Bronze cannon breech?

[Shakethetrees]

Michael,

Thank you for your insight. As a new member of this forum, I am truly amazed at the breadth and depth of the knowledge that is out there!

Here in the US, we don't often get to see the very early weapons and accouterments that are a regular feature here.

I bought this along with another bronze mortar (18th century) of the typical noisemaker form, tapered along its length, a small tray or trough holding the priming powder, etc. I've seen dozens of them if not more over the forty odd years I've been interested in firearms. (It was traded away in a complex deal, the details of which I do not remember right now.)

I kept this one because of the different form; not tapered, mostly cylindrical, reinforces at the muzzle and breech, no pan or tray for the priming, a rounded "crown" to the muzzle, and, of course, the large iron nail. In essence, different from all other mortar/noisemakers that I have seen.

You've got quite a collection! Thank you again for your keen insight.

[Matchlock]

Hi Shakethetrees,


Thank you so much for your compliments!
When reading some of my threads will tell you more about me and my collection; just click on my user name Matchlock will to see my profile, and search or all my threads.

I am most curious to learn about the length, width and weight of your detached breech/chamber for a breechloading piece.
BTW, which of these terms do you prefer?

Should ever consider selling it, I would be glad to integrate it with my collection! I am sure we would find a way to manage that.
So please do keep me updated.

May I ask for good quality hi-rez photos of that item, at least 4 MB each, and zooming up on details such as

- the cross in high relief, and close-ups of the punched circles
- the muzzle flat gazing right at you
- a view of the muzzle, slightly slanted
- a few views of the bore, and all down to the bottom
(please take all the images in broad daylight but in the shade, not in sunshine, and use the flash additionally)

I sent you a PM!


Best for the moment being,
Michael

[fernando]

Hi Shakethetrees
I am sorry if i gave you a wrong perspective on your item. It wasn't a bad intent; only the way i saw it ... and still do .

.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Shakethetrees

... reinforces at the muzzle and breech ...

It was precisely these rims that took to realize that this wasn't a breech chamber. All chambers that i happen to know (and those that i keep) don't have any protuberances in both back and front. Such features do not help at all the matching of the chamber with the breech cavity and barrel entrance ... specialy considering that, once the chamber is introduced in the breech, you have to push it into the barrel and, in some cases, rotate it.
Actually what is often seen is a significant tapering of the chamber mouth, to provide for a better sealing when you push into the barrel.
Although i found somehow problematic that the front of handle is placed so far and close to the mouth, nearly preventing the chamber introduction into the barrel.
The absence of a lip in the touch hole, although often seen in noise makers, doesn't exist in many other cases; probably because in such case a match fuse is used, instead of loose priming powder being poured.

.

[cornelistromp]

I don't think it is a breech block from a breech loading cannon.
Breech blocks don't have/need reinforcing rings and the mouth of the block must be conical/tapering to to obtain a good seal.
I believe it is a thunder mug, but probably a early one 17th, 18thC . see large picture.

best,
Jasper

[fernando]

Geat input and examples, Jasper.
After all, i wasn't that wrong

[Shakethetrees]

Michael,

I will try to get some larger photos for you, but it may be a while before I can set up, as I'm still involved in moving!

[Shakethetrees]

Michael,

Good luck, and our thoughts are with you in your recent troubles.

I hope everything is resolved quickly and that ultimately some functionary snaps out of this insanity and listens to common sense!