Gun Carriage questions

[allanyed]

This is great Gary.  I see a horseshoe bracket as well than I had never noticed before.   This is a huge help, thank you!

Allan

[BANYAN]

Agree with you about the securing - I did not note that the after pin did not penetrate the deck.  However, I thought the bolt you drew looked OK based on the end of a forelocked bolt protruding from the inboard end?  The artist may only have shown one as the other might have been obscured being in line?  That way, two bolts passed from outboard through the bulwarks and forelocked with pins inboard would secure the head.  Gary's model from the NMM does not show these, but the rest of the model fits the idea?  I think that is the only way the fighting head could be secured?  Other models of gun models I have seen also omit some details so I think another drawing would be useful to prove/disprove these bolts?

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited August 19, 2023 by BANYAN

[iMustBeCrazy]

I think I have it (maybe).

The dashed (yellow) line had me puzzled. I think it shows 'C' rebated into 'B' so that 'B' can only slide in a straight line.

End view.

Pin(2) is actually just indicating the stowage position for the fighting pin(1).

 

So to stow the gun you remove the securing bracket(3), lift pin(1) until it clears the yellow line, drag the slide(A) ('B' comes with it due to pin(1)) back until pin(1) can drop in to position(2), refit securing bracket(3) and swing the gun to the stowed position.

 

That's my guess anyway.

[allanyed]

Pat and Craig,

Thank you very much!

 

The rebated description of the drawing seems to be spot on Craig.   But while in the stowed position, the carriage can still swing in an arc.  It can be secured with lines, but having a pivot point and the rear trucks it would be more prone to rotating than wheeled carriages with their four trucks.   Still, this may be the answer. 

 

If nothing else, this topic has opened my eyes to possible solutions to a number of problems.   Next post is another conundrum I have run into.

Allan

 

 

[allanyed]

There is what appears to be a metal strap under the brackets and forward axle.   The contemporary drawing shows it curving such that it would wrap under the round portion of the axle, but it is not round where it crosses the brackets so not possible as far as I can determine.   I have drawn a possible solution, but welcome any ideas on alternative solutions.   Again, another view would be helpful, in this case from the bottom, but I have never seen one so can only assume the width of these possible straps is about the same as the bracket thickness which is the same as the diameter of the bore. 

 

The carriage in question is for a 24 pounder long gun circa 1775 when Armstrong Frederick patterns were the most common in use.

 

Allan

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by allanyed

[druxey]

The metal S-strap - the fore axletree stay - appears on several carriage drawings, so must have been standard at the time. Also see TFFM, Volume II, page141.

[iMustBeCrazy]

42 minutes ago, allanyed said:

another view would be helpful, in this case from the bottom

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Excellent_(1787)_RMG_J0723.png

 

The bracket seems to be quite common amongst the few drawings I have. The only reason I can think of for it is to stop the axle rotating but...............

[Morgan]

This bracket has also been found on gun carriages recovered from the wreck of the St George, wrecked in 1811. She was equipped with Blomefield pattern guns showing a continuity of this fitting.

 

Gary

[thibaultron]

My guess is that the crossbeam is rabbeted in the area of the strap, to allow it the curve around the axle, and rectangular the rest of its length.

[allanyed]

6 hours ago, druxey said:

The metal S-strap - the fore axletree stay - appears on several carriage drawings, so must have been standard at the time. Also see TFFM, Volume II, page141.

Thanks David

For whatever reason, I completely forgot that the underside of the forward axletree was rounded at least part of the length at some time.  The reason I say at least part of the way is that the contemporary drawing I posted above shows part of the forward axletree to be rectangular in cross section.  The strap configuration seems to indicate the bottom to be curved for at least a portion. Do you happen to know an approximate time span when this was the norm?  Don't know where my head was and forgot to check TFFM.   Ron's suggestion makes sense or possibly slightly different as in the below rough sketch

Thank you all!!

Allan

[BANYAN]

Allan, I will have to search through my reference material again, but if I recall correctly the straps, or more correctly stays, are two metal brackets that were used to secure/support the axle which was morticed into the brackets.  The strap (stay) replaced the lower washers for the brackets bolts that also served to secure the cap square on the upper side of the brackets.  Note the bottom part was straight not curved and aligned with the squared part of the axle.

 

(Edit)  I found this which sort of explains the 'stay' a little better - I cannot recall at the moment where I found this but may be connected with the "USS Constitution".  It is possibly from the Naval Historical Foundation.

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by BANYAN

[allanyed]

Thank you Pat.   Can you post or PM me a higher res version or maybe give the dimensions on the stay as I cannot make them out when downloading and enlarging.   Looking at the lower drawing, it appears that the strap is going into a rabbet in the axletree rather than having a rounded bottom.  After seeing these various drawings, it is likely another case of multiple solutions to the same problem, none being wrong.

 

I never realized the American long gun is very similar in appearance to the Armstrong patterns right down to the button ring.  The top plan looks like an Armstrong pattern  where as the lower looks more like the Armstrong-Frederick pattern.  Live and learn! 

 

THANKS AGAIN

 

Allan

Edited August 21, 2023 by allanyed

[allanyed]

I just received some additional information from Chris Watton who was kind enough to send me the following references which cover from 1720 into the 19th century.   He let me know that AOS books on the Alert, Blandford, Victory and Pandora and Alan McGowan's 'HMS Victory, her construction, career and restoration, show carriage details.   

 

I looked at a couple of these that I happened to have and noted that Blandford 1720, which would likely have carried Borgard pattern guns when launched, shows no straps on the carriage drawings.  She may have been re-outfitted after 1724 with Armstrong pattern guns and different style carriages but I am not sure when the use of the straps was introduced.

Allan

Edited August 21, 2023 by allanyed

[BANYAN]

Unfortunately, they are the best resolution I have Allan.  I can send the files I have, just in case MSW's file formatting changed the res, but I don't think they do that?  Let me know if you still want them?

 

In the meantime, I will make a crop of similar size as yours and try some of the image software I have to see if I can improve it.  (Sorry Allan, I tried that, but the original is of very low resolution, and I cannot improve it enough to read the dimensions).  Perhaps contacting them may allow you to get the dimensions or a better resolution copy?  Another option may be to import the improved image of the gun (second image) that has a scale, into CAD, scale to get the image to proper dimensions, and then measure them?

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited August 22, 2023 by BANYAN

[iMustBeCrazy]

2 hours ago, BANYAN said:

Another option may be to import the improved image of the gun (second image) that has a scale, into CAD, scale to get the image to proper dimensions

Thankfully the legible dimensions let you do that pretty easily:

 

The British ones would be more like this:

 

Edited August 22, 2023 by iMustBeCrazy

[BANYAN]

Thanks for doing this Craig, you beat me to it (and saved me a bit of work) .

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited August 23, 2023 by BANYAN

[allanyed]

Thanks Pat and Craig.   You Melbourne guys are tops in my book!

 

Allan

5 hours ago, iMustBeCrazy said:

The British ones would be more like this:

This is what I would have gone with had I need seen the drawings above.  Do you have a source that shows the rectangular stay rather than the US version?  The rectangular version would have been much easier to make full size, but if there was to be a rabbet cut into the axletree, the reduced arm width on that found on the Constitution would use a smaller cut into the axletree and thus less weakening.   

 

Thanks again!

 

Allan

[iMustBeCrazy]

17 minutes ago, allanyed said:

Do you have a source that shows the rectangular stay rather than the US version?

Some of the carriage drawings show a split top/bottom view (including ZAZ6993 which I posted a link to above )

 

 

 

[allanyed]

Thanks Craig.   While this is a bit later than the era I am working on for now, it is very informative.    I see sandwiched trucks at this point in time as well.  

Regarding the straps, most models don't show these and at our common scales, probably not worth the extra work as they will be barely noticeable at the most. For larger scales such as 1:24 or larger, they could be a nice added touch.

Allan

[iMustBeCrazy]

42 minutes ago, allanyed said:

For larger scales such as 1:24 or larger, they could be a nice added touch.

Even then there wouldn't be much showing unless you turned it upside down.

 

Just noticed the British version is a slightly different shape and only about 5/8" thick:

 

[allanyed]

Thank you Craig,

This study has been a fun topic for me, and I hope for those that have tuned in as well

Allan

[BANYAN]

Thanks Craig that is the shape I was looking for (that the fore edge wrapped up the front of the axle) - I know I have, or have seen, a version like that somewhere in my reference material - I will keep looking.  The version I saw though, had the same thickness metal wrapped up the front rather than tapered as you show - either could be correct.

 

cheers

 

pat

[iMustBeCrazy]

2 hours ago, BANYAN said:

I know I have, or have seen, a version like that somewhere in my reference material - I will keep looking.  The version I saw though, had the same thickness metal wrapped up the front rather than tapered as you show - either could be correct.

 

It could be ZAZ6987.

[BANYAN]

Thanks Craig, I'll take a look.  

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Retired guy]

On 8/17/2023 at 5:14 AM, Morgan said:

 

Also see the attached the drawing of the Venerable from 1799, again single piece trucks.

 

On 8/17/2023 at 5:14 AM, Morgan said:

Good drawing Gary thanks for sharing, but look where the guns are, not in the middle of gun port? 
 

Regards

Richard

 

[Retired guy]

On 8/22/2023 at 4:00 AM, iMustBeCrazy said:

Even then there wouldn't be much showing unless you turned it upside down.

 

Just noticed the British version is a slightly different shape and only about 5/8" thick:

 

Hi Craig now we have trucks with eight bolt holes 🤔

 

Regards

Richard

[iMustBeCrazy]

57 minutes ago, Retired guy said:

Hi Craig now we have trucks with eight bolt holes

Just remember, 'there are less rules than there are exceptions'. It will help you remain prevent you from slipping further into insanity.

[allanyed]

 

7 hours ago, iMustBeCrazy said:

'there are less rules than there are exceptions'.

Ain't that the truth!!!  With options, it is easier for us as there are more choices.   But, sometimes, the differences are era dependent so for builders wanting accuracy, this kind of thing sometimes makes a difference.   For instance, regarding cannon barrels, I do not recall ever seeing any commercially available Armstrong (circa 1725-1760) or Armstrong Frederick patterns  (circa 1760-1791) either in kits or aftermarket sources.  Most look closer to the older Borgard pattern guns as the Armstrong and Armstrong-Frederick patterns had the distinctive ring around the cascabel button.   Does it really matter??? To some a big no, to others a big yes.  Choices abound, as it should be in a hobby 😀

Allan

[thibaultron]

I've been drawing up the Armstrongs and Fredericks. Drawings and photos show them without the rings. The Blomefields I'm working on now do have the rings.

[Lieste]

3 hours ago, thibaultron said:

I've been drawing up the Armstrongs and Fredericks. Drawings and photos show them without the rings. The Blomefields I'm working on now do have the rings.

I think he means the astragal of the button, not a breeching ring, which is what I take from your comment.

The A-F gun has a ring around the 'equator' of the button - an astragal with no listel, but otherwise similar to the astragals of the vent and chase.