My grandson was in a museum gift shop and spotted some " Big Bang "
cannons. The cannons that use carbide to produce acetylene. The
price was not on the merchandize so he took one of the smallest to the
clerk to find out the price. And he and I were both surprised when
the price turned out to be $108.xx. He decided that was way too much
money.

I thought I would make him a brass cannon for Christmas. So today I
went to the local scrap yard and got some brass. _And this evening
found a drawing on the internet of a 6 lb bronze field gun that I can
scale to a size to fit the brass I bought. And I think I am good to
go. But thought I would ask if anyone has some suggestions. I am
curious how other people have dealt with the trunions. I am inclined
to make them as separate parts and silver braze them on.


Dan

" fired this volley in news:69e472b1-
:

I am inclined
to make them as separate parts and silver braze them on.


I probably would, too, but would bore sides of the barrel with shallow
pockets, just to ensure they don't show visible seams.

Lloyd

Brass isn't strong like Bronze is. Bronze is like a steel.
Think and be careful.

Martin

On 11/30/2011 7:40 PM, wrote:
My grandson was in a museum gift shop and spotted some " Big Bang "
cannons. The cannons that use carbide to produce acetylene. The
price was not on the merchandize so he took one of the smallest to the
clerk to find out the price. And he and I were both surprised when
the price turned out to be $108.xx. He decided that was way too much
money.

I thought I would make him a brass cannon for Christmas. So today I
went to the local scrap yard and got some brass. _And this evening
found a drawing on the internet of a 6 lb bronze field gun that I can
scale to a size to fit the brass I bought. And I think I am good to
go. But thought I would ask if anyone has some suggestions. I am
curious how other people have dealt with the trunions. I am inclined
to make them as separate parts and silver braze them on.


Dan

Martin Eastburn wrote:
Brass isn't strong like Bronze is. Bronze is like a steel.
Think and be careful.

Martin

On 11/30/2011 7:40 PM, wrote:
My grandson was in a museum gift shop and spotted some " Big Bang "
cannons. The cannons that use carbide to produce acetylene. The
price was not on the merchandize so he took one of the smallest to the
clerk to find out the price. And he and I were both surprised when
the price turned out to be $108.xx. He decided that was way too much
money.

I thought I would make him a brass cannon for Christmas. So today I
went to the local scrap yard and got some brass. _And this evening
found a drawing on the internet of a 6 lb bronze field gun that I can
scale to a size to fit the brass I bought. And I think I am good to
go. But thought I would ask if anyone has some suggestions. I am
curious how other people have dealt with the trunions. I am inclined
to make them as separate parts and silver braze them on.


Dan

Will this be a functional item? If so then the easiest way to make it
safe and would be to line the bore with a steel sleeve.
Trunions could then be done very solid. Basically you would finish the
exterior. Drill through the cannon, silver braze in the trunion shaft
then bore the cannon barrel bore, Machine a sleeve and silver braze that
in as well. With the steel you could also make a breech plug and attach
it to the sleeve as well.

--
Steve W.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:47:38 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:

Martin Eastburn wrote:
Brass isn't strong like Bronze is. Bronze is like a steel.
Think and be careful.

Martin

On 11/30/2011 7:40 PM, wrote:
My grandson was in a museum gift shop and spotted some " Big Bang "
cannons. The cannons that use carbide to produce acetylene. The
price was not on the merchandize so he took one of the smallest to the
clerk to find out the price. And he and I were both surprised when
the price turned out to be $108.xx. He decided that was way too much
money.

I thought I would make him a brass cannon for Christmas. So today I
went to the local scrap yard and got some brass. _And this evening
found a drawing on the internet of a 6 lb bronze field gun that I can
scale to a size to fit the brass I bought. And I think I am good to
go. But thought I would ask if anyone has some suggestions. I am
curious how other people have dealt with the trunions. I am inclined
to make them as separate parts and silver braze them on.


Dan

Will this be a functional item? If so then the easiest way to make it
safe and would be to line the bore with a steel sleeve.
Trunions could then be done very solid. Basically you would finish the
exterior. Drill through the cannon, silver braze in the trunion shaft
then bore the cannon barrel bore, Machine a sleeve and silver braze that
in as well. With the steel you could also make a breech plug and attach
it to the sleeve as well.

For a Carbide Cannon..Id doubt he would need a sleeve. Just walls more
than 1/4" thick in brass.

Steel carbide cannons had mild steel bodies and wall thicknesses of
around .125 or so.
A lot of them were simply die stamped sheet metal and two halves crimped
together though most were simply cast iron and not very damned thick.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from...All-Categories

If you look at the wall thickness of this one...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Conestoga-Co...-/150709532470


On the other hand..Ive seen a few blow up..but..stuffing a payload down
the bore was NOT recommended in the first place

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

In article ,
"Steve W." wrote:

Martin Eastburn wrote:
Brass isn't strong like Bronze is. Bronze is like a steel.
Think and be careful.

Martin

On 11/30/2011 7:40 PM, wrote:
My grandson was in a museum gift shop and spotted some " Big Bang "
cannons. The cannons that use carbide to produce acetylene. The
price was not on the merchandize so he took one of the smallest to the
clerk to find out the price. And he and I were both surprised when
the price turned out to be $108.xx. He decided that was way too much
money.

I thought I would make him a brass cannon for Christmas. So today I
went to the local scrap yard and got some brass. _And this evening
found a drawing on the internet of a 6 lb bronze field gun that I can
scale to a size to fit the brass I bought. And I think I am good to
go. But thought I would ask if anyone has some suggestions. I am
curious how other people have dealt with the trunions. I am inclined
to make them as separate parts and silver braze them on.


Dan

Will this be a functional item? If so then the easiest way to make it
safe and would be to line the bore with a steel sleeve.
Trunions could then be done very solid. Basically you would finish the
exterior. Drill through the cannon, silver braze in the trunion shaft
then bore the cannon barrel bore, Machine a sleeve and silver braze that
in as well. With the steel you could also make a breech plug and attach
it to the sleeve as well.

I don't think I would silver-solder a long steel tube to a long brass
tube. The thermal coefficients are too different, and the thing will
tear itself apart. What would work would be to thread the parts at one
end and screw them together. But the steel tube must be able to move
lengthwise.

Joe Gwinn

In article , says...

Martin Eastburn wrote:
Brass isn't strong like Bronze is. Bronze is like a steel.
Think and be careful.

Martin

On 11/30/2011 7:40 PM, wrote:
My grandson was in a museum gift shop and spotted some " Big Bang "
cannons. The cannons that use carbide to produce acetylene. The
price was not on the merchandize so he took one of the smallest to the
clerk to find out the price. And he and I were both surprised when
the price turned out to be $108.xx. He decided that was way too much
money.

I thought I would make him a brass cannon for Christmas. So today I
went to the local scrap yard and got some brass. _And this evening
found a drawing on the internet of a 6 lb bronze field gun that I can
scale to a size to fit the brass I bought. And I think I am good to
go. But thought I would ask if anyone has some suggestions. I am
curious how other people have dealt with the trunions. I am inclined
to make them as separate parts and silver braze them on.


Dan

Will this be a functional item? If so then the easiest way to make it
safe and would be to line the bore with a steel sleeve.
Trunions could then be done very solid. Basically you would finish the
exterior. Drill through the cannon, silver braze in the trunion shaft
then bore the cannon barrel bore, Machine a sleeve and silver braze that
in as well. With the steel you could also make a breech plug and attach
it to the sleeve as well.

If he's talking a carbide cannon the original manufacturer made some out
of glass to show the safety of the design, and there's one on youtube
made out of PVC pipe that has clearly been fired many times. Brass
should be completely adequate. A carbide cannon makes a noise, it
doesn't fire a projectile.

On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:00:16 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:



Will this be a functional item? If so then the easiest way to make it
safe and would be to line the bore with a steel sleeve.
Trunions could then be done very solid. Basically you would finish the
exterior. Drill through the cannon, silver braze in the trunion shaft
then bore the cannon barrel bore, Machine a sleeve and silver braze that
in as well. With the steel you could also make a breech plug and attach
it to the sleeve as well.

If he's talking a carbide cannon the original manufacturer made some out
of glass to show the safety of the design, and there's one on youtube
made out of PVC pipe that has clearly been fired many times. Brass
should be completely adequate. A carbide cannon makes a noise, it
doesn't fire a projectile.


Just out of interest: If this were a functional item, made of brass,
designed for black powder and firing projectiles, is there a formula
relating the thickness of the barrel wall to the bore diameter? Does
LaPlace's law apply here?

Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

wrote:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:00:16 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


Will this be a functional item? If so then the easiest way to make it
safe and would be to line the bore with a steel sleeve.
Trunions could then be done very solid. Basically you would finish the
exterior. Drill through the cannon, silver braze in the trunion shaft
then bore the cannon barrel bore, Machine a sleeve and silver braze that
in as well. With the steel you could also make a breech plug and attach
it to the sleeve as well.
If he's talking a carbide cannon the original manufacturer made some out
of glass to show the safety of the design, and there's one on youtube
made out of PVC pipe that has clearly been fired many times. Brass
should be completely adequate. A carbide cannon makes a noise, it
doesn't fire a projectile.


Just out of interest: If this were a functional item, made of brass,
designed for black powder and firing projectiles, is there a formula
relating the thickness of the barrel wall to the bore diameter? Does
LaPlace's law apply here?

Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fu...hp?tid/255371/
http://greystarcannontech.homestead.com/star.html
http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.p...c,41634.0.html

--
Steve W.

On 2011-12-03, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:00:16 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:



Will this be a functional item? If so then the easiest way to make it
safe and would be to line the bore with a steel sleeve.

[ ... ]

Just out of interest: If this were a functional item, made of brass,
designed for black powder and firing projectiles, is there a formula
relating the thickness of the barrel wall to the bore diameter? Does
LaPlace's law apply here?

Given that *real* cannons were not made of brass -- they were
made of bronze, which is similar in appearance, depending on state of
patina buildup.

I personally would never consider putting black powder in
anything made of brass. Stick with bronze -- it is much stronger and
safer.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 4 Dec 2011 06:16:47 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[...]

I personally would never consider putting black powder in
anything made of brass. Stick with bronze -- it is much stronger and
safer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxHW-QGMuZ4

:-)

Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 21:40:37 -0800, wrote:

On 4 Dec 2011 06:16:47 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[...]

I personally would never consider putting black powder in
anything made of brass. Stick with bronze -- it is much stronger and
safer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxHW-QGMuZ4

:-)

I like his sterling silver and gold mini-crossbow, too. Tres chic!

--
Self-development is a higher duty than self-sacrifice.
-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

On 2011-12-05, wrote:
On 4 Dec 2011 06:16:47 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[...]

I personally would never consider putting black powder in
anything made of brass. Stick with bronze -- it is much stronger and
safer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxHW-QGMuZ4

:-)

Good thick walls for the bore.

But what was being used as powder in it? The color did not
look like either black powder or smokeless, so what was it? That would
determine the peak pressure and thus the proper metal.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 6 Dec 2011 01:29:02 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2011-12-05, wrote:
On 4 Dec 2011 06:16:47 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[...]

I personally would never consider putting black powder in
anything made of brass. Stick with bronze -- it is much stronger and
safer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxHW-QGMuZ4

:-)

Good thick walls for the bore.

But what was being used as powder in it? The color did not
look like either black powder or smokeless, so what was it? That would
determine the peak pressure and thus the proper metal.

Enjoy,
DoN.

Don, many of the old, smaller cannons were made of brass, although it
was closer to red brass (like that used in plumbing) than yellow
brass. It was used for many swivel guns, for example.

One of my alloy books says that there wre over 300 named alloys called
"brass" or "bronze" in the 1930s. g But you're basically right --
tin bronze, also called "gun metal," is stronger than yellow brass,
and has somewhat greater impact strength.

More than tensile strength, you need ductility and impact strength.
Hell, the guns on the Monitor were made of cast iron, as were most
guns of the time, with wrought-iron hoops on the breech to prevent
castastrophic explosions. Even so, the gunnery officer would only load
them to around 50% of their designed powder load. A big gun in that
turret must have made them nervous.

Still, after 1,000 - 2,000 or so shots, some of those Civil War-era
cannons would let go. It was a hazard of war.

Bronze is pretty sensitive to small variations in compositioin, in
terms of elongation (ductility) and impact strength. I have the
complete contemporary listings for compositions and properties, but I
think you can find that stuff online these days.

Gun metal is what you want. It's around 10% - 12% tin, IIRC, with most
of the rest copper. I'll look up the full composition if anyone is
interested.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 22:34:30 -0500, "Steve W."
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:00:16 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


Will this be a functional item? If so then the easiest way to make it
safe and would be to line the bore with a steel sleeve.
Trunions could then be done very solid. Basically you would finish the
exterior. Drill through the cannon, silver braze in the trunion shaft
then bore the cannon barrel bore, Machine a sleeve and silver braze that
in as well. With the steel you could also make a breech plug and attach
it to the sleeve as well.
If he's talking a carbide cannon the original manufacturer made some out
of glass to show the safety of the design, and there's one on youtube
made out of PVC pipe that has clearly been fired many times. Brass
should be completely adequate. A carbide cannon makes a noise, it
doesn't fire a projectile.


Just out of interest: If this were a functional item, made of brass,
designed for black powder and firing projectiles, is there a formula
relating the thickness of the barrel wall to the bore diameter? Does
LaPlace's law apply here?

Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fu...hp?tid/255371/
http://greystarcannontech.homestead.com/star.html
http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.p...c,41634.0.html

It's tricky to get into some of these fora. They do not let you into
the topic, only to the front page. And they will not let me search.
Most of the info I found so far relates to steel, the walls thickness
at breech = bore diameter.

However, they did answer an unrelated question I was thinking about:
The bore diameter = 39/40 x diameter of the projectile.

Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:03:39 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On 6 Dec 2011 01:29:02 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2011-12-05, wrote:
On 4 Dec 2011 06:16:47 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[...]

I personally would never consider putting black powder in
anything made of brass. Stick with bronze -- it is much stronger and
safer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxHW-QGMuZ4

:-)

Good thick walls for the bore.

But what was being used as powder in it? The color did not
look like either black powder or smokeless, so what was it? That would
determine the peak pressure and thus the proper metal.

Enjoy,
DoN.

Don, many of the old, smaller cannons were made of brass, although it
was closer to red brass (like that used in plumbing) than yellow
brass. It was used for many swivel guns, for example.

One of my alloy books says that there wre over 300 named alloys called
"brass" or "bronze" in the 1930s. g But you're basically right --
tin bronze, also called "gun metal," is stronger than yellow brass,
and has somewhat greater impact strength.

More than tensile strength, you need ductility and impact strength.
Hell, the guns on the Monitor were made of cast iron, as were most
guns of the time, with wrought-iron hoops on the breech to prevent
castastrophic explosions. Even so, the gunnery officer would only load
them to around 50% of their designed powder load. A big gun in that
turret must have made them nervous.

Still, after 1,000 - 2,000 or so shots, some of those Civil War-era
cannons would let go. It was a hazard of war.

Bronze is pretty sensitive to small variations in compositioin, in
terms of elongation (ductility) and impact strength. I have the
complete contemporary listings for compositions and properties, but I
think you can find that stuff online these days.

Gun metal is what you want. It's around 10% - 12% tin, IIRC, with most
of the rest copper. I'll look up the full composition if anyone is
interested.

BTW, the "Gunmetal" listing in Wikipedia is screwed up. Don't rely on
it. They say it's also called "yellow brass" in the US (it isn't), and
then their reference, a UK web page, says it's called "red brass" in
the US (it isn't).

Sheesh. I've never contributed to a Wikipedia listing, but this one
needs some corrections.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2011-12-06, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 6 Dec 2011 01:29:02 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[ ... ]

I personally would never consider putting black powder in
anything made of brass. Stick with bronze -- it is much stronger and
safer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxHW-QGMuZ4

[ ... ]

Don, many of the old, smaller cannons were made of brass, although it
was closer to red brass (like that used in plumbing) than yellow
brass. It was used for many swivel guns, for example.

O.K. What kind of alloy would that be?

Another Wikipedia entry (for "Brass") says in part:


================================================== ====================
"Red brass is both an American term for the copper-zinc-tin alloy
known as gunmetal, and an alloy which is considered both a brass
and a bronze. It typically contains 85% copper, 5% tin, 5%
lead, and 5% zinc.[41][42] Red brass is also an alternative name
for copper alloy C23000, which is composed of 14?16% zinc, 0.05%
iron and lead, and the remainder copper.[43] It may also refer
to ounce metal, another copper-zinc-tin alloy."
================================================== ====================

One of my alloy books says that there wre over 300 named alloys called
"brass" or "bronze" in the 1930s. g But you're basically right --
tin bronze, also called "gun metal," is stronger than yellow brass,
and has somewhat greater impact strength.

More than tensile strength, you need ductility and impact strength.
Hell, the guns on the Monitor were made of cast iron, as were most
guns of the time, with wrought-iron hoops on the breech to prevent
castastrophic explosions. Even so, the gunnery officer would only load
them to around 50% of their designed powder load. A big gun in that
turret must have made them nervous.

Still, after 1,000 - 2,000 or so shots, some of those Civil War-era
cannons would let go. It was a hazard of war.

Among many other -- rather more intentional -- hazards of war.

Bronze is pretty sensitive to small variations in compositioin, in
terms of elongation (ductility) and impact strength. I have the
complete contemporary listings for compositions and properties, but I
think you can find that stuff online these days.

Gun metal is what you want. It's around 10% - 12% tin, IIRC, with most
of the rest copper. I'll look up the full composition if anyone is
interested.

And is there any practical way for the home machinist to tell
what alloy they have? (Other than buying a certified alloy from a good
vendor.)

Thanks,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On Dec 6, 9:41*pm, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:



* * * * And is there any practical way for the home machinist to tell
what alloy they have? (Other than buying a certified alloy from a good
vendor.)

* * * * Thanks,
* * * * * * * * DoN.

--
My local scrap yard has a X-Ray Fluorescence tester. I do not know
how precise it is in determining alloys.

Dan

On 7 Dec 2011 02:41:23 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2011-12-06, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 6 Dec 2011 01:29:02 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[ ... ]

I personally would never consider putting black powder in
anything made of brass. Stick with bronze -- it is much stronger and
safer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxHW-QGMuZ4

[ ... ]

Don, many of the old, smaller cannons were made of brass, although it
was closer to red brass (like that used in plumbing) than yellow
brass. It was used for many swivel guns, for example.

O.K. What kind of alloy would that be?

We are about to embark on a confusing journey. g When I was
Materials Editor at _American Machinist_, I made the mistake of trying
to learn all about these alloys. I remember an engineer at a copper
company looked at me when I said that, and practically laughed his
head off. 8-)

First off, cannons were cast, not wrought, and cast alloys are a bit
different. Cast copper alloys' numbering begins at C8000, and there's
the one called "red brass" in the plumbing-parts field, where most of
it is used. Today, it is almost always leaded for fast and easy
machining (the lead breaks chips; it doesn't really lubricate in
copper alloys).

"Red brass" in general refers to copper alloys that typically contain
85% or more copper and no more than 5% or so zinc and 5% tin. Those
are old small-cannon alloys.Today, they're used for industrial
plumbing because of their good corrosion resistance. As far as I know,
they aren't available today without lead. "Leaded red brass" casting
alloy, C83600, is 85% Cu, 5% Sn, 5% Pb, 5% Zn.

"Gun metal," as it was used for cannons, also was cast. Today's cast
gun metal, C90500, is 88% Cu, 10% Sn, 2% Zn. Another common name for
it is Tin Bronze (there are several alloys called that). I've never
heard it called red brass, but I never asked, either.

Wrought alloys are much more diverse. Here you really get into trouble
with the common and commercial names. "Commercial bronze' (C22000)
contains 90% copper, 10% zinc, and no tin at all. "Red brass" in a
wrought alloy (C2300) is 85% copper, 15% zinc, no tin.

"Cartridge brass" (C26000) is 70% copper, 30% zinc. There are
several alloys known as "yellow brass," but the average composition is
65% copper, 35% zinc.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. A tip from an engineer I knew
who works with this stuff: forget the terms "brass" and "bronze." They
mean essentially nothing. The large majority of the "bronzes"
available today contain no tin. Some "brasses" do. (All of the above
comes from my non-ferrous bible, _Metals Handbook_, Ninth Edition.)

And if you're going to make a small cannon out of bar stock, stick
with steel. Then you won't have to worry about Charpy impact strength,
or stress-corrosion cracking, or any of the rest of the black magic
associated with highly-stressed copper alloys.



Another Wikipedia entry (for "Brass") says in part:


================================================== ====================
"Red brass is both an American term for the copper-zinc-tin alloy
known as gunmetal, and an alloy which is considered both a brass
and a bronze. It typically contains 85% copper, 5% tin, 5%
lead, and 5% zinc.[41][42] Red brass is also an alternative name
for copper alloy C23000, which is composed of 14?16% zinc, 0.05%
iron and lead, and the remainder copper.[43] It may also refer
to ounce metal, another copper-zinc-tin alloy."
================================================= =====================

One of my alloy books says that there wre over 300 named alloys called
"brass" or "bronze" in the 1930s. g But you're basically right --
tin bronze, also called "gun metal," is stronger than yellow brass,
and has somewhat greater impact strength.

More than tensile strength, you need ductility and impact strength.
Hell, the guns on the Monitor were made of cast iron, as were most
guns of the time, with wrought-iron hoops on the breech to prevent
castastrophic explosions. Even so, the gunnery officer would only load
them to around 50% of their designed powder load. A big gun in that
turret must have made them nervous.

Still, after 1,000 - 2,000 or so shots, some of those Civil War-era
cannons would let go. It was a hazard of war.

Among many other -- rather more intentional -- hazards of war.

Bronze is pretty sensitive to small variations in compositioin, in
terms of elongation (ductility) and impact strength. I have the
complete contemporary listings for compositions and properties, but I
think you can find that stuff online these days.

Gun metal is what you want. It's around 10% - 12% tin, IIRC, with most
of the rest copper. I'll look up the full composition if anyone is
interested.

And is there any practical way for the home machinist to tell
what alloy they have? (Other than buying a certified alloy from a good
vendor.)

Thanks,
DoN.

Not that I've ever heard of.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2011-12-07, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 7 Dec 2011 02:41:23 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2011-12-06, Ed Huntress wrote:

[ ... ]

Don, many of the old, smaller cannons were made of brass, although it
was closer to red brass (like that used in plumbing) than yellow
brass. It was used for many swivel guns, for example.

O.K. What kind of alloy would that be?

We are about to embark on a confusing journey. g When I was
Materials Editor at _American Machinist_, I made the mistake of trying
to learn all about these alloys. I remember an engineer at a copper
company looked at me when I said that, and practically laughed his
head off. 8-)

That is a bad sign, right there. :-)

First off, cannons were cast, not wrought, and cast alloys are a bit
different. Cast copper alloys' numbering begins at C8000, and there's
the one called "red brass" in the plumbing-parts field, where most of
it is used. Today, it is almost always leaded for fast and easy
machining (the lead breaks chips; it doesn't really lubricate in
copper alloys).

And 360 brass is leaded for ease of machining, and plenty of
don't run powder in this. :-)

[ ... ]

"Gun metal," as it was used for cannons, also was cast. Today's cast
gun metal, C90500, is 88% Cu, 10% Sn, 2% Zn. Another common name for
it is Tin Bronze (there are several alloys called that). I've never
heard it called red brass, but I never asked, either.

I've got a copy of _De Pirotechnia_ which includes how to sand
cast a cannon barrel -- as well as the same for a bell. (Of course,
almost everything is called by an obsolete name, making it more
difficult to understand. And the lathes for boring a cannon once it is
cast are interesting, too. :-)

Wrought alloys are much more diverse. Here you really get into trouble
with the common and commercial names. "Commercial bronze' (C22000)
contains 90% copper, 10% zinc, and no tin at all. "Red brass" in a
wrought alloy (C2300) is 85% copper, 15% zinc, no tin.

"Cartridge brass" (C26000) is 70% copper, 30% zinc.

Of course, the strength comes from the reinforcing of the
chamber, not from the cartridge case material. :-)

[ ... ]

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. A tip from an engineer I knew
who works with this stuff: forget the terms "brass" and "bronze." They
mean essentially nothing. The large majority of the "bronzes"
available today contain no tin. Some "brasses" do. (All of the above
comes from my non-ferrous bible, _Metals Handbook_, Ninth Edition.)

O.K.

And if you're going to make a small cannon out of bar stock, stick
with steel. Then you won't have to worry about Charpy impact strength,
or stress-corrosion cracking, or any of the rest of the black magic
associated with highly-stressed copper alloys.

Amen! (Not that I plan to do this -- but whoever the OP was
apparently did intend to do so.

[ ... ]

And is there any practical way for the home machinist to tell
what alloy they have? (Other than buying a certified alloy from a good
vendor.)

[ ... ]

Not that I've ever heard of.

I was afraid of that.

Thanks for all the typing and information,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On Dec 7, 10:54*pm, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2011-12-07, Ed Huntress wrote:

* * * *And is there any practical way for the home machinist to tell
what alloy they have? (Other than buying a certified alloy from a good
vendor.)

* * * * [ ... ]

Not that I've ever heard of.

* * * * I was afraid of that.

* * * * Thanks for all the typing and information,
* * * * * * * * DoN.


http://www.koslow.com Besides selling test kits, they will also test
samples in their shop.

On 8 Dec 2011 03:54:06 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2011-12-07, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 7 Dec 2011 02:41:23 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2011-12-06, Ed Huntress wrote:

[ ... ]

Don, many of the old, smaller cannons were made of brass, although it
was closer to red brass (like that used in plumbing) than yellow
brass. It was used for many swivel guns, for example.

O.K. What kind of alloy would that be?

We are about to embark on a confusing journey. g When I was
Materials Editor at _American Machinist_, I made the mistake of trying
to learn all about these alloys. I remember an engineer at a copper
company looked at me when I said that, and practically laughed his
head off. 8-)

That is a bad sign, right there. :-)

First off, cannons were cast, not wrought, and cast alloys are a bit
different. Cast copper alloys' numbering begins at C8000, and there's
the one called "red brass" in the plumbing-parts field, where most of
it is used. Today, it is almost always leaded for fast and easy
machining (the lead breaks chips; it doesn't really lubricate in
copper alloys).

And 360 brass is leaded for ease of machining, and plenty of
don't run powder in this. :-)

[ ... ]

"Gun metal," as it was used for cannons, also was cast. Today's cast
gun metal, C90500, is 88% Cu, 10% Sn, 2% Zn. Another common name for
it is Tin Bronze (there are several alloys called that). I've never
heard it called red brass, but I never asked, either.

I've got a copy of _De Pirotechnia_ which includes how to sand
cast a cannon barrel -- as well as the same for a bell. (Of course,
almost everything is called by an obsolete name, making it more
difficult to understand. And the lathes for boring a cannon once it is
cast are interesting, too. :-)

It was an art. For big cannons, they mixed the alloy as they went,
because tin, like zinc, will separate from copper in a melt if you
don't agitate it.

The one bronze alloy that doesn't require stirring is silicon bronze,
which is fairly strong and corrosion resistant, and widely used for
marine hardware. I wouldn't put gunpowder in it for love nor money,
however.


Wrought alloys are much more diverse. Here you really get into trouble
with the common and commercial names. "Commercial bronze' (C22000)
contains 90% copper, 10% zinc, and no tin at all. "Red brass" in a
wrought alloy (C2300) is 85% copper, 15% zinc, no tin.

"Cartridge brass" (C26000) is 70% copper, 30% zinc.

Of course, the strength comes from the reinforcing of the
chamber, not from the cartridge case material. :-)


I'm not sure what the story is there. IIRC, it's a matter of
compression strength. Cartridge heads tend to part ways with the rest
of the cartridge at around 60,000 psi. I recall this because I once
shot an overheated handload (then wildcat) .25/06 in an '03 action
that, fortunately for my eyesight, had the Arisaka-type recess
modification. It still scared the daylight out of me. d8-)


[ ... ]

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. A tip from an engineer I knew
who works with this stuff: forget the terms "brass" and "bronze." They
mean essentially nothing. The large majority of the "bronzes"
available today contain no tin. Some "brasses" do. (All of the above
comes from my non-ferrous bible, _Metals Handbook_, Ninth Edition.)

O.K.

And if you're going to make a small cannon out of bar stock, stick
with steel. Then you won't have to worry about Charpy impact strength,
or stress-corrosion cracking, or any of the rest of the black magic
associated with highly-stressed copper alloys.

Amen! (Not that I plan to do this -- but whoever the OP was
apparently did intend to do so.

[ ... ]

And is there any practical way for the home machinist to tell
what alloy they have? (Other than buying a certified alloy from a good
vendor.)

[ ... ]

Not that I've ever heard of.

I was afraid of that.

Thanks for all the typing and information,
DoN.

Typing is free, unless it's for publication. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 10:54 pm, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2011-12-07, Ed Huntress wrote:

And is there any practical way for the home machinist to tell
what alloy they have? (Other than buying a certified alloy from a good
vendor.)

[ ... ]

Not that I've ever heard of.

I was afraid of that.

Thanks for all the typing and information,
DoN.


-http://www.koslow.com Besides selling test kits, they will also
-test samples in their shop.

I learned how to analyze metals in chemistry class but don't do it at home
because I can't dispose of the resulting hazardous materials, and nitric
acid fumes will attack almost everything in the house and shop.
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n...nalysis&page=1

A reasonably accurate tensile strength testing machine wouldn't be difficult
to make.
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResou...al/Tensile.htm
While it won't tell you what the alloy is you can find out how it behaves
under load.

The sample size could be adjusted to keep the pull within the range of a
bathroom scale. The (ab)used tensile strength machine scale I have goes to
600 lbs. It contains a loose-fitted carbon piston and cylinder damper to
protect the mechanism from shock when the sample breaks.

To use it you increase the tension with a turnbuckle or comealong and record
the pull and specimen length at convenient steps of length or force,
depending on which you can read more precisely. When you reach the elastic
limit the effort to stretch the sample stops increasing as quickly. It's the
same as realizing when you have overtorqued and started to strip a bolt.

The test sample is a dogbone-shaped strip of your unknown alloy turned
cylindrical between two attachment bolt holes. Parted-off rings are said to
be suitable though I haven't found a good description of the preparation and
procedure.

I don't have a permanent testing machine. When I want to test something I
set up the equipment between two large trees.

jsw

On 2011-12-08, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 8 Dec 2011 03:54:06 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[ ... ]

I've got a copy of _De Pirotechnia_ which includes how to sand
cast a cannon barrel -- as well as the same for a bell. (Of course,
almost everything is called by an obsolete name, making it more
difficult to understand. And the lathes for boring a cannon once it is
cast are interesting, too. :-)

It was an art. For big cannons, they mixed the alloy as they went,
because tin, like zinc, will separate from copper in a melt if you
don't agitate it.

Nasty.

The one bronze alloy that doesn't require stirring is silicon bronze,
which is fairly strong and corrosion resistant, and widely used for
marine hardware. I wouldn't put gunpowder in it for love nor money,
however.

Hmm ... I've got some, but agree that putting powder in it would
be a bad idea.

[ ... ]

"Cartridge brass" (C26000) is 70% copper, 30% zinc.

Of course, the strength comes from the reinforcing of the
chamber, not from the cartridge case material. :-)


I'm not sure what the story is there. IIRC, it's a matter of
compression strength. Cartridge heads tend to part ways with the rest
of the cartridge at around 60,000 psi. I recall this because I once
shot an overheated handload (then wildcat) .25/06 in an '03 action
that, fortunately for my eyesight, had the Arisaka-type recess
modification. It still scared the daylight out of me. d8-)

The pressure first expands the walls, gripping the chamber
firmly, and then excess pressure tries to push the bolt back (or bend
the frame in a revolver), thus leading to head separation.

I'm not familiar with the Arisaka modification, but it sounds
like a good thing that you had it. :-)

[ ... ]

Thanks for all the typing and information,
DoN.

Typing is free, unless it's for publication. d8-)

Remind me not to publish anything other than what *I* write. :-)

Of course -- legally in the Patent world, posting the
information here counts as publication and starts the one year timeout
by which you have to file your application. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 9 Dec 2011 03:48:21 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2011-12-08, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 8 Dec 2011 03:54:06 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[ ... ]

I've got a copy of _De Pirotechnia_ which includes how to sand
cast a cannon barrel -- as well as the same for a bell. (Of course,
almost everything is called by an obsolete name, making it more
difficult to understand. And the lathes for boring a cannon once it is
cast are interesting, too. :-)

It was an art. For big cannons, they mixed the alloy as they went,
because tin, like zinc, will separate from copper in a melt if you
don't agitate it.

Nasty.

The one bronze alloy that doesn't require stirring is silicon bronze,
which is fairly strong and corrosion resistant, and widely used for
marine hardware. I wouldn't put gunpowder in it for love nor money,
however.

Hmm ... I've got some, but agree that putting powder in it would
be a bad idea.

[ ... ]

"Cartridge brass" (C26000) is 70% copper, 30% zinc.

Of course, the strength comes from the reinforcing of the
chamber, not from the cartridge case material. :-)


I'm not sure what the story is there. IIRC, it's a matter of
compression strength. Cartridge heads tend to part ways with the rest
of the cartridge at around 60,000 psi. I recall this because I once
shot an overheated handload (then wildcat) .25/06 in an '03 action
that, fortunately for my eyesight, had the Arisaka-type recess
modification. It still scared the daylight out of me. d8-)

The pressure first expands the walls, gripping the chamber
firmly, and then excess pressure tries to push the bolt back (or bend
the frame in a revolver), thus leading to head separation.

So it's a failure in tension. Hmmm. If I get bored some day, I'll have
to go back and look into it.


I'm not familiar with the Arisaka modification, but it sounds
like a good thing that you had it. :-)

Oh, yeah. That was in 1961 and I was 13. I forget how that recess is
arranged, but it was a strong point of the early-WWII Arisakas, and
some builders of custom '03 sporters after the war adopted the idea
to make the '03 safer in case of a cartridge failure.


[ ... ]

Thanks for all the typing and information,
DoN.

Typing is free, unless it's for publication. d8-)

Remind me not to publish anything other than what *I* write. :-)

Of course -- legally in the Patent world, posting the
information here counts as publication and starts the one year timeout
by which you have to file your application. :-)

Ah, I think you're thinking of something to do with patents or foreign
copyrights. In the US, your work is automatically copyrighted, and you
don't have to file anything. It's been that way since 1978 or
thereabouts.

--
Ed Huntress


Enjoy,
DoN.

On 2011-12-09, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 9 Dec 2011 03:48:21 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[ ... ]

Of course -- legally in the Patent world, posting the
information here counts as publication and starts the one year timeout
by which you have to file your application. :-)

Ah, I think you're thinking of something to do with patents or foreign
copyrights. In the US, your work is automatically copyrighted, and you
don't have to file anything. It's been that way since 1978 or
thereabouts.

I *did* say "in the Patent world" above. Once your invention
has been published, you have one year to get the processing of the
patent application running. This from the patent lawers at the lab
where I used to work.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 10 Dec 2011 02:25:14 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2011-12-09, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 9 Dec 2011 03:48:21 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[ ... ]

Of course -- legally in the Patent world, posting the
information here counts as publication and starts the one year timeout
by which you have to file your application. :-)

Ah, I think you're thinking of something to do with patents or foreign
copyrights. In the US, your work is automatically copyrighted, and you
don't have to file anything. It's been that way since 1978 or
thereabouts.

I *did* say "in the Patent world" above. Once your invention
has been published, you have one year to get the processing of the
patent application running. This from the patent lawers at the lab
where I used to work.

Enjoy,
DoN.

Darn, I missed that and just hung on the word "publication." Selective
attention, I suppose. d8-)

Yes, patents are something else.

--
Ed Huntress

On 9 Dec 2011 03:48:21 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2011-12-08, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 8 Dec 2011 03:54:06 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[ ... ]

I've got a copy of _De Pirotechnia_ which includes how to sand
cast a cannon barrel -- as well as the same for a bell. (Of course,
almost everything is called by an obsolete name, making it more
difficult to understand. And the lathes for boring a cannon once it is
cast are interesting, too. :-)

It was an art. For big cannons, they mixed the alloy as they went,
because tin, like zinc, will separate from copper in a melt if you
don't agitate it.

Nasty.

The one bronze alloy that doesn't require stirring is silicon bronze,
which is fairly strong and corrosion resistant, and widely used for
marine hardware. I wouldn't put gunpowder in it for love nor money,
however.

Hmm ... I've got some, but agree that putting powder in it would
be a bad idea.

[ ... ]

"Cartridge brass" (C26000) is 70% copper, 30% zinc.

Of course, the strength comes from the reinforcing of the
chamber, not from the cartridge case material. :-)


I'm not sure what the story is there. IIRC, it's a matter of
compression strength. Cartridge heads tend to part ways with the rest
of the cartridge at around 60,000 psi. I recall this because I once
shot an overheated handload (then wildcat) .25/06 in an '03 action
that, fortunately for my eyesight, had the Arisaka-type recess
modification. It still scared the daylight out of me. d8-)

The pressure first expands the walls, gripping the chamber
firmly, and then excess pressure tries to push the bolt back (or bend
the frame in a revolver), thus leading to head separation.

I'm not familiar with the Arisaka modification, but it sounds
like a good thing that you had it. :-)

[ ... ]

Thanks for all the typing and information,
DoN.

Typing is free, unless it's for publication. d8-)

Remind me not to publish anything other than what *I* write. :-)

Of course -- legally in the Patent world, posting the
information here counts as publication and starts the one year timeout
by which you have to file your application. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

Keep in mind..that cannon of the type in question were loaded with black
powder, not smokeless and max pressures will be in the less than 25,000
PSI range...Maximum proof loads would likely be less than that. Its not
very hot stuff and the burning curve is quite slow when loaded to and
with the proper charge, not only in weight..but in particulate size. The
16" guns of the US battle ships used grains the size of golf balls....

A rather good basic work on black powder is this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder



Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2011-12-09, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 9 Dec 2011 03:48:21 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[ ... ]

Of course -- legally in the Patent world, posting the
information here counts as publication and starts the one year timeout
by which you have to file your application. :-)

Ah, I think you're thinking of something to do with patents or foreign
copyrights. In the US, your work is automatically copyrighted, and you
don't have to file anything. It's been that way since 1978 or
thereabouts.

I *did* say "in the Patent world" above. Once your invention
has been published, you have one year to get the processing of the
patent application running. This from the patent lawers at the lab
where I used to work.

No longer works that way, I suspect. Congress changed US patent law a
few months ago. We are going to the first-to-file system, versus the
original first-to-invent system. (The rest of the World uses
first-to-file already.)

Joe Gwinn

On 12/10/2011 10:43 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In ,
"DoN. wrote:

On 2011-12-09, Ed wrote:
On 9 Dec 2011 03:48:21 GMT, "DoN.
wrote:

[ ... ]

Of course -- legally in the Patent world, posting the
information here counts as publication and starts the one year timeout
by which you have to file your application. :-)

Ah, I think you're thinking of something to do with patents or foreign
copyrights. In the US, your work is automatically copyrighted, and you
don't have to file anything. It's been that way since 1978 or
thereabouts.

I *did* say "in the Patent world" above. Once your invention
has been published, you have one year to get the processing of the
patent application running. This from the patent lawers at the lab
where I used to work.

No longer works that way, I suspect. Congress changed US patent law a
few months ago. We are going to the first-to-file system, versus the
original first-to-invent system. (The rest of the World uses
first-to-file already.)

Joe Gwinn

first to file or not, once an idea is published the timer starts running
- a patent can then be invalidated by showing that publication as prior art

On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 07:49:18 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On 9 Dec 2011 03:48:21 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2011-12-08, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 8 Dec 2011 03:54:06 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

[ ... ]

I've got a copy of _De Pirotechnia_ which includes how to sand
cast a cannon barrel -- as well as the same for a bell. (Of course,
almost everything is called by an obsolete name, making it more
difficult to understand. And the lathes for boring a cannon once it is
cast are interesting, too. :-)

It was an art. For big cannons, they mixed the alloy as they went,
because tin, like zinc, will separate from copper in a melt if you
don't agitate it.

Nasty.

The one bronze alloy that doesn't require stirring is silicon bronze,
which is fairly strong and corrosion resistant, and widely used for
marine hardware. I wouldn't put gunpowder in it for love nor money,
however.

Hmm ... I've got some, but agree that putting powder in it would
be a bad idea.

[ ... ]

"Cartridge brass" (C26000) is 70% copper, 30% zinc.

Of course, the strength comes from the reinforcing of the
chamber, not from the cartridge case material. :-)


I'm not sure what the story is there. IIRC, it's a matter of
compression strength. Cartridge heads tend to part ways with the rest
of the cartridge at around 60,000 psi. I recall this because I once
shot an overheated handload (then wildcat) .25/06 in an '03 action
that, fortunately for my eyesight, had the Arisaka-type recess
modification. It still scared the daylight out of me. d8-)

The pressure first expands the walls, gripping the chamber
firmly, and then excess pressure tries to push the bolt back (or bend
the frame in a revolver), thus leading to head separation.

I'm not familiar with the Arisaka modification, but it sounds
like a good thing that you had it. :-)

[ ... ]

Thanks for all the typing and information,
DoN.

Typing is free, unless it's for publication. d8-)

Remind me not to publish anything other than what *I* write. :-)

Of course -- legally in the Patent world, posting the
information here counts as publication and starts the one year timeout
by which you have to file your application. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

Keep in mind..that cannon of the type in question were loaded with black
powder, not smokeless and max pressures will be in the less than 25,000
PSI range...Maximum proof loads would likely be less than that. Its not
very hot stuff and the burning curve is quite slow when loaded to and
with the proper charge, not only in weight..but in particulate size. The
16" guns of the US battle ships used grains the size of golf balls....

A rather good basic work on black powder is this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder



Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch


I'm sure you can learn about cannons from those two guys on the
"Mythbusters" show. They have some recent experience...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifest...8fO_story.html