cannonball ?
 

Hi everybody,

It is a present from a friend who have found it in his garden .
The weight is 12 Kilogrammes for a diameter around 15 cm.
It seems to be made from two parts.
So I would like to know if it is a cannonball .
Regards

Cerjak

It is most likely a cannon ball. The mould was in two parts & where they join a seam can be seen - which is why you have what appears to be two parts joined, but in fact is one solid piece. The small circle is the part were there was an opening in the mould for molten metal to be poured in, this is usually called the "sprue", the sprue metal is ground down level with the circumference but is usually still visible, as on this example. Some balls have two sprues, opposite each other, these have come from a "gang mould" whereby more than one ball is cast from a mould.
Adrian

Perfectly enlightened by a cannon lover, like Adrian :cool: .
Very nice and authentic 24 pounder :) .

They, just like smaller balls for guns, were cast in molds, hence the 'seam'.

m

Here Cerjak


.

Thank you all for your good explanation.
It had be found near ARRAS ( north of France) With the weight and diameter is it possible to learn more about this cannon ball .It was used still which periode ?
Regards

Cerjak

Hi Cerjak,


I am no expert in 19th c. items but I guess these balls were well still in use in the Napoleonic era, early 19th c., maybe even until the middle of the century.

And 'Nando: brilliant stuff about cannonball molds! ;)


Best,
m

What a fantastic find! Can you borrow a metal detector for next time you visit your friend? ;)

Epoque Napoleonique, probablement.

Ah Michl, cross posts. :o

... Although i heard that Napeoleonic cannonballs had an N mark on them. Probably only some :shrug: .

Exactly, 'Nando,


That's why I said 'Napoleonic era, early 19th c.', not confining it to the French army. ;)

And I found a lot more interesting stuff on the site of the Canadian Anglo-Boer War Museum, backing up my theory about the period:


http://angloboerwarmuseum.com/Boer12...nnonballs.html


Btw, I underwent the toil :rolleyes: and copied everything here, so enjoy.


Your ball looks very authentic, Cerjak! I do not think it is a modern Chinese copy.


m

And the rest.
m

Michael

I was not expecting so much information.
Thank you !

Neither was I, Cerjak,

But in some cases the web provides useful information. :)

m

re: post no. 12 above. Those shells are 15-inch. The photo is a fairly famous one from the "Miller Series" etc., and Battery Rogers is only a few miles from where I live, am quite sure it had 15-inch guns. Another way to verify this is to look at how tiny the fuze hole looks; at the time the US had somewhat standardized fuzes.

Michael knowing your expertise in many topics I will accept for now the notion that all of the projectiles you identify as such, are in fact such, but must express some wonderment that those with considerable jagged projections, not the result of age or damage, had been accepted into service in any country. Perhaps some could be foundry rejects discovered at the site of an old furnace?

In the US from at least the early 19th C, there was an exhaustive process of casting then hammering then gageing (sp?) cannon shot to ensure their surface regularity and integrity and acceptable diameter. One gauge was actually a tube the ball had to roll down, and would not pass if oversized. Another test for each had the ball dropped from something like 20 feet onto an iron anvil to ensure it would not break easily.

I am a bit hard-pressed to believe that the US was the only country that had such high standards for shot. Many of the balls identified above as shot, I doubt would have passed in the US even as grapeshot balls.