A Coronado gun

[cannonmn]

Deleted by author

[fernando]

Judging by the relative position of the barrel hook, there sure was an extension in its back, which could well be an aiming aid tiller. However the pierced hole in the said hook suggests the previous presence of a (wooden) stock, although the lack of a further couple pierced lugs on the barrel disputes such probability. I realize that the absency of a lock does not necessaily mean that a stock should have existed; one may shoot an early gun by having a partner (or himself) to ignite the pan by manually approaching the pan with the match cord or the the hot iron.
We know that often weapons undergo one or more modifications during their life. Could it be that a possible stock, for whatever reason, was discarded whilst the gun was still in use.
On the other hand, admiting that this thing had already seen its best days and was currently used a non weapon tool, still occupies one's imagination. To remember that, according to chronicles, two of six of such devices were left behind with some men, for operational purposes. Could this one end up being the criplled unit, for whatever reason.
Just for the fun, see attached a picture extrated from a Spanish military history blog, labeled as primitive XV century Arcabus de Gancho (literaly haquebut) designed to use in walls. And a brighter picture of the Coronado gun, in the hands of its finder (Courtesy Tucson.com)

[cannonmn]

I cast doubt on the copper tube being a weapon in usable condition, and got more info in Bill’s reply here, so their claims seem more credible now.


“By the way, I wrote the article. There were no uderlugs on the barrel for the attachment of a half, or full-length stock. There was likewise no tang. Check out the drawing in the article from Maximillian 's arsenal inventory in 1501 that shows them with tillers and no locks. The gunner is shooting it with a handheld match. Yes, some hackbuts had stocks, but they had underlugs and/or tangs to secure the barrel to the wood. We had the foremost crime lab firearms expert examine the piece for toolmarks, as well as the expert who was in charge of the relics recovered from the Custer battlefield, and both said that the marks on the gun, including the dings on the muzzle, were from transporting it over 1500 miles on the back of a mule. It was banging on saddle nails, iron buckles, picket pins, etc,. which is shown from repetitive dings in the same spot. The photo of the muzzle is deceptive, because the gun was/is still imminently shootable. I have been shooting muzzleloaders for over 50 years and tried to talk the archaeologist into letting me shoot it, with no luck. Ha!! I could also shoot it without the tiller with no problem whatsoever, given the weight of the piece, especially if the powder charge was reduced a bit. It could also have even been transported much further than 1500 miles if it was originally cast for the Cortez expedition some 20 years earlier. Hence more dings. We know he cast many guns of all sizes in Mexico, and I read somewhere that a gun foundry was firmly established in 1526. Finally, the bore was full of dirt when recovered, and we analyzed that dirt in sections. There were flakes of carbon in the breech from having been fired previously.

Take care,

Bill Mapoles”

[fernando]

Thanks for the enlightening input. Glad that some of my uneducated guessings were somehow close from reality. As for 'with or without' a tiller, Bill says they found none; this doesn't exclude there has been one, or some kind of it ... just saying.
As for Cortez, we know that according to his letters (Cartas de Relacion) to the King, he mentions that he arrived with sixteen cannons of diferents sizes and four small naval cannons, called falconetes. Yet in is fourth letter (1524) he wrote that he was smelting bronze cannons from scratch in Tenoctitlan and Tlaxcala. So it is plausible Bill's assumption that the gun being discussed could has its origins in such foundries, as Cortez initial arsenal didn't include such typology