Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
brass ball
- Thread starter tencents
- Start date
ThatCannonballGuy
New member
There were no brass cannonballs. I know the Mexicans used a few copper CANISTER-balls during the US war with Mexico (1847). Canister-balls are fired by a cannon, but they aren't considered to be cannonballs. Canister-balls are basically buckshot for cannons, rather than a "fullsize" cannonball.
Why did nobody ever make fullsize cannonballs out of brass? Because everywhere in the world, brass is a FAR more expensive metal than iron. Brass is an alloy that typically contains an average of 70% copper, and 30% zinc (another metal that's much more costly than iron. Now consider that a copper penny contained one cent worth of copper. Imagine how many pennies it would take to equal the 12-pound weight of a 4.62"-caliber cannonball - instead of using iron, which is by far the cheapest of all metals.
All a solid-shot cannonball does is smash things, and a brass ball doesn't do that any better than an iron one. So there's no reason whatsoever to spend twenty times as much money for metal to make brass cannonballs instead of iron ones.
I don't know specifically what this item is ...but I'm quite certain is wasn't manufactured to be a cannonball.
Regards,
TheCannonballGuy [PCGeorge}
Why did nobody ever make fullsize cannonballs out of brass? Because everywhere in the world, brass is a FAR more expensive metal than iron. Brass is an alloy that typically contains an average of 70% copper, and 30% zinc (another metal that's much more costly than iron. Now consider that a copper penny contained one cent worth of copper. Imagine how many pennies it would take to equal the 12-pound weight of a 4.62"-caliber cannonball - instead of using iron, which is by far the cheapest of all metals.
All a solid-shot cannonball does is smash things, and a brass ball doesn't do that any better than an iron one. So there's no reason whatsoever to spend twenty times as much money for metal to make brass cannonballs instead of iron ones.
I don't know specifically what this item is ...but I'm quite certain is wasn't manufactured to be a cannonball.
Regards,
TheCannonballGuy [PCGeorge}
Quick question, I was talking to a museum curator, who is also an Army EOD guy and a history buff and he once mentioned an experimental round that used a brass ball and discarding sabots. This was the first attempt at making super fast round that would have better penetration against the ironclads. Kind of the same thing used today with our anti-tank discarding sabots rounds. Do you know anything about this? Just curious. Also are you an author of a couple civil war ordnance books? Thanks
ThatCannonballGuy
New member
Bombgod1 wrote:
>Quick question, I was talking to a museum curator, who is also an Army EOD guy and a history buff and he once mentioned an experimental round that used
>a brass ball and discarding sabots. This was the first attempt at making super fast round that would have better penetration against the ironclads.
>Kind of the same thing used today with our anti-tank discarding sabots rounds. Do you know anything about this? Just curious.
>Also are you an author of a couple civil war ordnance books?
Based on what I know for certain, the museum curator's statement to you is a mixture of actual facts with a bit of myth. It's false that a brass ball was involved.
Apart from that error, the curator was correct about the existence of a civil war era experimental discarding-sabot "super fast" armor-penetrating round. The civil war version of the 20th-century "sub-caliber armor-puncher" ammunition the US Army used in Iraq was named a Stafford projectile, after the man who invented and patented it, in 1863 (for use against Confederate ironclad warships). To see several photos (with the Patent-info) of civil war era Stafford armor-penetrating projectiles, go to pages 430-433 in "Field Artillery Projectiles of the American Civil War: 1993 Revised & Supplemented Edition" by T.S. Dickey & P.C. George.
Answering your second question: Yes, that particular P.C. George is me.
Regards,
TheCannonballGuy [PCGeorge]
>Quick question, I was talking to a museum curator, who is also an Army EOD guy and a history buff and he once mentioned an experimental round that used
>a brass ball and discarding sabots. This was the first attempt at making super fast round that would have better penetration against the ironclads.
>Kind of the same thing used today with our anti-tank discarding sabots rounds. Do you know anything about this? Just curious.
>Also are you an author of a couple civil war ordnance books?
Based on what I know for certain, the museum curator's statement to you is a mixture of actual facts with a bit of myth. It's false that a brass ball was involved.
Apart from that error, the curator was correct about the existence of a civil war era experimental discarding-sabot "super fast" armor-penetrating round. The civil war version of the 20th-century "sub-caliber armor-puncher" ammunition the US Army used in Iraq was named a Stafford projectile, after the man who invented and patented it, in 1863 (for use against Confederate ironclad warships). To see several photos (with the Patent-info) of civil war era Stafford armor-penetrating projectiles, go to pages 430-433 in "Field Artillery Projectiles of the American Civil War: 1993 Revised & Supplemented Edition" by T.S. Dickey & P.C. George.
Answering your second question: Yes, that particular P.C. George is me.
Regards,
TheCannonballGuy [PCGeorge]
Thats cool, as an EOD Tech. I have access to the two book set. I even had a signed copy when I was stationed in Alaska. Great set of books and thanks for helping write them. I'm trying to find my own copy and will one day. And thanks for the information concerning the sabot round.
Steve in PA
New member
Here are two Mexican bronze grape (or cannister) and one iron American. It is my understanding that the Spanish and later the Mexicans used bronze instead of iron due to a lack of iron ore in Mexico.
Neil in West Jersey
New member
Sorry I couldn't resist
A
Anonymous
Guest
While hog hunting in AR a week ago, I was examining some relics my friend had dug. The usual minie's, melted lead etc., when I came across a case shot size ball. As I looked at it, I told my friend I believed it to be brass (still had dirt on it). I said it didn't have the weight of lead, and it appeared to be brass patina on it. Low and behold, he washed it and it's "chocolate" patina for sure, and I imagine no doubt brass. Same size as Hotchkiss case shot. Another noteworthy relic was a pewter one piece button. Geometric outer design with a bullseye center. On the back are backward's word(s) where the mold maker spelled it left to right, making the button read backwards. I couldn't make out all of it due to one edge missing (damn pewter). No idea on the brass "marble", but I agree on the cannonballs; brass was too valuable for other needs. David