Keeping on the cannon path

[fernando]

Hi Mark, thank you for your kind words.
I don't think this is a stationary weapon, but a portable one, more likely to be hand held; but let's hope that the mysterious fellow member ( ) gives us some enlightening on the subject.
Anyway, i should have added its length in inches, to give a better idea of its dimensions to the inch people, that being 17".
My finances are not (never) better than mediocre, either. It is a question of option. I love these early things. To balance the budget, i am letting go a few pieces i like less.
Best
Fernando

[celtan]

Nando, the "monkey's tail" extension sometimes was just a metal extension with a loop, designed 2b inserted in the cascabel or rear prong: A separate piece, although sometimes it was fixed by soldering in place.

Your Falcon / Verso doesn't truly need a longer rear projection, its OK as it is.

There were all sort of contrivances made to be attached momentarily to the rear. Short wooden poles mated to the stump,for aiming and then removed after firing. This also protected from the blast coming out the vent/ oido/ fogon. Those early iron Falcones had the nasty habit to blow up like a fragmentation grenades when you least expected. The farther away the shooter, the safer he was.

These small cannons were sometimes carried on ship's wales, on tripod-like mounts, and even on thick vertical wood mount-stands. When smaller, there were even mounts designed to be inserted in a cavalryman's saddle!

Looking at the shape of the cannon, it wouldn't surprise me if the barrel was made in two sections, then soldered together ant the seam covered by that middle "reinforcing ring". The rear of the gun seems to have been similarly made. Heck, it boggles the mind, but what if it is threaded..?

Congrats on your new "child"! The table and support also make for a nice presentation...

: )

SuperManuel

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Mark, thank you for your kind words.
I don't think this is a stationary weapon, but a portable one, more likely to be hand held; but let's hope that the mysterious fellow member ( ) gives us some enlightening on the subject.
Anyway, i should have added its length in inches, to give a better idea of its dimensions to the inch people, that being 17".
My finances are not (never) better than mediocre, either. It is a question of option. I love these early things. To balance the budget, i am letting go a few pieces i like less.
Best
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Hi folks,

O.k., with so many good guessers out there I admit not being exactly innocent in the case of Fernando's latest acquisition; I tipped him the wink where to get it.

As to the possible original shape and length of the tiller/stick I feel that everything has been said here, and very competently as well. That is true, too, for the way it was probably held. With 17" it is definitely shorter than my Spanish tiller gun (see attachments) but although its outer diameter is much wider, the weight of our two pieces is almost the same. I think Philip has presented a good choice of how that barrel could have been used and stocked originally. Thank you also for the idea of using balsa wood for measuring the bore, Philip! May I add that if fired by one single shooter, and if the iron tiller was considerably longer and held under the armpit for firing, there was only one hand left to hold it; the other was used to put a piece of smoldering match, tinder or an igniting iron to the touch hole (please see the two sources of illustration attached: the smaller one of ca. 1450, the larger one dated 1468).

I, too, feel that this fine piece shoud be preserved in the condition as is; remember that nobody can tell for sure the way it looked like in its working life.

Best,

[celtan]

Hi Mike, how are you doing?

One thought that came to my mind is that Nando's cannon migh be part of one of those old mittralleuse devices which used multiple barrels, the kind you have portrayed already sometime ago, in this very same forum...

I routinely shoot a 20" Brass Verso, with a ~ 4 cm bore: it's heavy, and far from adequate as a hand weapon...

OTOH, perhaps the explosive power of XV C. BP gave much less of a kick, compared with that from XVIII C..?

Best-est regards y'all



M

[Matchlock]

Hi SuperManuel ,

As to my experience, those medieval multibarrel constructions nomally did not employ barrels with rear extensions as they mostly were fixed to a common wooden construction by iron bands. In my collection though there is a short round iron barrel with a short iron tail, ca. 1450 to 1500, the latter bent downwards and, together with an iron ring over the fore end, being fixed to a solid flat oaken base by the means of three crude square nuts. The rear end of the 'stock' is equipped with an iron ring so it most probably was used as kind of a niche gun (German Nischengeschütz) chained to a niche in the wall inside a castle and kept ready and primed for some special moment. As long as it was aimed in the direction of the gate and the powder in the touch hole was sealed e.g. with wax, it could be kept there for years and fired in a jiffy by using a red hot igniting iron or smoldering match.

A 4 cm bore barrel - wow! that sure leaves a hard impression!

You are certainly right; the black gun powder of 500 to 600 years ago neither had the optimal mixture of today's black powder - let alone the modern nitro powder - nor did it come near the latter's kicks. Remember that the medieval black powder was of very fine meal structure until the grained powder was invented in the 16th century.

Best-est wishes, too
Mike

[celtan]

The Verso does pack quite a punch, using 2 oz ff BP. TG its without a projectile, so the wallop is not as bad as it would otherwise be.

Reportedly, they used to fill them with BP up to half their length, in battle conditions..!

Please excuse mi ignorance, but if medieval BP was very fine, wouldn't that increase the Body Surface Area, and produce a faster combustion, ie. more energy per weight, and more kick-back for the unlucky knight carrying the weapon?

I know that the development of grains/clumps helped to 1. decrease the dangers of premature combustion (no charcoal dust suspension in the air: Remember The Maine!), 2. decreased the higroscopy of the meal thus increasing its useful life, and lastly, 3. made for a more predictable mix, in which the components did not separate, as they were won't to do. That's the reason that powder kegs needed to be rolled around often, to mix their contents and prevent their settling appart.

Zorry if I got carried away.

"Things that go Booom! in the night" make for a veddy intedestink subject!

: )

simply huManuel

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by celtan

"Things that go Booom! in the night" make for a veddy intedestink subject!

: )

simply huManuel

No doubt, huManuel ; I think that's why we are 'gaga about guns' (quotation from Merrill Lindsay).

I am neither a chemist nor a technician so I am not sure about the kick back of meal powder when contrasted to grained powder. I fired black powder replicas using both forms of BP but not to a decisive difference. I also fired some of my original 17th century muskets but only using grained powder.

Best,
Mike

[bluelake]

Originally Posted by celtan

The Verso does pack quite a punch, using 2 oz ff BP. TG its without a projectile, so the wallop is not as bad as it would otherwise be.

Reportedly, they used to fill them with BP up to half their length, in battle conditions..!

Please excuse mi ignorance, but if medieval BP was very fine, wouldn't that increase the Body Surface Area, and produce a faster combustion, ie. more energy per weight, and more kick-back for the unlucky knight carrying the weapon?

I know that the development of grains/clumps helped to 1. decrease the dangers of premature combustion (no charcoal dust suspension in the air: Remember The Maine!), 2. decreased the higroscopy of the meal thus increasing its useful life, and lastly, 3. made for a more predictable mix, in which the components did not separate, as they were won't to do. That's the reason that powder kegs needed to be rolled around often, to mix their contents and prevent their settling appart.

I think a lot of it would relate to your point #3. One big problem was having the niter separate; without it, you just have a smoky, smoldering mess, as it is the oxidizer for the bp. However, even when the separation was accounted for, a finely ground powder can still leave a lot to be desired.

I've made bp and tested it alongside modern commercial types, using a standard ratio mix (75:15:10), along with some other ratios. I also used a binder (rice rinse water), which kept things from separating. However, instead of corning, I did a fine grind, which would have been similar to bp here in Korea back in the 14th C. I used a flintlock eprouvette and compared my powder to commercial powders (FFG-FFFFG) and the results were quite lopsided; my powder would register 1~2 on the scale, while the commercial was 3~5. I think that not only was separation a big problem, but also the ratio of niter/charcoal/sulfur. Still, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of either type