16th/17th century chain shot

M ELEY · 13th November 2011, 02:07 AM

Sorry, have been away. Actually, Fernando, upon thinking seriously (

)about your comment, you do make an important observation that these things had all different styles and shapes (Neuman has one above that looks like it has door knobs for weights!). I've seen the square bars on the full/half shot types, round bars on expanding bar shot and now octogonal on the type previously mentioned. With such variety, it might be hard to pin-point all the types. I'm going to post pics of mine soon...

M ELEY · 13th November 2011, 01:12 PM

Site deleted/no longer valid. Too bad as it had some interesting barshot, including an alleged "exploding" barshot. Oh well...

M ELEY · 16th November 2011, 02:33 AM

Here goes...
The piece measures 13" long total, ball diameter 11", bar length alone is 6", and bar is 4 1/2" wide. In my defense, this piece is unmarked, made of forged iron with balls braised to the bar. forging flaws are evident. Patina is chocolate brown. A 2 lb and 4lb cannon ball in pic for comparison. The only thing that didn't come out well in the pics is the roundness of the balls. The pics make them look more ovoid, but in real life they are as round as any of the other artillery shot I have. My argument is that this is what barshot looked like toward the mid/late 19th c. Easier to make than the hand-wrought square barred type of the previous century-

Dumbells were typically marked, cast as one piece, just as often made of steel than iron, and didn't have bars this thick or long.

Matchlock · 16th November 2011, 03:26 AM

Hi Mark,

Very interesting additions, thank you!

Yeah, mid-19th c. would also be my guess.

Best,
Michael

M ELEY · 16th November 2011, 04:02 AM

Thanks, Michael. And thank you for starting this discussion and much of the materials herein. Hopefully, I can acquire an older piece at a later time, but in the meantime, I love coming back to this thread. Perhaps this one might be added to the 'Sticky' section?

fernando · 16th November 2011, 01:43 PM

Hi Mark,
I would adventure to suggest, within the whole of my ignorance, that your item might not be a barshot; i don't know, the proportions of the bar (thickness+length) in relation to whole setup ... the way it is connected to the balls. But don't pay much notice to my impressions

.
I like that solid shot wooden base, by the way

.

M ELEY · 16th November 2011, 08:12 PM

Ahh yes, the solid shot on the wooden base...it came from a land far, far away-

I see your point on the construction and in the end simply need to continue doing research on this puppy. It is not absolutely proven to be a barshot, nor is it absolutely proven not to be a dumbell (I must say, though, that it probably is one or the other versus a third option of counterweight, machine part, etc).

The best proof I had that it was mid-19th was the last site I listed which, unfortunately, is no longer accessible. That gent sold a number of cannons from all age and nationalities and had barshot EXACTLY like mine listed as 19th c. His site wasn't above some controversy, though, being a seller after all (some of his lanaka appeared more modern and poorly cast to be original), sooooo....hopefully, I'll run across a Civil War artillery expert someday who will finally end the speculation.

13th November 2011, 01:12 PM	#2
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,166	Site deleted/no longer valid. Too bad as it had some interesting barshot, including an alleged "exploding" barshot. Oh well... Last edited by M ELEY; 14th November 2011 at 08:36 AM.

16th November 2011, 02:33 AM	#3
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,166	Here goes... The piece measures 13" long total, ball diameter 11", bar length alone is 6", and bar is 4 1/2" wide. In my defense, this piece is unmarked, made of forged iron with balls braised to the bar. forging flaws are evident. Patina is chocolate brown. A 2 lb and 4lb cannon ball in pic for comparison. The only thing that didn't come out well in the pics is the roundness of the balls. The pics make them look more ovoid, but in real life they are as round as any of the other artillery shot I have. My argument is that this is what barshot looked like toward the mid/late 19th c. Easier to make than the hand-wrought square barred type of the previous century- Dumbells were typically marked, cast as one piece, just as often made of steel than iron, and didn't have bars this thick or long. Attached Images Last edited by M ELEY; 16th November 2011 at 02:45 AM.

13th November 2011, 02:07 AM	#1
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,166	Sorry, have been away. Actually, Fernando, upon thinking seriously ( )about your comment, you do make an important observation that these things had all different styles and shapes (Neuman has one above that looks like it has door knobs for weights!). I've seen the square bars on the full/half shot types, round bars on expanding bar shot and now octogonal on the type previously mentioned. With such variety, it might be hard to pin-point all the types. I'm going to post pics of mine soon...

16th November 2011, 03:26 AM	#4
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Hi Mark, Very interesting additions, thank you! Yeah, mid-19th c. would also be my guess. Best, Michael

16th November 2011, 04:02 AM	#5
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,166	Thanks, Michael. And thank you for starting this discussion and much of the materials herein. Hopefully, I can acquire an older piece at a later time, but in the meantime, I love coming back to this thread. Perhaps this one might be added to the 'Sticky' section?

16th November 2011, 01:43 PM	#6
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Mark, I would adventure to suggest, within the whole of my ignorance, that your item might not be a barshot; i don't know, the proportions of the bar (thickness+length) in relation to whole setup ... the way it is connected to the balls. But don't pay much notice to my impressions . I like that solid shot wooden base, by the way .

16th November 2011, 08:12 PM	#7
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,166	Ahh yes, the solid shot on the wooden base...it came from a land far, far away- I see your point on the construction and in the end simply need to continue doing research on this puppy. It is not absolutely proven to be a barshot, nor is it absolutely proven not to be a dumbell (I must say, though, that it probably is one or the other versus a third option of counterweight, machine part, etc). The best proof I had that it was mid-19th was the last site I listed which, unfortunately, is no longer accessible. That gent sold a number of cannons from all age and nationalities and had barshot EXACTLY like mine listed as 19th c. His site wasn't above some controversy, though, being a seller after all (some of his lanaka appeared more modern and poorly cast to be original), sooooo....hopefully, I'll run across a Civil War artillery expert someday who will finally end the speculation.