Breech loading chamber for a cannon 16th century

Matchlock · 5th December 2013, 06:36 PM

Wax?
For sealing interchangeable iron 'patrons' for long guns and hand firearms, possibly ... we have no records of such a surviving piece though.

What we do know for sure, however, is that in early-19th service manuals (by Beroaldo Bianchini et al.), the soldier was ordered to keep the muzzle of his loaded long gun (flintlock musket) closed by either a wooden 'anti-rain' plug (Old German Regenpfropfen) fitted with a lead cover and either cloth or leather side straps (I do keep some 20 original muzzle plugs of 16th to 19th c. date in my collection).
Early-17th c. musketeers on watch used to seal and tighten the closed covers of the primed pans of their matchlock muskets by tallow (Old German Unschlitt) against both moisture and fine priming powder that was literally everywhere on their clothes ...

The huntsman of the muzzle-loading era, on the other hand, used to seal the muzzle of his gun by a hard wax plug - which of course had to be carefully removed before each shot, in order to prevent the barrel from horribly bulging or bursting ...!!!

Best,
Michl

Marcus den toom · 5th December 2013, 08:10 PM

Dudley Pope's Guns has a picture on page 34 with the cannonbal inside the breechblock.
Complete (beeing a powder load plus ball) breechplugs would be more efficient.
Both methods would most likely work fine.

Matchlock · 5th December 2013, 09:08 PM

I am definitely sad for seeing this posted because the drawing is based on mere fantasy and wrong imagination. Dudley Pope alas knew nothing about early pieces ...
The book Guns is still worth buying but only because of the good photos.

Beware of modern drawings, they are highly dangerous and surely need both expert interpretation and authoritative judgement. That's why I strongly plead for mainly relying on photos. There is a lot of rubbish in many books. Books as such are in no way authoritative.

Best,
Michael

Marcus den toom · 6th December 2013, 08:18 AM

Not a complete waste though, we gained a valuable advise.

The only way to prove the Dudley claim is when they uncover a breech chamber with the cannonball and preferably the powder load as well neatly tugged away in this chamber.

fernando · 5th January 2014, 06:36 PM

Back to the sealing issue ...
After reviewing this issue with some source, i would give a touch up to my previous approach

.
Wooden plugs were used to close the chamber mouth and wax was used to seal such plugs ... and also to seal the touch hole.

5th December 2013, 06:36 PM	#1
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Wax? For sealing interchangeable iron 'patrons' for long guns and hand firearms, possibly ... we have no records of such a surviving piece though. What we do know for sure, however, is that in early-19th service manuals (by Beroaldo Bianchini et al.), the soldier was ordered to keep the muzzle of his loaded long gun (flintlock musket) closed by either a wooden 'anti-rain' plug (Old German Regenpfropfen) fitted with a lead cover and either cloth or leather side straps (I do keep some 20 original muzzle plugs of 16th to 19th c. date in my collection). Early-17th c. musketeers on watch used to seal and tighten the closed covers of the primed pans of their matchlock muskets by tallow (Old German Unschlitt) against both moisture and fine priming powder that was literally everywhere on their clothes ... The huntsman of the muzzle-loading era, on the other hand, used to seal the muzzle of his gun by a hard wax plug - which of course had to be carefully removed before each shot, in order to prevent the barrel from horribly bulging or bursting ...!!! Best, Michl Last edited by Matchlock; 5th December 2013 at 07:08 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

5th December 2013, 08:10 PM	#2
Marcus den toom Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Netherlands Posts: 543	Dudley Pope's Guns has a picture on page 34 with the cannonbal inside the breechblock. Complete (beeing a powder load plus ball) breechplugs would be more efficient. Both methods would most likely work fine.

5th December 2013, 09:08 PM	#3
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	I am definitely sad for seeing this posted because the drawing is based on mere fantasy and wrong imagination. Dudley Pope alas knew nothing about early pieces ... The book Guns is still worth buying but only because of the good photos. Beware of modern drawings, they are highly dangerous and surely need both expert interpretation and authoritative judgement. That's why I strongly plead for mainly relying on photos. There is a lot of rubbish in many books. Books as such are in no way authoritative. Best, Michael

6th December 2013, 08:18 AM	#4
Marcus den toom Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Netherlands Posts: 543	Not a complete waste though, we gained a valuable advise. The only way to prove the Dudley claim is when they uncover a breech chamber with the cannonball and preferably the powder load as well neatly tugged away in this chamber.

5th January 2014, 06:36 PM	#5
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Back to the sealing issue ... After reviewing this issue with some source, i would give a touch up to my previous approach . Wooden plugs were used to close the chamber mouth and wax was used to seal such plugs ... and also to seal the touch hole.