What Do You Think?
- Thread starter Zonie
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,139
- Reaction score
- 5,450
Well folks, it's not above two months since we came back from Ft Clatsop OR, where we spent a good day futzing around. One of the docents there was kind enuff to show us a correct replica of one of the gunpowder containers, which appeared to have been stoppered with a lead seal, as Lewis comments in the quote noted in this bit of plagiarism -
'Equally as important as the weapon itself were the ammunition and accessories. Captain Meriwether Lewis' original requisition of 1803 called for 15 rifles along with 15 powder horns, 500 rifle flints, 125 musket flints, 200 pounds of gunpowder, and 420 pounds of lead. Although this is the only recorded requistion for gun powder, they must have had a much larger supply, since the journals indicate that at least 200 pounds of gunpowder were cached along the route for use on the return trip. Then on February I. 1806. Captain Meriwether Lewis' entry in his journal, listed all items on-hand at Fort Clatsop [klat-sup). This list included 52 canisters of gunpowder each of which contained 4-pounds of gunpowder (nearly 208 pounds). Had Lewis only received 200 pounds of gunpowder. the expedition would have had none to use while at Fort Clatsop.
The 52 cylindrical canisters of gun powder were each constructed of 8 pounds of lead, and each was filled with 4 pounds of gunpowder. Each canister was then sealed to make it watertight. After the 4 pounds of powder had all been transferred to powder horns, the remaining 8 pounds of lead was melted and molded into musket and rifle balls. Packing the gunpowder in these lead containers had been Lewis' idea. By storing the powder in the lead canisters, space was saved, and the gunpowder supply kept dry. Lewis' journal entry on February 1, 1806 reads:
". ..peifectly as dry as when first put in the canesters, altho ' the whole of it from various accedents has been for hours under the water. ..had it not have been for that happy expedient which 1 devised of securing the powder by means of the lead, we should not have had a single charge of powder at this time. three of the canesters which had been accedentally bruized and cracked, one which was carelessly stoped, and a fifth that had been penetrated with a nail, were a little dammaged; these we gave to the men to make dry; however exclusive of those five we have an abundant stock to last us back. .."
My thanks to the North Dakota Lewis & Clark Resource Collection.
tac
'Equally as important as the weapon itself were the ammunition and accessories. Captain Meriwether Lewis' original requisition of 1803 called for 15 rifles along with 15 powder horns, 500 rifle flints, 125 musket flints, 200 pounds of gunpowder, and 420 pounds of lead. Although this is the only recorded requistion for gun powder, they must have had a much larger supply, since the journals indicate that at least 200 pounds of gunpowder were cached along the route for use on the return trip. Then on February I. 1806. Captain Meriwether Lewis' entry in his journal, listed all items on-hand at Fort Clatsop [klat-sup). This list included 52 canisters of gunpowder each of which contained 4-pounds of gunpowder (nearly 208 pounds). Had Lewis only received 200 pounds of gunpowder. the expedition would have had none to use while at Fort Clatsop.
The 52 cylindrical canisters of gun powder were each constructed of 8 pounds of lead, and each was filled with 4 pounds of gunpowder. Each canister was then sealed to make it watertight. After the 4 pounds of powder had all been transferred to powder horns, the remaining 8 pounds of lead was melted and molded into musket and rifle balls. Packing the gunpowder in these lead containers had been Lewis' idea. By storing the powder in the lead canisters, space was saved, and the gunpowder supply kept dry. Lewis' journal entry on February 1, 1806 reads:
". ..peifectly as dry as when first put in the canesters, altho ' the whole of it from various accedents has been for hours under the water. ..had it not have been for that happy expedient which 1 devised of securing the powder by means of the lead, we should not have had a single charge of powder at this time. three of the canesters which had been accedentally bruized and cracked, one which was carelessly stoped, and a fifth that had been penetrated with a nail, were a little dammaged; these we gave to the men to make dry; however exclusive of those five we have an abundant stock to last us back. .."
My thanks to the North Dakota Lewis & Clark Resource Collection.
tac
Stophel
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 5,963
- Reaction score
- 870
George Kevil said:
They couldn't count on being able to find flint. It doesn't "grow" everywhere. Surely they brought plenty with them.
Their collapsible boat was a failure because they had no pine trees where they were to collect pitch, which was needed to seal the boat up.
Runnball. I mis-spoke. I was thnking with a copper head 'soldering iron' that if i were to do this job my self, and used a forge to heat the copper headed iron I would want the powder keg at some distance from the forge. So maybe in bright day light I might heat the copper 'iron' to a dull red, and take a walk. I am not sure if 'solder' would be used, as lead alone as a sheet, on top of a plugged barrel with a hot copper headed iron just might melt a lead sheet to a lead keg..
This is loose theory. I have in the past done autobody work with lead sticks, and a torch, using no solder at all.
I have made items of all copper with a torch, and used no solder to get one part to become one with another part.
It is true I am speculating, as I wouldn't do this job for any price. I am guessing about how it might have been done.
I have gas welded with actelene and oxygen torches on modern car fuel tanks before, and haven't gone BOOM yet.
When questions like this come, I wonder how I might do the same things. I agree there might well be double turned flange as well.
I know if I were going to try this idea I would want some distance between the heat and the powder.
If I could see a good painting to know the shapes and the details I might guess better as to how it was made, but with that exact thing to see, I am dead in the water. One might guess these kegs looled like other kegs of the day, but unless someone knows better all we can do is guess.
I might guess the wall thinkness was about 3/8", but that is a pure guess. To me is seems a soft lead container of any size that 3/8" would be a minimum wall thickness. We can see the people then, had some very clever ideas too.
I can't be sure, but I think I have seen soldered roof flashing, and done in a method like this. I didn't see the work happen, but removed lead from a church that appeard to have seams.
This is loose theory. I have in the past done autobody work with lead sticks, and a torch, using no solder at all.
I have made items of all copper with a torch, and used no solder to get one part to become one with another part.
It is true I am speculating, as I wouldn't do this job for any price. I am guessing about how it might have been done.
I have gas welded with actelene and oxygen torches on modern car fuel tanks before, and haven't gone BOOM yet.
When questions like this come, I wonder how I might do the same things. I agree there might well be double turned flange as well.
I know if I were going to try this idea I would want some distance between the heat and the powder.
If I could see a good painting to know the shapes and the details I might guess better as to how it was made, but with that exact thing to see, I am dead in the water. One might guess these kegs looled like other kegs of the day, but unless someone knows better all we can do is guess.
I might guess the wall thinkness was about 3/8", but that is a pure guess. To me is seems a soft lead container of any size that 3/8" would be a minimum wall thickness. We can see the people then, had some very clever ideas too.
I can't be sure, but I think I have seen soldered roof flashing, and done in a method like this. I didn't see the work happen, but removed lead from a church that appeard to have seams.
fallaloosa
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 1
really?
Macmac, I don't think the wall thickness would have been anywhere near 3/8" thickness. There were 52 cannisters, each containing 4 pounds of powder. Dividing 420 by 52 gives each cannister a weight of a bit over 8 pounds of lead. When you think about putting 4 pounds of powder in each, I would think the lead would have to have been quite thin. Just my 2 cents worth. Emery
flaming canvas
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2004
- Messages
- 644
- Reaction score
- 0
If there was an inch of air space between the lead at the top of the keg and the powder inside and the outer flange were folded over, there wouldn't be much heat reaching the powder itself. Doubtful that the temp would be high enough to ignite the powder.
tom deinek
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 487
- Reaction score
- 2
Not only did he take liberties with the truth, he took other people's written works.
He was entertaining, but arrogant & a plagarist.
He was entertaining, but arrogant & a plagarist.
Similar threads
