![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]()
Nice work; impecable stand
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Rhineland
Posts: 375
|
![]()
Thanks for the feedbacks!
The number of the weight myght be a possibility, but I doubt that it was an one from its shape... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Chino, CA.
Posts: 219
|
![]()
As a point of clarification the difference between a swivel gun and a signal cannon is often just the mounting/fittings. Length can be from about 12in./30cm to 28in./71cm. for either. Though 15in./38cm. and under is more typical of swivel guns and over 20in./50.cm is more typical of signal cannons. Some barrels were basically universal between the two modes (though some were made for dedicated purpose as one or the other). The square cube law as is relates to mass and weight means that over 20in./50.cm becomes very difficult to operate as a swivel gun.
What's interesting here is that the length would suggest that it's more on the signal cannon side of things. However it has the remnants of a firing lanyard on the neck and knob. A very real possibility is that it was used as a swivel gun last. But because of the interchangeability of it all. It could have originally been a signal cannon that was repurposed for wartime. The form is very indicative of an American or British make from around the turn of the 19th century. Given that it's clearly a shipwreck recovery and it's similarity to ship and dock guns of the time It's even very likely that a gun like this was involved in the war of 1812/Napoleonic wars. I'd actually lean more towards American given that at the time the British were starting to use wood stocks on their swivel guns. Whereas the Americans for a large chunk of that time period had no more than 13 warships the British has over 6,000. America building more ships had to be done on the cheap and discretely as it was hard to secure funding and they didn't want to be seen as mobilizing. Rounding up all the dedicated signal cannons and converting them into swivel guns is exactly the kind of thing the poor American fleet would have had to do at the time. Oh also you may want to double check the mounting job you did. The firing lanyard appears to be upside down. However if the bow of it is on the vent hole side it may just be that it got turned somehow. It could also be that it was mounted upside down for more control with the kick of the gun given it's length (again if the vent hole is on the same side). |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
I take it for me that, as long as the trunnions are accurately positioned, which is to expect from the gun smithing specialists, "heavy" cannons swivel so easily that their weight doesn't count. ... Unless i am in a different frequency and didn't get your point, for which i would appologize ![]() . |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Chino, CA.
Posts: 219
|
![]()
It's not the fact that it can still swivel if well balanced at virtually any size. It's that when you touch-off one that's too large, no bar is going to prevent that thing from kicking back on you and actually sending the round god knows where. Larger and longer barrels equate to either more charge capacity or more gas compression. There is no outguessing for this either. So it all comes as recoil. The bigger the gun, the more it takes to keep it under control while discharging. There's an upper limit on what a man can manage in this respect.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]()
Reasoning considered. Still, gas compression wasn't properly these things middle name
![]() ![]() Not to speak of the linstock and other devices that would enable the gunner to hold still the cannon and light the fuse at a safe distance ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|