The Mexican gunpowder dilemma

yulzari · 7th September 2019, 12:30 PM

It may be instructive to note John Braddock's 'A Memoir on Gunpowder' of 1832 (https://books.google.fr/books?id=6if...6AEwBXoECAgQAQ) in which he reports upon the state of gun powder manuacturing in India for the Honourable East India Company. In this he is most rude about the quality of Bombay powder compared to that made in Allahabd. Reporting it as 'barbarous' and 'their best and highest ranges are only half the distance of the other Indian powders'.

This demonstrates the range of performance that can come from variations in the performance of gunpowder mills and in this case between those of a well funded Company with access to all the materials it could need and the capital to invest in machinery etc. and with the sole purpose of making military quality powders.

If Bombay powder was 'barbarous' in 1832 the Mexican powder was likely to be beyond Mr Braddock's vocabulary to describe it's weakness.

Jim McDougall · 7th September 2019, 08:10 PM

This is an excellent reference Yulzari! Thank you.

I feared we had expended the viability of our powder here, so I am grateful to see entry continuing. It seems this reference describes the dynamic of 'exposure' being an element of powder losing its potency, in the case mentioned after about 12 days. That would bring the earlier suggestion of keeping the ingredients of the powder kept separate until required, not only for safety, but clearly to ensure freshly mixed powder.

I am puzzled by the term 'barbarous' as describing a 'weak' powder. Such a term would seem more toward a potent, threatening condition rather than 'weak'. I wonder if the connotation (as used here in 1832) would mean rough, rugged or uncivilized in the way 'gothic' meant rude or contrary to refined in architectural parlance. Thus meaning the Bombay powder was rudely mixed and ineffective.

If the Mexicans were indeed getting powder from British sources, just as they obtained their firearms in 1821, perhaps the British were selling them the apparently miserable Bombay powder as opposed to the other more refined powder. This was often the case, obviously, with trade arms and resources and the practice continued well through the 19th c. Mediocre quality locks and complete weapons often brought ill repute to the places that produced them.

As earlier noted, it sounds as if the Mexicans were attempting to secure better quality powder through New Orleans merchants who probably carried the highly regarded Dupont....as revealed in the cargo of the Pelican.

yulzari · 7th September 2019, 08:45 PM

By 'barbarous' he just meant crude and primitive Jim. Just his way, as a man of his times, of saying that it was of appallingly bad quality. John Company (to use the period vernacular) was not in the business of making powder for public sale but for their own use. Though doubtless some made their way to private use informally. Certainly not in sales to the Mexican government.

What happened was that the Bombay Gunpowder Manufactory was brought up to standard and is better know later as the Kirkee arsenal and a major ordnance depot and manufacturer.

There is no connection between them and Mexico in any way but the reference is a period detailed examination of the varied qualities of gun powder manufacture. Remember British ARW gun powder was so bad the government bought the factories and made them raise their standards until they were the best. There was also no connection between the British Ordnance selling surplus arms to dealers who sold them to Mexico and the Indian government and it's powder production. They were different governments on different continents.

Jim McDougall · 7th September 2019, 09:18 PM

OK, understood. The term seems oddly used here, but obviously there is often dramatic change in words, terms etc. in 'archaic' context not to mention semantics. Just wanted to confirm.

I had not thought there was any intergovernmental connection in such sale between England and Mexico, but that private concerns were selling such products, much in the way private vendors were supplying arms to EIC.
Most of what I have seen on the sale of the EIC arms in 1821 was apparently due to excesses of weapons after close of Napoleonic campaigns. Most of these were also becoming obsolete. In these cases the ordnance dept. I think was involved. The powder of course would be a different story.

Jim McDougall · 7th September 2019, 10:33 PM

Yulzari, in rereading again some of the text, while I must apologize for my dismal comprehension of scientific discourse, I am wondering....there seems to be a notable disparity between the black powder for guns, and that for artillery. It seems that 'good' or fine grade powder for guns is different (obviously ) than that for cannon.
Is it possible that with the shortages of powder in these campaign situations that stores of powder designed for one or the other might have become interpolated, leading to the poor resultant powder referred to in Mexican context?

With the case of the Mexican cannon at the Alamo siege, the note that the Mexican cannon (of smaller size already than adequate to bombard fortifications) had virtually no impact due to weak powder charges.
Would this have been from using firearms powder in place of the coarser artillery powder required?

yulzari · 8th September 2019, 12:16 PM

The risk in using small arms powder in artillery is that the smaller grains cause a more rapid burn which gives a higher pressure and the cannon barrel may fail. If it does hold together (for a while at least) then the cannon ball will be projected faster rather than slower so it does not match the reported behaviour of Mexican artillery.

BTW the powder cannot be transported in it's constituents for mixing when needed. That would give you, at best, very bad firework powder. The incorporation of them needs much time and pressure. To get past transport shaking the constituents parts apart corning was developed generations before this war. The powder being pressed under high pressure into solid cakes which are then broken up and sorted through sieves into solid grains which will not break up if well made. It burns better than the earlier powdery 'meal' as the flash can pass through the interstices between the grains. I will spare you issues about adiabatic heating etc. By this time meal is only made for fireworks, rockets and some blasting purposes. Never for firearms but it would match the observed performances of Mexican powder.

I conclude it was probably made as badly made powder, badly corned, badly packaged, roughly transported and badly stored. Based upon low quality firework powder and deteriorated since making. Soft corning and poor incorporation will result in friable grains which will crumble in transport and be more hygroscopic in storage. I do doubt that even the most venal buyer and military would expect to get away with buying actual meal firework powder.

Jim McDougall · 10th September 2019, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yulzari

The risk in using small arms powder in artillery is that the smaller grains cause a more rapid burn which gives a higher pressure and the cannon barrel may fail. If it does hold together (for a while at least) then the cannon ball will be projected faster rather than slower so it does not match the reported behaviour of Mexican artillery.

BTW the powder cannot be transported in it's constituents for mixing when needed. That would give you, at best, very bad firework powder. The incorporation of them needs much time and pressure. To get past transport shaking the constituents parts apart corning was developed generations before this war. The powder being pressed under high pressure into solid cakes which are then broken up and sorted through sieves into solid grains which will not break up if well made. It burns better than the earlier powdery 'meal' as the flash can pass through the interstices between the grains. I will spare you issues about adiabatic heating etc. By this time meal is only made for fireworks, rockets and some blasting purposes. Never for firearms but it would match the observed performances of Mexican powder.

I conclude it was probably made as badly made powder, badly corned, badly packaged, roughly transported and badly stored. Based upon low quality firework powder and deteriorated since making. Soft corning and poor incorporation will result in friable grains which will crumble in transport and be more hygroscopic in storage. I do doubt that even the most venal buyer and military would expect to get away with buying actual meal firework powder.

An absolutely brilliant synopsis Yulzari!! thank you so much.
I think your conclusion perfectly sums up the Mexican powder situation and well illustrates the circumstances that were faced with powder production in wider scope of these times.
Very much appreciated.

fernando · 11th September 2019, 12:44 PM

My ignorance of experimental or even theoretical knowledge is overwhelmed by my curiosity ... and nonconformism (in lack of a better term). Furthermore my mediocre english impedes me to understand the following paragraph

Quote:

Originally Posted by yulzari

...BTW the powder cannot be transported in it's constituents for mixing when needed. That would give you, at best, very bad firework powder. The incorporation of them needs much time and pressure. To get past transport shaking the constituents parts apart corning was developed generations before this war.The powder being pressed under high pressure into solid cakes which are then broken up and sorted through sieves into solid grains which will not break up if well made. It burns better than the earlier powdery 'meal' as the flash can pass through the interstices between the grains...

Note that i was diverting from the specific problematic of Mexican gunpowder both because what i had to (or managed to) learn about it is exhausted and because i found ambiance grounds to bring the gunpowder per se to the table, a subject often mentioned in chronicles ... Portuguese for one

. This to say that i am perplex at your technical rejection on the possibility (probability) of gunpowder components (constituents) being taken to spots to mixed in opportune occasions. Does the fact that i am quoting events occurred in early periods (XV-XVII) puts things in a different scenario than in the XIX centuries, a period where discussed Mexican powder problems took place ? The thing is that, i keep reading (or inferring) that such procedure was feasible.

" 1626, June 10, letter of the Governor of Sao Tome, to the king about the state of the island ... warning that in the next contract the contractor would have to bring gunpowder, refined saltpeter, sulfur, aguardente (brandy) and lead to the fortress ".

Now, if he had a need for ready gunpowder, why would he also ask for the three separated constituents ?

On the other hand and later in the XVIII century, Alpoim weaves considerations on how to preserve gunpowder using the 'pães' system. Pães translates as breads, as or bread rolls; is this the same you mention as cakes ?

" By spraying the powder with brandy and mixing well, you can mold it into breads that, after drying should be stored in glass vases. Although, according to him, there are those who use vinegar instead of brandy, he prefers brandy, and says, "I and some of my disciples know what it is for, with the Prince's use." The advantage of gunpowder in bread is “it never gets corrupted, even with moisture; It is very good when you grind it in the fires, and you need to be careful in grinding it ".

... And he follows:

" However, it is even better to store saltpeter, sulfur and charcoal ready in the barrels, not prepared gunpowder, “because time wastes it,” as well as being a risk factor. For this, however, it is necessary to have mills to prepare the gunpowder when it is needed ".

Earlier in the XVII centuries in Macao, an interesting passage involving the deteriorated gunpowder problematic may be read:

" In June of the same year (1639), an agreement is made with the Spanish gunpowder maker João de Mosqueira, to repair gunpowder 'danada' (condemned, damaged), so that it can be used again ".

7th September 2019, 12:30 PM	#1
yulzari Member Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: Limousin France Posts: 19	It may be instructive to note John Braddock's 'A Memoir on Gunpowder' of 1832 (https://books.google.fr/books?id=6if...6AEwBXoECAgQAQ) in which he reports upon the state of gun powder manuacturing in India for the Honourable East India Company. In this he is most rude about the quality of Bombay powder compared to that made in Allahabd. Reporting it as 'barbarous' and 'their best and highest ranges are only half the distance of the other Indian powders'. This demonstrates the range of performance that can come from variations in the performance of gunpowder mills and in this case between those of a well funded Company with access to all the materials it could need and the capital to invest in machinery etc. and with the sole purpose of making military quality powders. If Bombay powder was 'barbarous' in 1832 the Mexican powder was likely to be beyond Mr Braddock's vocabulary to describe it's weakness.

7th September 2019, 08:10 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,785	This is an excellent reference Yulzari! Thank you. I feared we had expended the viability of our powder here, so I am grateful to see entry continuing. It seems this reference describes the dynamic of 'exposure' being an element of powder losing its potency, in the case mentioned after about 12 days. That would bring the earlier suggestion of keeping the ingredients of the powder kept separate until required, not only for safety, but clearly to ensure freshly mixed powder. I am puzzled by the term 'barbarous' as describing a 'weak' powder. Such a term would seem more toward a potent, threatening condition rather than 'weak'. I wonder if the connotation (as used here in 1832) would mean rough, rugged or uncivilized in the way 'gothic' meant rude or contrary to refined in architectural parlance. Thus meaning the Bombay powder was rudely mixed and ineffective. If the Mexicans were indeed getting powder from British sources, just as they obtained their firearms in 1821, perhaps the British were selling them the apparently miserable Bombay powder as opposed to the other more refined powder. This was often the case, obviously, with trade arms and resources and the practice continued well through the 19th c. Mediocre quality locks and complete weapons often brought ill repute to the places that produced them. As earlier noted, it sounds as if the Mexicans were attempting to secure better quality powder through New Orleans merchants who probably carried the highly regarded Dupont....as revealed in the cargo of the Pelican.

7th September 2019, 08:45 PM	#3
yulzari Member Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: Limousin France Posts: 19	By 'barbarous' he just meant crude and primitive Jim. Just his way, as a man of his times, of saying that it was of appallingly bad quality. John Company (to use the period vernacular) was not in the business of making powder for public sale but for their own use. Though doubtless some made their way to private use informally. Certainly not in sales to the Mexican government. What happened was that the Bombay Gunpowder Manufactory was brought up to standard and is better know later as the Kirkee arsenal and a major ordnance depot and manufacturer. There is no connection between them and Mexico in any way but the reference is a period detailed examination of the varied qualities of gun powder manufacture. Remember British ARW gun powder was so bad the government bought the factories and made them raise their standards until they were the best. There was also no connection between the British Ordnance selling surplus arms to dealers who sold them to Mexico and the Indian government and it's powder production. They were different governments on different continents.

7th September 2019, 09:18 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,785	OK, understood. The term seems oddly used here, but obviously there is often dramatic change in words, terms etc. in 'archaic' context not to mention semantics. Just wanted to confirm. I had not thought there was any intergovernmental connection in such sale between England and Mexico, but that private concerns were selling such products, much in the way private vendors were supplying arms to EIC. Most of what I have seen on the sale of the EIC arms in 1821 was apparently due to excesses of weapons after close of Napoleonic campaigns. Most of these were also becoming obsolete. In these cases the ordnance dept. I think was involved. The powder of course would be a different story.

7th September 2019, 10:33 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,785	Yulzari, in rereading again some of the text, while I must apologize for my dismal comprehension of scientific discourse, I am wondering....there seems to be a notable disparity between the black powder for guns, and that for artillery. It seems that 'good' or fine grade powder for guns is different (obviously ) than that for cannon. Is it possible that with the shortages of powder in these campaign situations that stores of powder designed for one or the other might have become interpolated, leading to the poor resultant powder referred to in Mexican context? With the case of the Mexican cannon at the Alamo siege, the note that the Mexican cannon (of smaller size already than adequate to bombard fortifications) had virtually no impact due to weak powder charges. Would this have been from using firearms powder in place of the coarser artillery powder required?

8th September 2019, 12:16 PM	#6
yulzari Member Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: Limousin France Posts: 19	The risk in using small arms powder in artillery is that the smaller grains cause a more rapid burn which gives a higher pressure and the cannon barrel may fail. If it does hold together (for a while at least) then the cannon ball will be projected faster rather than slower so it does not match the reported behaviour of Mexican artillery. BTW the powder cannot be transported in it's constituents for mixing when needed. That would give you, at best, very bad firework powder. The incorporation of them needs much time and pressure. To get past transport shaking the constituents parts apart corning was developed generations before this war. The powder being pressed under high pressure into solid cakes which are then broken up and sorted through sieves into solid grains which will not break up if well made. It burns better than the earlier powdery 'meal' as the flash can pass through the interstices between the grains. I will spare you issues about adiabatic heating etc. By this time meal is only made for fireworks, rockets and some blasting purposes. Never for firearms but it would match the observed performances of Mexican powder. I conclude it was probably made as badly made powder, badly corned, badly packaged, roughly transported and badly stored. Based upon low quality firework powder and deteriorated since making. Soft corning and poor incorporation will result in friable grains which will crumble in transport and be more hygroscopic in storage. I do doubt that even the most venal buyer and military would expect to get away with buying actual meal firework powder.