processing of barrels

Spiridonov · 17th July 2009, 12:11 PM

I have a question to experts on early fire-arms. In what year have started to process an internal surface of а channal of barrel? I am entreresting not only drilling, but also processing by longitudinal moving abrasivs sticks if that was....

fernando · 18th July 2009, 08:10 PM

Hi Spiridonov,

Anything intersting here, or you (only) wish to see more technical data?

http://www.melfisher.org/cannonsurvey/castguns.htm

Fernando

Spiridonov · 18th July 2009, 08:17 PM

Thank, but I interestinl of 15 century.

Matchlock · 22nd July 2009, 05:46 PM

Hi Spiridonov,

Quite demanding question that one, as often!

To the best of my knowledge, abrasive methods like the one you mentioned must have been in use almost since the beginning of the history of firerarms in the early 14th century. I should put forward as a thesis that this was required when bore matching balls were to be fired.

The only barrels I can imagine to have been exceptions to the rule were the early wrought iron Stabringgeschütze ('bar and ring guns') made from longitudinal iron bars and secured by rings, like the famous Mons Meg. I give a quotation from Wikipedia and attach a few images:

The bombard was manufactured from longitudinal bars of iron, hooped with rings fused into one mass.[1] The Duke's artillery maker Jehan Cambier constructed it, and it was successfully tested at Mons, Hainaut, Wallonia, in June 1449; however, the Duke did not take delivery of the Mons Meg until 1453. Desiring to "interfere in British affairs"[citation needed], the Duke decided to help the Scots against the English. Mons Meg weighs 15,366 pounds (6,970 kg), is 15 feet (4.6 m) in length, and has a calibre of 20 inches (510 mm). The final cost of the gun was £1,536. 2s.

A conflicting theory, based on limited evidence, suggests it was constructed in order to aid James II in the 1452 siege of Threave Castle in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, when the Clan MacLellan used it to batter the castle.

The 20-inch (510 mm) calibre cannon accepted balls that weighed about 400 pounds (180 kg), although it could only be fired 8-10 times a day due to the tremendous heat generated by the powder charge required. It has been suggested that Meg was one of the armaments on James IV's carrack, the Great Michael, which would make it the ship with the largest calibre gun in history.[citation needed] From the 1540s Meg was retired from active service and was fired only on ceremonial occasions from Edinburgh Castle, from where shot could be found up to two miles distant.[citation needed]

The gun was last fired in 1680 to celebrate the arrival of James Duke of Albany and York, later King James II of England and VII of Scotland, when the barrel burst. An English cannoneer had loaded the charge and many Scots believed that the damage was done on purpose out of jealousy, because the English had no cannon as big as this. The incident was also seen as a bad omen for future King.[2]

The cannon was left outside Foog's Gate at Edinburgh Castle. It was next taken, with other disused ordnance, to the Tower of London in 1754, but was returned to the Castle in 1829, after the intervention of Sir Walter Scott. Following a restoration, it now sits outside St. Margaret's Chapel.

"Mons Meg was a large old-fashioned piece of ordnance, a great favourite with the Scottish common people; she was fabricated at Mons, in Flanders, in the reign of James IV. or V. of Scotland. This gun figures frequently in the public accounts of the time, where we find charges for grease, to grease Meg’s mouth withal (to increase, as every schoolboy knows, the loudness of the report), ribands to deck her carriage, and pipes to play before her when she was brought from the Castle to accompany the Scottish army on any distant expedition. After the Union, there was much popular apprehension that the Regalia of Scotland, and the subordinate Palladium, Mons Meg, would be carried to England to complete the odious surrender of national independence. The Regalia, sequestered from the sight of the public, were generally supposed to have been abstracted in this manner. As for Mons Meg, she remained in the Castle of Edinburgh, till, by order of the Board of Ordnance, she was actually removed to Woolwich about 1757. The Regalia, by his Majesty’s special command, have been brought forth from their place of concealment in 1818, and exposed to the view of the people, by whom they must be looked upon with deep associations; and, in this very winter of 1828–9, Mons Meg has been restored to the country, where that, which in every other place or situation was a mere mass of rusty iron, becomes once more a curious monument of antiquity" Notes to Rob Roy, Sir Walter Scott.

The gun is never called "Mons Meg" in any contemporary references until the 17th century. The "Meg" may either be a reference to Margaret of Denmark, Queen of James III of Scotland, or simply an alliteration, while Mons was one of the locations where the cannon was originally tested.

Besides the Mons Meg, a number of 15th century European superguns are known to have been employed primarily in siege warfare, including the wrought-iron Pumhart von Steyr and Dulle Griet as well as the cast-bronze Faule Mette, Faule Grete and Grose Bochse.

I also think that drilling and other abrasive methods were essential with cast barrels, both iron and copper alloy ('bronze' or 'brass'). I know, however, of quite a few 15th century wrought iron barrels, both in museums and in my collection, which were obviously never drilled out and show a very irregular inner surface and muzzle. Of course, they could have never been used for caliber matching balls.

Best,
Michael

Spiridonov · 22nd July 2009, 11:05 PM

Tank you

I have book "Mons meg and her sisters"

Especialli i interesting of abresives metods for handgonnes. But it there was no necessity If this was using like shotguns or for bullets of smaller calibre.
ps
Sorry, my English is very bad

Spiridonov · 23rd July 2009, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matchlock

show a very irregular inner surface and muzzle

can it be the result of corrosion?

Matchlock · 23rd July 2009, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiridonov

can it be the result of corrosion?

Corrosion as the reason for extremely irregular inner barrel walls and muzzles can be definitely excluded - it's all massive iron, not rust.

Best,
M

Spiridonov · 28th April 2010, 05:40 PM

Quote:

"Encore un texte des archives de Lyon.
On y trouve la commande d'une tarière de fer pour forer des veuglaires de cuivre.
"

Translate:
@ Noch ein Text des Archivs von Lyon.
Man findet da die Bestellung eines Eisenstangenbohrers, um Veuglaires des Kupfers zu bohren. @

Cote : CC 0429.
Référence informatique : 00000604
Registre factice: Reliure à la Lyonnaise XIX° siècle - Toile noire, 1 cahier in-folio, 33 feuillets, papier; 9 pièces, papier.
1466 - 1469
Comptabilité communale (1466 - 1469)
Pièces justificatives de dépenses par Mathurin Beuget
Travaux de maçonnerie et fortifications

Spiridonov · 6th July 2010, 08:56 PM

I assume that the plug could be fasten in such a way without welding. It is only the my assumption but not a fact

Matchlock · 6th July 2010, 09:11 PM

Exactly, Alexander,

Of course the plug was driven into the barrel when red hot.

Best,
MIchael

Andi · 19th July 2013, 09:36 PM

A good friend has made this photos at Veste Oberhaus Museum in Passau, in Bavaria South Germany. This little stone bombard or mortar (Steinbüchse / Mörser) was casted from iron. It is dated around 1400. The museum describes this piece as the oldes known example for a iron casted cannon.

In case the dating "ca 1400" is correct this piece would really be an unique object.

fernando · 20th July 2013, 06:04 PM

Great piece, Andi.
Pity Matchlock, a Bavarian born enthusiast, is not here to comment on this one, which certainly he knows insideout.

Andi · 20th July 2013, 07:17 PM

Yes Fernando it is verry sad that Matchlock can't follow us at the time and I really hope he will bee able to do so very soon again....

Richard Furrer · 8th August 2013, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Exactly, Alexander,

Of course the plug was driven into the barrel when red hot.

Best,
MIchael

Barrel bright orange-white hot and plug cold so as to cause a shrink fit over the plug and allow for forging the barrel.
I would like to have seen them forging these massive iron bits....hard enough to stand next to 28 pounds of welding hot steel (my damascus billets now) let alone some hundreds of pounds.

I plan on making a small cannon next year....I am gearing up the shop with tooling to do so. Should anyone have a reading list for me I'd be happy to read more on the subject. X-rays especially helpful.

Ric

17th July 2009, 12:11 PM	#1
Spiridonov Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Russia, Leningrad Posts: 355	processing of barrels I have a question to experts on early fire-arms. In what year have started to process an internal surface of а channal of barrel? I am entreresting not only drilling, but also processing by longitudinal moving abrasivs sticks if that was....

22nd July 2009, 05:46 PM	#4
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Hi Spiridonov, Quite demanding question that one, as often! To the best of my knowledge, abrasive methods like the one you mentioned must have been in use almost since the beginning of the history of firerarms in the early 14th century. I should put forward as a thesis that this was required when bore matching balls were to be fired. The only barrels I can imagine to have been exceptions to the rule were the early wrought iron Stabringgeschütze ('bar and ring guns') made from longitudinal iron bars and secured by rings, like the famous Mons Meg. I give a quotation from Wikipedia and attach a few images: The bombard was manufactured from longitudinal bars of iron, hooped with rings fused into one mass.[1] The Duke's artillery maker Jehan Cambier constructed it, and it was successfully tested at Mons, Hainaut, Wallonia, in June 1449; however, the Duke did not take delivery of the Mons Meg until 1453. Desiring to "interfere in British affairs"[citation needed], the Duke decided to help the Scots against the English. Mons Meg weighs 15,366 pounds (6,970 kg), is 15 feet (4.6 m) in length, and has a calibre of 20 inches (510 mm). The final cost of the gun was £1,536. 2s. A conflicting theory, based on limited evidence, suggests it was constructed in order to aid James II in the 1452 siege of Threave Castle in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, when the Clan MacLellan used it to batter the castle. The 20-inch (510 mm) calibre cannon accepted balls that weighed about 400 pounds (180 kg), although it could only be fired 8-10 times a day due to the tremendous heat generated by the powder charge required. It has been suggested that Meg was one of the armaments on James IV's carrack, the Great Michael, which would make it the ship with the largest calibre gun in history.[citation needed] From the 1540s Meg was retired from active service and was fired only on ceremonial occasions from Edinburgh Castle, from where shot could be found up to two miles distant.[citation needed] The gun was last fired in 1680 to celebrate the arrival of James Duke of Albany and York, later King James II of England and VII of Scotland, when the barrel burst. An English cannoneer had loaded the charge and many Scots believed that the damage was done on purpose out of jealousy, because the English had no cannon as big as this. The incident was also seen as a bad omen for future King.[2] The cannon was left outside Foog's Gate at Edinburgh Castle. It was next taken, with other disused ordnance, to the Tower of London in 1754, but was returned to the Castle in 1829, after the intervention of Sir Walter Scott. Following a restoration, it now sits outside St. Margaret's Chapel. "Mons Meg was a large old-fashioned piece of ordnance, a great favourite with the Scottish common people; she was fabricated at Mons, in Flanders, in the reign of James IV. or V. of Scotland. This gun figures frequently in the public accounts of the time, where we find charges for grease, to grease Meg’s mouth withal (to increase, as every schoolboy knows, the loudness of the report), ribands to deck her carriage, and pipes to play before her when she was brought from the Castle to accompany the Scottish army on any distant expedition. After the Union, there was much popular apprehension that the Regalia of Scotland, and the subordinate Palladium, Mons Meg, would be carried to England to complete the odious surrender of national independence. The Regalia, sequestered from the sight of the public, were generally supposed to have been abstracted in this manner. As for Mons Meg, she remained in the Castle of Edinburgh, till, by order of the Board of Ordnance, she was actually removed to Woolwich about 1757. The Regalia, by his Majesty’s special command, have been brought forth from their place of concealment in 1818, and exposed to the view of the people, by whom they must be looked upon with deep associations; and, in this very winter of 1828–9, Mons Meg has been restored to the country, where that, which in every other place or situation was a mere mass of rusty iron, becomes once more a curious monument of antiquity" Notes to Rob Roy, Sir Walter Scott. The gun is never called "Mons Meg" in any contemporary references until the 17th century. The "Meg" may either be a reference to Margaret of Denmark, Queen of James III of Scotland, or simply an alliteration, while Mons was one of the locations where the cannon was originally tested. Besides the Mons Meg, a number of 15th century European superguns are known to have been employed primarily in siege warfare, including the wrought-iron Pumhart von Steyr and Dulle Griet as well as the cast-bronze Faule Mette, Faule Grete and Grose Bochse. I also think that drilling and other abrasive methods were essential with cast barrels, both iron and copper alloy ('bronze' or 'brass'). I know, however, of quite a few 15th century wrought iron barrels, both in museums and in my collection, which were obviously never drilled out and show a very irregular inner surface and muzzle. Of course, they could have never been used for caliber matching balls. Best, Michael Attached Images

6th July 2010, 08:56 PM	#9
Spiridonov Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Russia, Leningrad Posts: 355	I assume that the plug could be fasten in such a way without welding. It is only the my assumption but not a fact Attached Images

19th July 2013, 09:36 PM	#11
Andi Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Halstenbek, Germany Posts: 203	A good friend has made this photos at Veste Oberhaus Museum in Passau, in Bavaria South Germany. This little stone bombard or mortar (Steinbüchse / Mörser) was casted from iron. It is dated around 1400. The museum describes this piece as the oldes known example for a iron casted cannon. In case the dating "ca 1400" is correct this piece would really be an unique object. Attached Images

18th July 2009, 08:10 PM	#2
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Spiridonov, Anything intersting here, or you (only) wish to see more technical data? http://www.melfisher.org/cannonsurvey/castguns.htm Fernando

18th July 2009, 08:17 PM	#3
Spiridonov Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Russia, Leningrad Posts: 355	Thank, but I interestinl of 15 century.

22nd July 2009, 11:05 PM	#5
Spiridonov Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Russia, Leningrad Posts: 355	Tank you I have book "Mons meg and her sisters" Especialli i interesting of abresives metods for handgonnes. But it there was no necessity If this was using like shotguns or for bullets of smaller calibre. ps Sorry, my English is very bad

6th July 2010, 09:11 PM	#10
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Exactly, Alexander, Of course the plug was driven into the barrel when red hot. Best, MIchael

20th July 2013, 06:04 PM	#12
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Great piece, Andi. Pity Matchlock, a Bavarian born enthusiast, is not here to comment on this one, which certainly he knows insideout.

20th July 2013, 07:17 PM	#13
Andi Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Halstenbek, Germany Posts: 203	Yes Fernando it is verry sad that Matchlock can't follow us at the time and I really hope he will bee able to do so very soon again....