Keeping on the cannon path

Matchlock · 5th June 2010, 02:39 AM

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 · 5th June 2010, 03:31 AM

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 · 5th June 2010, 03:47 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th June 2010, 11:23 PM

Quote:

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

fernando · 7th June 2010, 11:47 PM

It has got its rest ... in mahogany.
I thought it would better be (sort of) locked between the back hole and the middle reinforcing ring, to avoid the cats to knock it down

.

.

celtan · 8th June 2010, 01:52 PM

Thank you, Bluelake. Probably the quality and purity of the ingredientss (sources) in the 16th C would not have been the highest. So, we are left with BP that was effectively less powerful than what was available in the 18th C.
Best

Manuel

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluelake

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

Marcus den toom · 25th August 2015, 08:20 PM

Hi Nando,

Are there any areas on the barrel that can point towards a later alteration like an iron fixing band (leaving a lighter surface area?)
It is interesting to think about how and where that tiller broke off/was sawn off. And what would have happened next.

Beautyfull example of an early hand cannon.

fernando · 26th August 2015, 12:52 PM

Hi Marcus,
This pattern is consistent with another one sold in some auction a few years ago. Only the length in such one is shorter.
The text in the offer mentioned a 'quadrangular cascabel' and not a 'cut off tiller'.
So at facing both examples, we don't have as a fact that, this is short tiller was meant to be like that from the beginning.
... or was there a generalized habit to cut them off for some modified purpose

.

.

iskender · 16th January 2016, 10:13 PM

data of the gun: ca. 22kg ,102.6 cm overall, tiller 18.8 cm doesn't look cut off or alterd. calibre: ca. 38mm. greetings iskender switzerland

5th June 2010, 02:39 AM	#1
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	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 Attached Images Last edited by Matchlock; 5th June 2010 at 05:25 AM.

7th June 2010, 11:47 PM	#5
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	It has got its rest ... in mahogany. I thought it would better be (sort of) locked between the back hole and the middle reinforcing ring, to avoid the cats to knock it down . . Attached Images

26th August 2015, 12:52 PM	#8
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Marcus, This pattern is consistent with another one sold in some auction a few years ago. Only the length in such one is shorter. The text in the offer mentioned a 'quadrangular cascabel' and not a 'cut off tiller'. So at facing both examples, we don't have as a fact that, this is short tiller was meant to be like that from the beginning. ... or was there a generalized habit to cut them off for some modified purpose . . Attached Images

16th January 2016, 10:13 PM	#9
iskender Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Posts: 60	in remembrance of Michael Trömner data of the gun: ca. 22kg ,102.6 cm overall, tiller 18.8 cm doesn't look cut off or alterd. calibre: ca. 38mm. greetings iskender switzerland Attached Images

5th June 2010, 03:31 AM	#2
celtan Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: PR, USA Posts: 679	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

25th August 2015, 08:20 PM	#7
Marcus den toom Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Netherlands Posts: 534	Hi Nando, Are there any areas on the barrel that can point towards a later alteration like an iron fixing band (leaving a lighter surface area?) It is interesting to think about how and where that tiller broke off/was sawn off. And what would have happened next. Beautyfull example of an early hand cannon.