brass barrel question

[Rifleman1776]

I am currently reading the historical narrative by Nathaniel Philbrick titled "BUNKER HILL". He describes several instances of patriots stealing cannon from the English. He often states that brass barrel cannon were highly prized and desirable. This would be from a purely war/fighting point of view, not a collector or cannon admirer like us. Why were the brass barreled cannon more desirable for warfare than the iron ones?

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Brass or bronze?

When polished, bronze is often mistaken for brass, but from what I've read, most of the cannon that were not iron were cast bronze. Bronze did not have the same tendency to burst that iron did. It was heavier and more expensive, however, than iron. On the other hand it could be recast if damaged beyond use, and the added safety when firing in combat due to low tendency to burst and kill the crew, made it desirable.

The "Long Nine" English naval cannon, was sometimes a "Brass Long Nine", if it was a captured "Spanish eight"..., which fired a ball of eight livres, which were actually 8.6 lbs by English pounds, so the terminology used by the English just rounded up the weight in the name. The 1841 Brass Napoleon 6-pounder so prized by both sides of the ACW was actually bronze.

LD

 

[Colonial Boy]

Possibly because brass (bronze)flowed better in the casting process, iron cannon casts were often faulty and there were special right angle drills for drilling out the faults in the bores and then fitting plugs then finishing the bores.

 

[Coot]

The period term "gun metal" typically was referring to bronze.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Good replies, thanks. Yep, could have been bronze. I'll be reading more today and may find more references.

 

[BoomStick]

Brass-bronze is more corrosion resistant and less brittle than iron, which would probably be a benefit in a naval gun. In small arms the 'natural' lubricity of brass reduces friction and fouling, for easier loading -but not sure if that's as helpful in a smoothbore cannon.

 

[Youngblood]

Bronze (copper tin) is used in guns. Brass (copper zinc) is not.

I dont have the exact figures here but im close here by memory.

A full service load in a cannon, 1.5 pounds of powder to 2.5 depending on gun has a pressure of around 20,000psi.

Cast iron can tolerate approx 30,000-40,000
Bronze can tolerate 60,000-80,000 or so
Steel of course about 100,000 to 120,000

So bronze was stronger than iron and if it failed, iron goes like a frag grenade where bronze usually will swell and split with little or no frag.

So you can see why bronze was favored back then. Although they did refer to it as “brass” sometimes.

There was a civil war battle where double canister was being loaded in a bronze 12# Napoleon but the soldiers were not removing the powder bag from the second charge. So the gun had powder-can-powder-can and they said it was bucking up hard and crazy.. but kept on going without fail. Crazy!

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Brass-bronze is more corrosion resistant and less brittle than iron, which would probably be a benefit in a naval gun.

Especially if the gun was on a weather deck of a ship.

LD

 

[Justin.44]

That's a great book @Rifleman1776. I've read it a few times over the years. I have a couple other books by him that are very good as well.

 

[trackpin]

Bronze did not rust like iron cannon and I would think this led to more consistent results when used between engagements.

 

[springfield art]

Excellent responses to the fellow's question!

 

[springfield art]

Bronze did not rust like iron cannon and I would think this led to more consistent results when used between engagements.

Had to use lots of Brasso, though!

 

[Rifleman1776]

Yep, in the book he refers to them as "brass". Maybe the documents he referred to were written by persons who did not understand the difference between bronze and brass. Or, perhaps the author does not. I suspect many people today do not know the difference.

 

[MAPMFF]

Yep, in the book he refers to them as "brass". Maybe the documents he referred to were written by persons who did not understand the difference between bronze and brass. Or, perhaps the author does not. I suspect many people today do not know the difference.

Contemporaries of the 18th Century referred to bronze guns as brass, even though the composition was gun-metal/bronze. So any primary sources would refer to it as such.