 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / February 2004Weaponry
Continuing to ponder on metallurgy in medieval times, I wondered what firearms (of all types) were made of, in Elizabeth I period. Were they still made of bronze, or were the cannon cast in iron? What technology did they have to treat the casting, and especially how did they bring the bore of weapons to the correct size and shape? Did they have such a thing as a lathe with hardened cutting tools, and how accurate might they have been? I understand that lathes for turning wood were well known, so the only thing that was holding them back would be the hard steel cutter and accuracy. Perhaps they used a grinding technique with sand for a finish? I had read something about the Spanish Armada's weaponry being very poor, and a cannon from Lisbon had it's bore so out of line that it could never have fired. Thur > Continuing to ponder on metallurgy in medieval times, > I wondered what firearms (of all types) were made of, > in Elizabeth I period. > > Were they still made of bronze, or were the cannon cast > in iron? Cast iron for cannon came in about 1550, but bronze was a lot easier to cast and continued to be used. > What technology did they have to treat the casting, and > especially how did they bring the bore of weapons to the > correct size and shape? The bore was made by casting around a carefully made clay mandrel. The mandrel was checked with a gauge, to ensure that the bore of the gun would be the correct size for the shot it was to fire. > Did they have such a thing as a lathe with hardened cutting > tools, and how accurate might they have been? Effective gun-boring machines were only available from around the mid 18th century. Before that, it was more a case of cleaning up the hole left by the mandrel. Gun-boring was often carried out with the gun vertical. Colin Bignell >> Continuing to ponder on metallurgy in medieval times, >> I wondered what firearms (of all types) were made of, >> in Elizabeth I period. >> >> Were they still made of bronze, or were the cannon cast >> in iron? >Cast iron for cannon came in about 1550, but bronze was a lot easier to cast >and continued to be used. >> What technology did they have to treat the casting, and >> especially how did they bring the bore of weapons to the >> correct size and shape? >The bore was made by casting around a carefully made clay mandrel. The >mandrel was checked with a gauge, to ensure that the bore of the gun would >be the correct size for the shot it was to fire. >> Did they have such a thing as a lathe with hardened cutting >> tools, and how accurate might they have been? >Effective gun-boring machines were only available from around the mid 18th >century. Before that, it was more a case of cleaning up the hole left by the >mandrel. Gun-boring was often carried out with the gun vertical. And led directly to the discovery of the equivalence between work and heat. The story is curious. A fellow known to the world as Count Rumford, was a loyalist during the American Revolution. He emigrated to England and became known as a bit of a genius at engineering. To collapse a long story, he was hired by the Austrian Monarchy to "modernize" their cannon-boring operation, (and given his title too -- though it might seem English, Rumford, in New England, was his home town.) Cannon were bored, as you say, with the barrel vertical and immersed in water. The amount of heat generated was enormous. Even after a short drilling session the water would boil. The feeling of the day was that the heat was caused by dull cutting edges on the bore. Rumford showed that the state of the edge did not matter. All that mattered was the amount of metal removed. He did this by taking note of the amount of water present and the temperature of it after a fixed amount of boring. In this he proved that a certain amount of work always gave a certain amount of heat -- a brand new idea at the time and a major stepping stone to the eventual discovery of the Law of Conservation of Energy. ---- Paul J. Gans "Paul J Gans" > > And led directly to the discovery of the equivalence between work > and heat. The story is curious. A fellow known to the world [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Rumford showed that the state of the edge did not matter. All that > mattered was the amount of metal removed. rumford is in maine . it was known for the paper mill there . few thing stink worse than a paper mill , 25 miles down stream the smell would still make you sick >"Paul J Gans" > >> And led directly to the discovery of the equivalence between work [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> Rumford showed that the state of the edge did not matter. All that >> mattered was the amount of metal removed. > rumford is in maine . it was known for the paper mill there . few thing >stink worse than a paper mill , 25 miles down stream the smell would still >make you sick Yup. Sulfur. But if I recall correctly Maine was part of Massachusetts until about 1820. Not that Rumford physically moved, of course... ;-) ---- Paul J. Gans > > rumford is in maine . it was known for the paper mill there . few thing > stink worse than a paper mill , 25 miles down stream the smell would still > make you sick We had a paper mill upstream from us in Nelson's Merton in Surrey. No smell. Surreyman > > > rumford is in maine . it was known for the paper mill there . few > thing > > stink worse than a paper mill , 25 miles down stream the smell would still > > make you sick > > > We had a paper mill upstream from us in Nelson's Merton in Surrey. No smell. It depends on the process used. If you're producing acid-free, unbleached papers such as coffee filters or non-chlorine bleached papers, there is comparatively little smell. I work 40 Km from Thurso, Quebec, and the smell of its pulp mills makes it to Parliament Hill when there's an east wind, but it's not too strong (there used to be a Scott Paper mill across the river from the Hill, making "White Swan" bum wad for the nation -- how fitting!). I lived on the Miramichi River in New Brunswick for nine years, about 25 Km from the Repap plant that made the coated papers on which Playboy is printed in North America. The stench would gag a maggot on some days. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >> > > rumford is in maine . it was known for the paper mill there . few >> thing >> > stink worse than a paper mill , 25 miles down stream the smell would still >> > make you sick >> > >> We had a paper mill upstream from us in Nelson's Merton in Surrey. No smell. >It depends on the process used. If you're producing acid-free, >unbleached papers such as coffee filters or non-chlorine bleached >papers, there is comparatively little smell. >I work 40 Km from Thurso, Quebec, and the smell of its pulp mills >makes it to Parliament Hill when there's an east wind, but it's not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Playboy is printed in North America. The stench would gag a maggot on >some days. Now *there* is an image that entrigues me. A gagging maggot... :-) ---- Paul J. Gans > > > > rumford is in maine . it was known for the paper mill there . few > > thing [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Playboy is printed in North America. The stench would gag a maggot on > some days. Bang goes that 'beautiful clean Canada' image! :-)) Surreyman > Bang goes that 'beautiful clean Canada' image! :-)) It's a classic Curate's Egg, right down to the whiff of sulphur, but the parts of it that are excellent are larger than most other countries. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >> > rumford is in maine . it was known for the paper mill there . few >thing >> stink worse than a paper mill , 25 miles down stream the smell would still >> make you sick >> >We had a paper mill upstream from us in Nelson's Merton in Surrey. No smell. That's now. And likely used different techniques. In wide-open spaces where there are few if any rules a company does what is least expensive... ---- Paul J. Gans A "paper mill" has a "paper machine" that makes "stock" (fiber rich liquid) into paper. While not "stink free", paper machines are far from the worst offender. But some "mills" (not all) have other processes. "Pulping", which takes trees (or recycled paper) and makes them into pulp be way of a highly caustic solution can smell really bad. A pulp mill will out-stink a paper mill any day! Then some pulp mills reuse the caustic solution or "liquor" once it's depleted. This is usually done by burning the solution in a tower and that process can smell bad. So can a "bleach plant" that makes the paper white. Some older bleach plants use chlorine and do not control it very well. Chlorine itself is odorless, (that bleach smell is a chlorine compound, not chlorine itself) but chlorine "residuals" can really reek. Paper and pulp mills often have waste water treatment plants and those plants often "airiate" the waste water with great motorized mixers. Older plants do this in open air. Hold your nose! So there are lots of way for a paper mill to smell bad. It's not just paper making as such. Rod > > > rumford is in maine . it was known for the paper mill there . few > thing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Surreyman >>Effective gun-boring machines were only available from around the mid 18th >>century. Before that, it was more a case of cleaning up the hole left by the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >(and given his title too -- though it might seem English, Rumford, >in New England, was his home town.) A minor correction; the title was granted by the Elector of Bavaria. The town of Rumford is now Concord, NH.  SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". >>>Effective gun-boring machines were only available from around the mid 18th >>>century. Before that, it was more a case of cleaning up the hole left by the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >A minor correction; the title was granted by the Elector of Bavaria. >The town of Rumford is now Concord, NH. Thanks. There seem to be Rumfords all over the place. We've already had Maine nominated. But I've checked on the web and you are quite right. http://www.middlesexcanal.org/docs/rumford.htm ----- Paul J. Gans >Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being >read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". >>>>Effective gun-boring machines were only available from around the mid 18th >>>>century. Before that, it was more a case of cleaning up the hole left by the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > http://www.middlesexcanal.org/docs/rumford.htm The reference which provided my information on the man (a biographical dictionary of scientists which I no longer have) says that the town of Rumford was renamed Concord in celebration of the settlement of a dispute over its possession between New Hampshire and Massachussets. That seems a little surprising, since it is a long way from the Massachussetts border now, but it may account for the fact that some sources call it Rumford, Mass. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". >>>>>Effective gun-boring machines were only available from around the mid 18th >>>>>century. Before that, it was more a case of cleaning up the hole left by the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >Massachussetts border now, but it may account for the fact that some >sources call it Rumford, Mass. Well, the history of that region of the US in that period is complex. Originally there was New York (which owned what is now Vermont), Connecticut (which owned what is now Ohio), Massachusetts (which owned what is now Maine) and New Hampshire, which owned very little. Borders were not well-defined and all sorts of squabbling ensued. Some of the politics involved are also interesting as folks tried to keep a balance between slave-holding states and non-slave holding states. ---- Paul J. Gans I'm a little hesitant in asking this, but is there some reason this thread has been turned into something other than the subject, even something other than the general subject of the newsgroup? I have heard of so-called trolls doing this to other trolls, but I don't think I have qualified. I had tried to ask questions on a subject that interests me, so what is the matter with you all? Are there not enough off-topic meanderings under more suitable headings? Thur > >>>>>Effective gun-boring machines were only available from around the mid 18th > >>>>>century. Before that, it was more a case of cleaning up the hole left by the [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > ---- Paul J. Gans > I'm a little hesitant in asking this, but is there some reason > this thread has been turned into something other than the > subject, even something other than the general subject of the > newsgroup? That's just the way this group works - more like a discussion group. It is always worth reading the regulars' postings further down a well-developed thread to see where it has wandered off to. It is often just as interesting (and sometimes more interesting) than the original thread. Colin Bignell > He did this by taking note of the amount of water present and the > temperature of it after a fixed amount of boring. In this he > proved that a certain amount of work always gave a certain amount > of heat -- a brand new idea at the time and a major stepping stone > to the eventual discovery of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Which was done by James Prescott Joule in his father's brewery in Salford (just across the river from here). Despite his name Joule lived in Sale ten minutes walk from here. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines >> He did this by taking note of the amount of water present and the >> temperature of it after a fixed amount of boring. In this he >> proved that a certain amount of work always gave a certain amount >> of heat -- a brand new idea at the time and a major stepping stone >> to the eventual discovery of the Law of Conservation of Energy. >Which was done by James Prescott Joule in his father's brewery in Salford >(just across the river from here). Despite his name Joule lived in Sale ten >minutes walk from here. Yup, which is why the unit of energy is named the "Joule" and not the "Rumford". Of course, there's always the British Thermal Unit, but let's not go there... ;-) ---- Paul J. Gans > >> He did this by taking note of the amount of water present and the > >> temperature of it after a fixed amount of boring. In this he proved > >> that a certain amount of work always gave a certain amount of heat -- > >> a brand new idea at the time and a major stepping stone to the > >> eventual discovery of the Law of Conservation of Energy. > >Which was done by James Prescott Joule in his father's brewery in > >Salford (just across the river from here). Despite his name Joule lived > >in Sale ten minutes walk from here. > Yup, which is why the unit of energy is named the "Joule" and not the > "Rumford". > Of course, there's always the British Thermal Unit, but let's not go > there... ;-) I promptly forgot about the BThU immediately on leaving school. ;-) SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines >> >> He did this by taking note of the amount of water present and the >> >> temperature of it after a fixed amount of boring. In this he proved >> >> that a certain amount of work always gave a certain amount of heat -- >> >> a brand new idea at the time and a major stepping stone to the >> >> eventual discovery of the Law of Conservation of Energy. >> >Which was done by James Prescott Joule in his father's brewery in >> >Salford (just across the river from here). Despite his name Joule lived >> >in Sale ten minutes walk from here. >> Yup, which is why the unit of energy is named the "Joule" and not the >> "Rumford". >> Of course, there's always the British Thermal Unit, but let's not go >> there... ;-) >I promptly forgot about the BThU immediately on leaving school. ;-) Good for you. But I gather that it is still used in some engineering circles. ;-( ---- Paul J. Gans > Good for you. But I gather that it is still used in > some engineering circles. ;-( One of the last vestiges of the Imperium: it's still used to flog HVAC systems in North America. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >> Good for you. But I gather that it is still used in >> some engineering circles. ;-( >One of the last vestiges of the Imperium: it's still used to flog HVAC >systems in North America. Yes, I knew that! ---- Paul J. Gans > >> Good for you. But I gather that it is still used in > >> some engineering circles. ;-( [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes, I knew that! But some of the Britons who this group might not know that. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) > > Continuing to ponder on metallurgy in medieval times, > > I wondered what firearms (of all types) were made of, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Colin Bignell Thanks for that. What about small arms? It seems unlikely that iron would be used. "Rifle" barrels, being long and thin by comparison to cannon, must have meant that the bore was required to be more accurately finished, or did that clearance for cannon bore hold for muskets? I understand that casting was an ancient craft, and given enough care, a suitable bore could be obtained, but cast materials generally come with a crust of material, and sometimes small bubbles. Would the clay have preserved the bore from oxidation and other imperfections normally found on the outside? The accuracy of muskets must have been very poor without a true bore. Thur Iron muskets came quite early but I'm not an expert on how early. But part of the answer to your question is that muskets were not bored so much to a standard size of amunition as the other way around. Bullets, we'd call them slugs today, were cast by the gun owner to the size of his bore. R > > > Continuing to ponder on metallurgy in medieval times, > > > I wondered what firearms (of all types) were made of, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > The accuracy of muskets must have been very poor without a true bore. > Thur ... > Thanks for that. > What about small arms? It seems unlikely that iron would be used. > "Rifle" barrels, being long and thin by comparison to cannon, must > have meant that the bore was required to be more accurately > finished, or did that clearance for cannon bore hold for muskets? Iron was used, but not cast iron, which is a brittle material. Wrought iron is much tougher and had been used to fabricate cannon barrels from quite an early time. Those were made by alternating strips of iron running the length of the cannon and hoops around the circumference, all fire welded into one big lump. The REME weapons collection has a hand gun, from around the time of Charles I, that was made by winding strips of iron into a sprial and hand welding those together. However I don't know whether that was a common technique. > I understand that casting was an ancient craft, and given enough > care, a suitable bore could be obtained, but cast materials generally > come with a crust of material, and sometimes small bubbles. > Would the clay have preserved the bore from oxidation and other > imperfections normally found on the outside? The bore was undoubtedly cleaned up after manufacture, but field and siege weapons were not required to be particularly accurate. Their only task was to send bits of stone or iron at high speed in the general direction of a large target, be it a wall or a body of soldiers. > The accuracy of muskets must have been very poor without a true bore. They could be fairly sure of hitting a body of 100 men at 100 yards, which was about all anybody wanted. It was not until rifled weapons were introduced that firearms matched the accuracy of the longbow. However, accuracy is far more important for hunting than it is for warfare. Weapons like the machine gun and the assualt rifle have been adopted because it has generally been found better to send lots of bullets in the general direction of your enemy than it is to try to hit him with aimed shots. There are exceptions, like the sniper war at Stalingrad, but the vast majority of small arms war casualties come from unaimed fire. Colin Bignell > Rifle" barrels, being long and thin by comparison to cannon, must > have meant that the bore was required to be more accurately > finished, or did that clearance for cannon bore hold for muskets? Iron muskets were IRRC made by hammer welding spiral strips of wrought iron round a mandrel, not cast at all. Rifle barrels would be made in the same way. This would result in a fairly constant bore from a particular maker and even the possibility of mass producing guns of the same bore. Ken Young kenney@cix.co.uk Maternity is a matter of fact Paternity is a matter of opinion > Effective gun-boring machines were only available from around the mid > 18th century. Before that, it was more a case of cleaning up the hole > left by the mandrel. Gun-boring was often carried out with the gun > vertical. 1774 wasn't it? Brunel? SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines > Were they still made of bronze, or were the cannon cast > in iron? Iron cast cannon became standard in the RN by the end of the reign of Henry VIII. don't know what the army used then. Certainly by the late 17th century there was a royal foundry to produce bronze guns, mainly or the army. The RN continued to use cast iron guns up to the introduction of built up guns. > especially how did they bring the bore of weapons to the > correct size and shape? Early guns were cast in a cored mold with the relatively soft core being drilled out. By the Napoleonic period improved drills allowed the use of solid castings. Even in medieval times it was possible to produce hard steel. Guns were not bored to an exact diameter as with muzzle loaders you had to allow windage, a gap between the shot and the ball to make loading easy. Ken Young kenney@cix.co.uk Maternity is a matter of fact Paternity is a matter of opinion |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.