5 m/m, so much thinner than the British ratio you mention, this is no reliable evidence, as the hole entrance looks completely uncharacterized by age elements. But again judging with no scientific basis, the (heavy) weight of this shell seems to denounce a thick wall.

My stone balls specs;
The limestone one measures 19 cms and weighs 7,8 Ks (17 pfund ). Apparently from Germany, as announced by the German auctionner.
The granite one mesaures 18 cms and weighs 8 Kgs. (18 arratels). Apparently Portuguese, as acquired on the Lisbon area.

.

21st January 2013, 04:11 PM	#1
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Adrian, Thank you for coming in with your input in the subject, which i know you are familiar with. I still admit that this shell might date to a prior period, in this case consistent with the 'primitive' fuze hole width, but am not in a position for a solid conclusion. So let's remain with the Peninsular war probability. I have strongly scratched the interior contents and not much came out of it. It looks a bit darker than local earth ... and rather fine. I heated it with a lighter flame for some twenty seconds and nothing happened. At this stage i wouldn't feel like taking a more violent measure towards the contents ... not for fear of deflagration but for risking to take the 'patina' from the hole and similar damage. Also i wouldn't go for the shot put hypothesis; a bit too old, a bit too wide, a bit overweight ...with its 13 cms and 7,8 Kgs. I have emailed a Portuguese Colonel who is known for his expertize in Artillery mathers. I hope he reverts with some answers. Attached i show a close up of the hole, some interior contents, before and after failed combustion atempt. ... And an overview of my cannon balls, the two largest ones in stone; probably not so large as the one you once got ... was it in Malacca ? , Attached Images

21st January 2013, 07:00 PM	#2
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,238	casting sand for comparison: sand next to the metal gets burnt black, yours does appear to have some black specks. the bigger pebbles are atypical in casting material. may have dropped in for visit later & stayed. Attached Images

22nd January 2013, 02:00 PM	#5
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Adrian, I see your point. I have scratched hard again with a stiletto like, sharp pointed blade and again only residual contents came out. So probably only the chiseling opearation would result. It is rather hard to measure or estimate the shell wall thickness, as part of the whatever contents is stuck to the walls right up to most of the hole aperture. Although easy to discern that, the small part that is not continued by the shell contents, measures some 5 m/m, so much thinner than the British ratio you mention, this is no reliable evidence, as the hole entrance looks completely uncharacterized by age elements. But again judging with no scientific basis, the (heavy) weight of this shell seems to denounce a thick wall. My stone balls specs; The limestone one measures 19 cms and weighs 7,8 Ks (17 pfund ). Apparently from Germany, as announced by the German auctionner. The granite one mesaures 18 cms and weighs 8 Kgs. (18 arratels). Apparently Portuguese, as acquired on the Lisbon area. . Attached Images

22nd January 2013, 10:21 AM	#3
adrian Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 133	Hi Fernando, most likely it is dirt with rust particles, baked hard with heat & dryness. I once emptied a loaded cannon in which the powder had set like concrete from decades in the extreme heat of the Middle East - I had to chisel it out - it still flashed (weakly) when a small piece was lit. I agree its not likely to be a Shot Put & is perhaps a pre 1800s early shell. The British had a shell wall thickness of approx 1/6 the diameter, this was considered to be quite thick, whereas the French had a much thinner shell wall - I don't recall the French thickness to diameter ratio. What does your example's wall thickness measure? Yes, good memory, my stone ball is from the Malacca Straits, a Portuguese shipwreck I am given to understand. Its diameter is 6 inch (15 cm) weight 10.5 lbs. Yours look to be close to this size?