How a cannon barrel is made.
- Thread starter zulu
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Wow,
Check the blow back at the touch hole
I had a brass cannon and always put too much in it. The touch hole eventually ended up with big cuts in it the hot gases made from each firing.
Awesome
Check the blow back at the touch hole
I had a brass cannon and always put too much in it. The touch hole eventually ended up with big cuts in it the hot gases made from each firing.
Awesome
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2007
- Messages
- 729
- Reaction score
- 2,341
Easy to fix the vent erosion, Davey.
A friend brazed it up and I re drilled the hole
I am up for making a scale model one this year
I am up for making a scale model one this year
BillKilgore
50 cal.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2021
- Messages
- 355
- Reaction score
- 595
That is very cool, but I do not think I could afford to feed it. What was the charge in the photo above?
I don't know. It now belongs to someone else. It has a 2.25" bore.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2021
- Messages
- 571
- Reaction score
- 1,047
Good idea on that model, should be fun.
Thank you Zulu, the whole thing was pretty darn cool!!!!
Robby
Robby
Amazing work and photos!
That is very interesting.
Superb work in all respects, and a beautiful. functioning cannon at the end of it. Many thanks for posting the full detail.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2020
- Messages
- 824
- Reaction score
- 1,233
What is the barrel liner made of? Is it of a more durable metal, or is it cast such for better consistency in the bore?
Am I correct in thinking that in the 1700s at least, barrels were cast with the bore done, then machined to hoped for bore diameter?
Am I correct in thinking that in the 1700s at least, barrels were cast with the bore done, then machined to hoped for bore diameter?
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2007
- Messages
- 729
- Reaction score
- 2,341
Cannons were made by several methods over their history (forged, wrapped, cast with a bore, cast solid and drilled, etc.) but the best of them, before the mid 1800s, were cast solid and then bored to the appropriate caliber. The weakest part of any casting is in the center of the mass of metal. As the metal solidifies from the liquid state, it shrinks. The outside of any casting chills first so the weakest material will be in the middle. If the bore is cast in place by placing a core in the mold, that weakened material ends up between the bore and the outer mold line of the barrel. Not good. If the gun is cast solid, the weakest material is in the center where it is then removed by drilling the bore. In these modern reproduction barrels, the liner is usually DOM (Drawn Over Mandrel) steel tubing with a welded breech. The best is seamless but some DOM tubing is also seam welded and then drawn. The liner is then usually installed in the drilled gun barrel with epoxy. In the large 19th and 20th century Navy guns used on cruisers and battleships (8 inch bore and larger) the rifled liner was installed by shrink fitting into the outer barrel...an immensely complicated and delicate operation.
Col. Batguano
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,039
- Reaction score
- 1,424
I understand the barrel is cast iron. Is there a reason that a steel alloy couldn't be used instead? Metallurgy is not my strong suit.
SlidePicker
40 Cal
I'm not sure about the casting material either.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2007
- Messages
- 729
- Reaction score
- 2,341
Col. Batguano
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,039
- Reaction score
- 1,424
Thanks Dave. That was very interesting. While it cleared up some questions, it also raised others.
Hern seems to make their barrels from cast iron in the traditional way (with concessions to modern methods), while Steen Cannons makes theirs from steel, machining them from a steel billet and drilling out the bore. The Steen barrels are multiples more expensive which (I assume) reflects costs of manufacture and materials for the most part (rather than excess profiteering).
You referenced large 20th century artillery pieces (8" +) and their liner installation process (sounds tricky)! I suspect the outer sleeve was steel rather than iron. Those very very large and long barrels (like the Paris Gun for instance) must have been enormously difficult to make.
So, intuitively it seems to me that steel is probably a safer or better choice in today's world and the sustained use of an artillery duel, and cast iron is traditional, and entirely adequate for the modern cannoneer, particularly with a steel liner.
I have also read that those pre-20th century barrels also had an approximate number of shots they were good for before the metal fatigued enough to render them unsafe for further firings. And the number was an eminently reachable one (like ~500 shots) unlike a scuba tank that is about 130,000 cycles.--nobody will ever get there in their lifetime.
Hern seems to make their barrels from cast iron in the traditional way (with concessions to modern methods), while Steen Cannons makes theirs from steel, machining them from a steel billet and drilling out the bore. The Steen barrels are multiples more expensive which (I assume) reflects costs of manufacture and materials for the most part (rather than excess profiteering).
You referenced large 20th century artillery pieces (8" +) and their liner installation process (sounds tricky)! I suspect the outer sleeve was steel rather than iron. Those very very large and long barrels (like the Paris Gun for instance) must have been enormously difficult to make.
So, intuitively it seems to me that steel is probably a safer or better choice in today's world and the sustained use of an artillery duel, and cast iron is traditional, and entirely adequate for the modern cannoneer, particularly with a steel liner.
I have also read that those pre-20th century barrels also had an approximate number of shots they were good for before the metal fatigued enough to render them unsafe for further firings. And the number was an eminently reachable one (like ~500 shots) unlike a scuba tank that is about 130,000 cycles.--nobody will ever get there in their lifetime.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2007
- Messages
- 729
- Reaction score
- 2,341
Col. Batguano,
In past centuries, bronze guns were highly prized for several reasons....they didn't rust, and, if the barrel failed, the bronze would most often "rip" open and not fragment. Iron guns, on the other hand, would usually fragment on failure killing their crews with regularity. This difference is due to the differing material properties of cast bronze and cast iron. In those centuries, steel was really only made in small batches and it was really not an option to make cast steel cannon barrels. As far as cycle life, iron guns had a longer life than bronze guns, not so much from cycle fatigue but from bore degradation. In an era when the iron round shot was significantly smaller than the bore diameter (windage to account for the irregularities in cast round shot) the ball really bounced from side to side exiting the bore and was the equivalent of hammering the bore from the inside until it was no longer usable. A bronze barrel, being more ductile and softer than cast iron, would be damaged more rapidly than an iron gun. The other down side to bronze was the expense. Although easier to cast and to drill out the bore, the material itself was far more expensive than iron.
As far as modern Naval guns, this link may be of interest Building and Testing Naval Guns
And a blog that talks about service life and liners https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/barrel-liners-t37133.html
In past centuries, bronze guns were highly prized for several reasons....they didn't rust, and, if the barrel failed, the bronze would most often "rip" open and not fragment. Iron guns, on the other hand, would usually fragment on failure killing their crews with regularity. This difference is due to the differing material properties of cast bronze and cast iron. In those centuries, steel was really only made in small batches and it was really not an option to make cast steel cannon barrels. As far as cycle life, iron guns had a longer life than bronze guns, not so much from cycle fatigue but from bore degradation. In an era when the iron round shot was significantly smaller than the bore diameter (windage to account for the irregularities in cast round shot) the ball really bounced from side to side exiting the bore and was the equivalent of hammering the bore from the inside until it was no longer usable. A bronze barrel, being more ductile and softer than cast iron, would be damaged more rapidly than an iron gun. The other down side to bronze was the expense. Although easier to cast and to drill out the bore, the material itself was far more expensive than iron.
As far as modern Naval guns, this link may be of interest Building and Testing Naval Guns
And a blog that talks about service life and liners https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/barrel-liners-t37133.html
A really interesting and informative post, many thanks! Makes my Ardesa 'Old Ironsides' seem trivial to say the least!
