Cannon

[Keith Black]

British cannon supposedly recovered from a river on reproduction carriage for $2,500.00 located here in Michigan.

 

https://www.roadsidemetamora.com/product-page/1780-s-british-insurance-cannon-w-vintage-handmade-carriage

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Keith Black

[Roger Pellett]

The laws concerning objects salvaged from underwater are complex and often lead to nasty lawsuits.  It is also now considered unethical by the serious wreck diving community to disturb underwater wreckage.  This was not the case in the not so distant past.  Before paying for this cannon, I would think that the buyer would be wise to do some serious homework!

 

Roger

[Keith Black]

24 minutes ago, Roger Pellett said:

Before paying for this cannon, I would think that the buyer would be wise to do some serious homework!

 I agree, Roger. I would think one would need to have a discussion with the seller to try and establish provenance and make sure no laws were/have been broken. 

 

 I see field pieces come up for sale but this is the first "real" ships' cannon I've seen for sale. Who ever made the carriage did a nice job. In today's world that's got to be worth at least $500.00 to $750.00 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Keith Black

[Roger Pellett]

I just read a book about the sinking of the steamer Wexford on Lake Huron during the November 1913 “white hurricane.”  The wreck was discovered in 2000 at the southern end of the lake in about 75ft of water so she is accessible to amateur divers.  She has been badly looted even though she is legally the property of the Province of Ontario.

 

Roger

[mtaylor]

I would also check with local zoning and weapons laws.   While it would be impressive to have sticking out a window or pointed at the front door in the living room, I'm sure my apartment manglement would blow a gasket.

[Keith Black]

35 minutes ago, mtaylor said:

While it would be impressive to have sticking out a window or pointed at the front door in the living room, I'm sure my apartment manglement would blow a gasket.

 Mark, I think this would be something for private display/showing. You'd probably be the only one on the block to have one but no sense in drawing unwanted attention. It would certainly be the center piece of a nautical collection. 

[mtaylor]

That's true, Keith.   Having in the living room would work well but between the price and shipping and then the weight and getting up the steps to my apartment... just seems like to much.  As for only one on the block to have one.....  Probably the only one within 500 miles of here.

[Keith Black]

8 minutes ago, mtaylor said:

then the weight and getting up the steps to my apartment...

 Pianos are moved up and downstairs all the time. I dare say a piano's average weigh is close to 500 lbs. I don't know what the cannon barrel weighs but it would be a heck of a lot less awkward to move. Shipping cost, yeah that's gonna be a bugger. 

 

[allanyed]

Looks a lot like the drawing of the 1/2 pounder swivel gun (3 feet long ) from Fort Ticonderoga on page 59 of volume I of The History of English Sea Ordnance by Adrian Caruana. Using the photo as a basis, I estimated the bore diameter at about 1.5" which is close to the Caruana drawing for the 1/2 pounder.

 

As the carriage is modern, MAYBE there was none to begin with and it was on a swivel as Caruana describes for his example.   Were 1/2 pounders ever carriage mounted?

 

Allan

[Keith Black]

 Allan, it could very well have been a swivel but while not necessary correct, being placed on a carriage makes it much easier to display. The cannon itself appears to be correct. Three foot cannons found on eBay are suspect in that they don't adhere to the way cannon were actually designed and cast.

 

 

[allanyed]

On 12/24/2022 at 8:05 AM, Keith Black said:

while not necessary correct, being placed on a carriage makes it much easier to display

I agree it looks nice on the carriage.  Unless having room for building a bulkhead and stanchions on which to mount a swivel gun the carriage is an alternative way to go.

Allan

Edited December 25, 2022 by allanyed

[Bob Cleek]

The listing stated it was an "insurance cannon." What's an "insurance cannon?" I looked it up. I learn something new here every day!

 

1840 BRITISH INSURANCE GUN - SWIVEL CANNON - DECK CARRIAGE (buckstix.com)

[Roger Pellett]

It looks to me like it was called an “insurance gun” because the guy who was supposed to fire it better have a good life insurance policy.🤣🤣🤣

 

Roger

[Keith Black]

53 minutes ago, Roger Pellett said:

the guy who was supposed to fire it better have a good life insurance policy

 Well, that made me LOL. 

 

 It probably was one of those "here, hold my beer" moments. 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Keith Black

[popeye2sea]

On 12/25/2022 at 4:45 PM, Bob Cleek said:

The listing stated it was an "insurance cannon." What's an "insurance cannon?" I looked it up. I learn something new here every day!

 

1840 BRITISH INSURANCE GUN - SWIVEL CANNON - DECK CARRIAGE (buckstix.com)

And herein is the thing that makes me think that the cannon on offer is not authentic.  It seems to me that if this was an insurance cannon it's only real purpose was to satisfy the insurance company requirement.  No ship owner or captain would waste much money on it.  The cannon posted for sale looks way too well made and also has no proof marks.

 

Regards,

Henry

[Bob Cleek]

11 hours ago, popeye2sea said:

And herein is the thing that makes me think that the cannon on offer is not authentic.  It seems to me that if this was an insurance cannon it's only real purpose was to satisfy the insurance company requirement.  No ship owner or captain would waste much money on it.  The cannon posted for sale looks way too well made and also has no proof marks.

While I'm no expert on period ordinance, I agree that there are questions that I'd certainly be expecting answered before I bought it. Consider the following:

 

If it is an "insurance cannon," of approximately 1780, how did they come to this conclusion? What was it doing in a river? What river and what was the archaeological context in which it was found. (A shipwreck or just alone in the mud? Etc.) I suppose if the river was freshwater, this cannon might show less deterioration than were it in saltwater for 250 years, but, based on the old iron cannon I've seen, I'd expect this one to show a lot more evidence of iron corrosion, even with state of the art conservation. The rusting (which accelerates rapidly once they are out of the water) can be stopped but not reversed. This cannon looks suspiciously well-preserved, but here again, I'm not an expert in conserving cannon.

 

If it is an "insurance cannon," it was present for "insurance purposes" and I doubt any insurer would have extended coverage to the vessel without a survey which would include confirming the required ordinance aboard, together with proper provision for the safe stowage of powder, competent crew to operate the piece, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the insurer would have required some identification data on the requisite cannon when the vessel survey was done, but it seems this cannon has no identifying markings at all.

 

I would presume that any ordinance barrel of that period would have been made by a competent cannon foundry, but during that period only certain barrels would have been proof-marked, primarily military ones and then only when placed in service. British tubes would certainly have carried the "Broad Arrow" together with other identifying marks. (American arms were, and still are, not required to be proofed, although many were and are.) This marking chart may, or may not, be helpful if there are any foundry markings on the piece: https://www.nramuseum.org/media/940944/proofmarks.pdf Foundry markings, as distinct by proofing-markings, have been somewhat standardized for centuries now. As you probably know, these marks will be found on the top of the breech, the face of the muzzle, and the faces of each trunion. I find it suspicious that this cannon carries no identifying markings at all. 

 

From the photo of the muzzle, it appears the barrel was sleeved, which is curious.  This is done to restore the usefulness of worn barrels or to strengthen old barrels for use with modern smokeless, rather than black powder. This could have been done at any point in the cannon's life, but it is interesting to note that the technology for boring cast cannon bores, which would have been a prerequisite to installing a sleeve, didn't come into existence until the late 1700's as the Industrial Revolution developed the technology to do it. It is possible that this cannon was cast modernly and sleeved when new. Some reproduction cast iron cannon sold today can be ordered sleeved to permit actual projectile firing. 

 

As I understand it, "insurance guns" were primarily mounted on wheeled carriages similar to mountain howitzer carriages so that they could be easily stowed and easily rolled to where they were to be used, being the only gun on deck. Some were also mounted as swivel guns. Most fired grapeshot, since that would be most effective against pirates approaching in small boats and the size of this cannon shot wouldn't do much of anything against the hull of a ship. (The merchantmen carrying the "insurance guns" were no match for any well-armed vessel.) The naval truck it is now on would not likely have been used because not only is it less easy to move and train, but also because it requires a gun stations with gun ports, and breeching rope and training tackles at each station, none of which are commonly found on merchantmen.

 

There are a number of retailers in the US and GB who make cast iron reproduction cannon very similar to this one. It may be that the story about it being found underwater and 250 years old is pure bunk, in which case, it would be a lot of fun to have and to fire if you have $2,500 you don't know what to do with. See: https://www.castcannons.co.uk/

Edited December 27, 2022 by Bob Cleek

[Keith Black]

 My curiosity gland is inflamed, I wish someone was enamored because I could easily be talked into driving up and having a look see. And I'm betting $2,500.00 is the starting price not the "help me load it in my truck" price. 

[Lieste]

There was a transport board requirement for vessels under hire to carry 'at least 6 guns of at least 6lbs' or 'of a smaller calibre according to the rating of the vessel' (sic). Or after the 1780s these guns could be exchanged for carronades of 'at least 12lbs'. These minimums were associated with an allowance of £5 per gun to carry additional ordnance at the master's option.

Similar rules for ships operating on foreign trade (along with imposed convoying) were made by Lloyds of London and other notable maritime insurers for the same reasons that the transport board preferred *some* armament on their hired vessels.

Those serious about their trade might seek out a 'real' ordnance able to fight off an opponent of similar scale of arms, in retreat at least when the chasing vessel is also only able to engage with it's own chase ordnance - or to take, sink or burn in a close engagement with a small vessel armed with guns if fitted with carronades. Those merely complying with the regulation might opt for the cheapest 'cutt' which complies with the letter of the requirement.

Companies such as Carron offered guns to the ordnance board according to the establishment of guns in place at the time (when not banned for proof failures), but they also offered 'medium guns' and guns similar to the ordnance regulation guns and carronades to those who could pay (including exporting a gun-foundry to Russia, controversially.

A half pound swivel would not qualify as a gun for the transport board requirement, but would be useful as a counter-boarding weapon before the advent of the *much* more effective carronades, and also served as armament for boats, with a small piece in the bows and 2-4 swivels mounted to the gunwales. Found in a river, a boat swivel seems more plausible than an insurance gun or transport board qualifier. YMMV

Private companies, such as the HBC also manufactured their own ordnance to suit their needs, and it is possible it is from such a source, rather than a private sale from a supplier to the ordnance board.

An absence of government proof marks is expected from private company production and ordnance not supplied to the government for proofing, but offered for direct sale to merchant or private hire shipping.

[Waldemar]

 

Steel sleeves inside the barrel are standard, and even mandatory, on today's replicas designed for shooting. There should also be some markings on authentic guns produced even by private companies for the civilian market, as on this gunnade below, found in one of the museums.

 

 

Overall view:

 

 

 

Weight markings on top of the first reinforce:

 

 

 

Manufacturer's and poundage markings underneath the breech:

 

 

 

My exhibition board made for the owner of this cannon:

 

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Waldemar

[mtaylor]

Interesting discussion this.   Looking the condition of it in the photos, I have to wonder if it isn't a "recent" gun made for the reenactor folks.  Possibly Civil War or even Revolutionary era????   As for the markings (proof) wouldn't those tend to be on top and not hidden say on the bottom?

 

I've seen reproductions in the past of reenactor guns used for the reenactments and this one just doesn't look old enough to be the real deal.

[Keith Black]

 And a cannon display would need one of these.....

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/125081192385?hash=item1d1f6b87c1:g:Dc8AAOSwZGNhHwz~&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAoPvbKKugw%2Fo2lddk%2FrlcQuve%2FMd7%2BHJWs33H5Etz7qh7M7AXYbg%2FQEvPjV7pmhoPx1fF7gag9ejvqOdaHRIdcnDYKMNYllRAAXNWsMfnw5naexbZggkN1jorktw7NcLPR9R4ctykjrd6VXiXtIBl3VJcWiLsBwX0ZysvJKo4rv6yALNDtc80ipU1YcCDYD1ON9SNdxCKcFaDdgUDCEB5nGk%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR_z5kvqqYQ

[Waldemar]

 

7 hours ago, mtaylor said:

As for the markings (proof) wouldn't those tend to be on top and not hidden say on the bottom?

 

True, the markings were normally placed on top of the barrel or on the trunnions' ends. Apart from all these doubts (lack of markings, steel sleeve inside the cast-iron barrel, too good overall condition), the calibre of this rather reenactment gun seems too large and should also be measured/verified.

 

Below a handful of authentic samples for comparison. Somewhat ironically, some of them also sports the above anomalies, but only individually, and not all at once. And never steel sleeve inside as in modern reenactment shooting replicas.

 

No markings found on the below 6-pdr guns, but these can be hidden under many layers of thick paint (carriages are modern reproductions):

 

 

 

 

Two British swivel guns intended for the civilian market. One of them has been originally up-bored from 1/2 lb calibre to 1 lb calibre (to serve possibly as a signal gun without shot?). Both with a letter „P” cut on the first reinforce beside weight markings:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by Waldemar

[Roger Pellett]

I would think that anything supposedly made prior to the mid 1800’s that includes a large piece of STEEL as opposed to IRON would be suspect.  The gun in question apparently has a steel liner.

 

Prior to application of Bessemer and later Open Hearth technology to convert high carbon cast iron ingots to a controlled carbon alloy, steel was produced in very small batches, and hence was expensive.  It would be unlikely to have been used to line the barrel of a modest weapon like this.

 

Roger

 

 

[GrandpaPhil]

It would be a fun purchase if you had the money to burn (I don’t).

 

It would look cool as part of a nautical display in the house.

 

I don’t think you could have it outside, unless you lived in the middle of the country due to city (or village in my case) ordinances.

Edited January 3, 2023 by GrandpaPhil

[Lieste]

While gun of this type are never sleeved, it should be noted that the 1830s 8" shell gun of 9ft 65cwt was relined with a wrought iron (MkI, MkII) or steel (MkIII) inner of 6.3" which was proofed to swage the liner, then engraved with grooves for the 64pdr bolts and ogive shell. The bore diameter was chosen to match that of the 32pdr light guns of 25cwt and 32cwt (and the end-of-era, rebored 17cwt carronade, which had started as a 6.25" bore), permitting access to the huge supply of shot, common shell and spherical case in naval stores for the obsolescent 32pdr guns.

There are also other examples of ex-SBML also converted to RML or RBL some of which processes use the cast iron or bronze of the original bore, and others line the bore (and possibly also hoop the reinforce)

To be clear this particular article is not one of those recorded types but they do exist.

[Waldemar]

 

For even greater clarity, it should probably be made very clear that these are examples from a later period of artillery development and refer to converting smoothbore heavy guns into rifled cannons, as there is some risk that those less versed in the subject will start to get even more confused and, as a result, may be more easily fooled by some sellers' tales along the lines of 'an authentic (albeit both smoothbore and steel-sleeved) cannon from a shipwreck ca. 1780'. Let's hope not...

 

Also, for the convenience of readers:

 

SBML - smoothbore muzzle loader
RML - rifled muzzle loader
RBL - rifled breech loader

 

And below, as a curiosity for those interested, a visual sample of one of the first 'modern' rifled cannons, which I have found in Lübeck (Germany). Although accurate measurements were immediately taken, they are still awaiting detailed drawing documentation. For the time being, I consider them converted French smoothbore muzzle-loading 18-pdr guns captured in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871.

 

Overall view (note in particular reinforcing outer sleeve applied to the rear of the barrel and bushings applied to the trunnions):

 

 

 

3-grooved rifling (marked on the muzzle face with numbers '1', '2' and '3'):