![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,459
|
![]() Quote:
LOL! My Hollywoodian affinity can truly appreciate the drama in this tale!! ![]() and reviewing more into old notes here in the Bookmobile, I can see where my 'fired from the hip' wording has misfired. Actually my description of the use of various objects such as nails, glass etc. was meant to refer to the breech block deck guns (murderer) I was noting, rather than these full stocked blunderbusses. This perception was further in thoughts of the use of these materials in cannon on vessels in the 18th c. and this type 'shot' was termed 'langrage'. As the cannon were with much heavier barrels, there was less chance of damaging the barrel than with these smaller guns. If I recall, one of the cannon excavated from the QAR (Queen Annes Revenge, 1718) still retained such a load (C19). As Cutlass Collector very well noted, the use of various debris and 'junk' could easily jam and cause explosion in the barrel. Other arguments suggested that nails were too expensive to produce and unlikely to be used, that glass would fragment and be ineffective etc. However, it would seem, in the heat of the moment, and with desperate measures necessary, such measures could result regardless. I would very much agree with Peterson et al, in that the flared bell type barrel would better facilitate loading in adverse conditions. Regarding the notion of this type barrel causing a wider spread of shot, I appreciate the explanations here in noting that the shot pattern would hold to the bore of the gun. Not being a 'shooter' myself, my assumption was that in low velocity discharge of shot, it would be impeded against air and would dissipate moving forward. It would seem my 'physics' assumption would be n/a. ![]() In any case, thanks guys for these explanations! Always learning here. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,459
|
![]()
Interesting notes on artillery, and it makes perfect sense that the wear on cannon barrels internally would be effected over time by discharge of materials, not to mention fouling from detonated black powder. It does not seem, of course. that stones as ammunition would apply to the deterioration of shipboard cannon, but the analogy is well placed.
Here I would note however that the 'spread' (uh....scope? )of the discussion seems to have expanded a bit. I think I may be the culprit here as I included the use of 'langrage' (=sundry materials along with varied ball) as shot in cannon...……...however this was intended toward a maritime setting. What I had noted was that the heavier cannon barrels were not as susceptible to internal barrel damage by use of such diverse ammunition as would be the case with the RAIL GUNS that are the topic of the OP if such was used in them. Bringing in the 'choke' a bit more ![]() While such miscellaneous material was used as shot on these pirate and privateer vessels, it does not seem (as perfectly explained by Cutlass Collector) that such use in these rail guns (or blunderbusses) would have been a good thing to do. The discussion also addressed the purpose of the flared barrels on these blunderbuss/rail guns as being primarily for loading in adverse circumstances such as would be present in the pitching of a ships deck etc. Addressing the shot dispersion theory, again perfectly explained by Cutlass Collector dispelled the notion that a flared barrel was to 'spread' the shot more widely in discharge. I just wanted to reiterate the elements of the discussion here, and to say again how much I appreciate these outstanding explanations on the varied aspects that have pertained. Cerjak, thank you again for sharing this rail gun!!! Very nice piece!!! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 671
|
![]()
Hello
Just to say that it seems to me that the primitive inscription was P M and that the stick of the R was added later, that is why it is badly inclined, or is an incision that already existed when the punch was stamped with the letters |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 671
|
![]()
Hello
Assuming that the initials are PM, in the "Dizionario delle armi", edited by Mondadori, register two entries for PM: P. M. "Acronym of Munich Peter" P. M. "acronym of Meitinger Paul" and going to the entrances: Munich, Peter and Fiedrich German gunsmiths, of Soingen perhaps relatives both, who worked in the beginning / half of the six hundred, also Denmark. They were very dear. Meitinger Paul. Armorer who worked in Innbrusch, in the second half of the Cinquecientos Affectionately |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 671
|
![]()
Hello
Someone who has access to STOCKEL to verify or discard these opinions .... Affectionately |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,459
|
![]()
I am puzzled with the business on the RM marking, and Fernando K, very astute observation on the letters perhaps being PM with the 'P' later altered to an 'R'.
I don't have Stockel, and thus don't have any entries for Paul Meitinger, an Innsbruck armorer. However I do have references to PM, Peter Munich as well as Friedrich, both were Solingen swordsmiths working in the 17th century, and seemingly part of a family by this name. However Peter often signed 'Munch'. His mark (mid 17th) was a bishops head flanked by initials PM . While armorers and of course swordsmiths often did also work as gunmakers. I have never heard of the 'Munich's' being other than swordsmiths. If Peter indeed marked the lock of a gun, why would it have a crown? and why would the 'P' be fashioned into a 'R'. Also, I have always thought of the circular fixture on the lock denoting a Spanish lock ('miguelet'?) so why would a Spanish lock be made in Solingen? I do not mean to discount the theory, but honestly do wonder on these matters. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Black Forest, Germany
Posts: 1,237
|
![]() Quote:
J.G. Jagenberger Clemens Kalthoff Johann Kalthoff Mathias Kalthoff F.W. Ortmann Peiper & Co Heinrich Peter Heinrich Riffelmann By the way: After having enlarged the crowned mark on the lockplate as big as possibble I am always still convinced that this is a "RM" and not a "PM" corrado26 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|