Pegleg Pete

The feeling is totally mutual, GOF. I find myself burned out from many of my hobbies at this point. It sometimes seems difficult to step away, especially when folks are wanting to know your take on the situation. It's easier for us "lesser known" members to do so than it is for you. But, rest assured, you won't be forgotten, and you will be able to step in again at any point you feel is fitting. Feel free to step away and get your affairs in order. The hobby will be around when you return, and people will be eager to hear what you have for input on the topic at hand. Everything discussed here is meant to be a hobby, or things to learn to further a person's understanding. If it gets to the point of taking over a majority of your life, it's time to step back and take care of what's REALLY important. Take some time off and come back to a "family" that accepts you as their own. In the mean time, take care of your real family. May the wind always be at your back, and we'll raise a pint to you on your return. Enjoy some much needed time away. If and when you are ready to dive back into it, there will be plenty of things to discuss and debate. Have a good one.... See you at a later date. Brad AKA Pegleg Pete

Nuthin' wrong with that. You wouldn't even need to put a hole in the bottom. It's just the part where you light it and it goes BOOM that tends to make folks a bit nervous. Do a search for "grenades" or "grenadoes" in the Cap'n Twill area and you will find a relatively recent thread about it...with some pictures to boot. Some folks have done some very nice work with reproductions. Brad aka Pegleg Pete

Are you talking clay pots filled with black powder actually being set off? As Kass said, check your local regs. As an off-hand guess, I would say they probably won't fly, legally. Many areas of the country outlaw fireworks or any "device" filled with black powder that's encased in a strong cardboard tube...and that's just paper. If you are figuring the clay will just disintegrate into powder and make a big dust cloud...more than likely it won't. Black powder is a slow, low-order compound, and doesn't have the shattering effect to totally break up the case. There's always a danger of flying chunks. The clay container will break apart only far enough to no longer contain the pressure of the gasses. From that point on, the remainder of the pieces will fly through the air as projectiles. Even if the container is "raw" clay, and not fired in a kiln. Yeah, some if it will turn to dust, but there's no predicting how much or how many pieces won't. No way to tell when or where a chunk will take off like a bullet and cause damage. Like Kass said...check with your local laws, but they will probably frown on the idea. In WWII the Japanese had a "last ditch" grenade made out of clay. It was fired clay, but still...it was a pretty nasty little beastie. Brad aka Pegleg Pete

Harbor Master, If you get a notion to try the amber flints, throw out your two cents as to how they work for you. As I said in a previous post, I've often admired how they look in a lock. It wouldn't be too much of a bother to go and buy them meself, but I'm more than happy with the English flints from Track of the Wolf. But, should you give the ambers a go, let us know what you think of 'em. Beings you are an "English flint" person yourself. An honest opinion from one that has tried both would be a great help. Of the two links I posted, I would be more apt to try Horst than Dixie. I've got no problems with Dixie...I've ordered from them before and had no problems, but judging from their online descriptions, they don't seem to "specialize" in flints...they just carry 'em. Who knows what will show up in the mail. Let us know how it goes, should you give it a shot. Brad

Another source for ambers: Horst Amber Flints A bit spendy, but a few more choices in size, and a better description than "small, medium, large". Kind of a nice site. I like the amber flint down at the bottom for flint and steel, too. Brad

French Amber Flints: Dixie Amber Flints Dixie Gun Works. They have a few different sizes. Looks like they are probably "newly knapped", though. Brad

Track of the Wolf update... The pipes came today...that was pretty quick shipping. Kind of mixed feelings about them. They are sturdy construction. They smoke well. I've only actually lit one, but they both seem to draw equally well. The one downside is the apparent "glaze" on the pipes. I've been reading as much as I can about clays, since I am new to the topic. Some people like glazes, some like them "in the raw". Fortunately, these aren't "glazed" inside the bowl...and I mean REALLY fortunately. Because the glaze appears to be a lacquer or something, and not a true glaze. After a few good puffs on the pipe, the bowl started to get quite warm...which I guess is normal. Like I said, not having used one before and all that... Anyway, after the bowl starts to heat up, the "glaze" starts to discolor and turn brown. I've heard clays can darken in color, and become a "warm brown" color over time...but I suspect not after 4 or 5 puffs? The "glaze" also started to get a bit sticky, which makes me believe it's a lacquer. As I said, they didn't apply it to the inside of the bowl, which is very good news...I'd hate to inhale the fumes from it if it IS lacquer. So, that's the one downside to them. I think I will try to strip that off of my second pipe and see if it makes a difference. Too bad, if that's the case. Other than that, they're pretty nice pipes. So, for those of you that have used clays, does that seem a bit out of the ordinary? Who knows, maybe that's a normal thing...but it sure seems odd to me. That's the report on the new pipes. Brad

I personally smoke a blend. I mix one pouch of Captain Black Gold with one pouch of Borkum Riff Whiskey. I like the "nutty" flavor of the Captian Black, but it's a bit too mellow for me. I like the stronger Borkum, but it's always a bit dry and kind of harsh on the mouth and throat. The mix of the two works really well for me, and people are always coming up and saying "I like the smell of your pipe." I went to a local Ren Faire two weeks ago, and I was standing there in my garb and smoking my pipe, and someone said "You should get one of those old clay pipes." I've always wanted one, but never really found a good source. I like the looks of the really long ones, but you can bet money on the fact that I'd snap the stem first time out with it. Then, I got this e-mail from Track of the Wolf. Figured I'd give them a shot. Brad

Ok, now my curiosity is up. Not to stray too far from the original post, but...what's the secret? I've tried what Patrick suggests, and it does work, but it's kind of a pain. And even then, you still need at least a small quanity of the real stuff on hand to make it work. I've also had some limited success with blending 1 part black powder with 1 part Pyrodex. It eliminates the need for different loading steps, but it's still not as fast as straight black powder. So, how do you go about making it work? Just grind it to a fine powder? The only time I got straight Pyrodex to ignite, it was pretty much a "Clatch....sizzle, sizzle, sizzle....BOOM!" Not very practical...although kind of entertaining in a way. I'm sort of hoping the solution is rather involved, since I recently gave away nearly a pound of the synthetic stuff because I found it pretty much worthless for my flintlock. And as to the hazmat fees...yeah, I hear ya. The cost of the fees nearly doubles your price on a few pounds. Some online dealers will sell as little as a few pounds, but mostly they only go as low as 5 pounds per order. Most sell in quantities of 25 pounds. The thought of having 25 pounds of the stuff sitting around kind of gives me the heebie jeebies. Fortunately, I can still get the real stuff, but I need to spend the better part of a day and nearly a tank of gas to get it. So...what's your secret? Brad

For those of you that are pipe smokers, and are looking for something more "period", I just got a newsletter from Track of the Wolf. They are offering 6" clay pipes for about 7 bucks each: Track of the Wolf Clay Pipes I've been looking around for a good clay pipe ever since an earlier thread came up here. They don't carry the longer versions, but these will do in a pinch. I've ordered a couple. If anyone is interested, I will report on the quality when they show up. Brad aka "Pegleg Pete"

Pyrodex...firing outta flintlocks??? Do those even GO together? Tried it back when I was switching from cap lock to rock-lock. Thought I was doing something wrong. I think I got it to fire ONCE. It was discouraging enough to get me to drive 3 hours to buy 2 pounds of the real stuff. As to flints...I got my first ones at Scheels sporting goods. Two flints for, if I remember correctly, about six bucks. (Hey, I was new to flints...what did I know?) The first one was sacrificed in figuring out how to use the darned thing. The second one shattered after the second snap of the lock. From advise of a muzzleloader group, I went with Track of the Wolf. I got enough flints to fine tune the lock and never looked back. I've heard from folks that use the cut agate "flints" in their guns. The overall opinion is that they are pretty hard on the frizzen. I really like the looks of the amber French flints, but the more stories I read, they don't hold up as well as the English rocks. Some folks have really good luck with them, though. Still, they usually run for more than twice the cost of the black English flints. I wish the reverse was true, because the amber rocks sure look nice in the lock of a gun. But, in the end, go with what you like. If the amber appeals to you, and you don't do a lot of shooting, clamp one in your lock. If you want a good, sure fire rock, go with the black English flints. As Patrick said, the cut agates seem too artificial. But, if that's all you can lay your hands on...at least it's one step closer to period than a cap lock. Brad aka "Pegleg Pete"

I would have to agree with Harbor Master about Track of the Wolf. The Tom Fuller knapped flints are terrific. The price is very reasonable, and even better if you buy in bulk. But, at about a buck a piece, they are well worth the money. If you find your gun favors a certain shape, just let them know in the "comments" section that you would prefer shorter, longer, flat topped, hump topped, etc. and they will do their best to sort through their selection to find what you are looking for. I've ordered a few dozen from them and I've only had one that failed on me and shattered. That's a pretty good track record when you consider they are natural rock, and are sometimes prone to such things.

Could easily be. I have no problem with that. I just wish we had some solid evidence to point one way or the other. Brad

GOF, Yes, I see what you are saying about the effects of the fuze...but not as much as you would think. If a hollow shot is used in a cannon, the fuze is usually trimmed quite close to the casing. Yeah, there WOULD be some effects from wind resistance and such, but only to a small degree. Since the ball is tumbling as it travels downrange, the fuze is moving around the outside and can be in any number of positions at any given time. So, it's really more of an "equal opportunity" wind drag, which doesn't throw the ball off course to much degree...although probably a wee bit. But, it DOES have a drag effect that can reduce the distance it will travel. Even then, it's probably not a whole lot. Hollow "exploding" rounds could be shot nearly as far as traditional solid shot. Maybe a bit shorter, but they could reach a few hundred yards without any problem. The biggest concern of a protruding fuze would be in the barrel. If it's too long, it could catch on the barrel and actually snap off. If you are REALLY unlucky, it could turn and wedge the shot, and you end up turning the whole projectile into a wedged obstruction and burst the barrel. Although, I don't recall ever reading about any real incidences where that happened. The main factor in the ballistics of our round shot is the mass of the object. It all gets into complicated rotational physics and center of gravity, and centrifugal and gyroscopic forces, and vector forces around the arc of a rotating sphere, etc, etc. Very boring, and your eye's will glaze over. But, if you want to discuss it off board via e-mail, we can do so. I'm sure lurking readers are already saying "Shut up already!" You can also find the info on the web, I'm sure...if you are REALLY interested. But, in a nutshell, the biggest problem is the ball spinning around an invisible center of gravity. All projectiles spin, tumble, what have you. The more mass an object has, the less wind resistance is an issue, and the more the mass (weight) is the factor to worry about. Or, more precisely, the balancing of those forces. Sorry folks...bear with me once again, or just skip my post... Short Physics 101: Actually, a solid shot with a small defect inside would be less of a problem than a hollow shell. I was going to mention that in my last post. A small defect in the interior of a solid shot is a very small amount of mass (weight) that is displaced by the air bubble. Even though competition shooters have proven it can have an effect, it's rather small. BUT, if we are talking about a hollow shell, then the problem is magnified significantly. If the central core isn't close to center when the shell is cast, one side will be thicker than the other. That means, there is going to be more mass on one side than the other. If you are talking about a shell that's on average a quarter inch thick, and the core becomes offset by, say...an eighth of an inch, you now find the large percentage of the metal, or more correctly the large percentage of the overall MASS of the ball being in one side. As much as 2/3's of the actual mass is on one side. (That's not exact, since the metal is all around the sphere, but you get the idea.) That means the mass, or weight if you want to use that term, is grossly off to one side of the actual center of the projectile. Ideally, with a sphere, the center of gravity should be as close to the "true" center as possible. When the sphere tumbles, it tends to rotate around it's center. But, if the center of gravity is not the same as the true center, those forces tend to fight with each other. Over a short distance, the spinning around the "true center" wins out. But, as the shot travels down range, the forces around the center of mass wins out, so the projectile tends to drift off in a certain direction... But wait...in the case of the fuze I said it tumbles all over the place...so wouldn't the same be true about the mass? Not really. At first, yes. But the "wobble" tends to favor a particular side, because of the greater mass. (Newton's 3rd law and all that.) Eventually it tends to drift more and more in that direction, and the overall trajectory bends in that direction. Chain shot is a good example. When it flies through the air, both balls are spinning around an invisible center of gravity (center of mass). Wind resistance has little or no effect on accuracy, but it does slow the thing down more quickly. Now, imagine the same chain shot, but this time one ball weighs 2 pounds, and the other weighs 4. Since we are talking smoothbore cannon, there is no way to control the initial spin out of the barrel. That's one reason the idea of a rifled barrel was such a huge breakthrough. If a projectile can be forced to spin perpendicular to the flight path, it becomes much more stable. Not enough to overcome an unbalanced object...but a huge benefit to "normal" accuracy. Well, none of this has anything to do with period grenadoes. (Sorry folks), but it should help to understand why a shot with an offset cavity would be considered a "reject". Hope that helps GoF. Brad

One of the "obvious" situations would be if the two halves don't match up exactly, and it isn't symetrically round. But, you would be able to pick those out of a crowd with no problem. I think the biggest "hidden" flaw was that the central core was not centered correctly when it was cast. That causes the sphere to be heavier on one side or another. In a gun of any size, THAT can be a problem. In sport muzzleloader shooting, a few of the purists go so far as to weigh their cast bullets to make sure they are all consistent. A small air pocket in the casting causes an imbalance. As the ball tumbles down range, it tends to curve like a little bowling ball curving into the 1-3 pins. In their case, the loss of accuracy is very small. But, it can mean the difference between a winning shot and a losing one. Keep in mind, that's just from a tiny air pocket. If you start talking 3, 4, and 6 pound hollow shot with one side heavier than the other, you end up with HUGE problems down range. Accuracy is pretty much nonexistent at that point. Shots can fly wildly off course, causing you to totally miss your target. Not such a big deal if you have 20 guns pointing at the same thing, but possibly a "life or death" situation if you only have one or two guns. A foundry didn't want to get a reputation of producing flawed cannon shot. Like any business, if you produce poor quality product, people start to talk, and pretty soon, you have no customers. And in the case of the military, it wouldn't take too many of those poor castings before the foundry would lose their "government contract". Brad

Exactly...I think that gets to the heart of the matter. Unless you were lucky enough to raid a ship with enough powder and shot to supply your needs, you would need to pick some up when you stopped at port. That's why I brought up the 20th century farmers buying dynamite. A few decades ago, a farmer could walk into just about any hardware store and buy a crate of dynamite. It was considered a "tool" at the time. Very useful for removing stumps, rocks, beaver dams, etc. No big deal to go buy a 50 pound crate. (My grandpa has told me some interesting stories.) So, I think it was pretty common to find supplies to feed your cannon. Many ships used them, if for no other reason than self defense on the high seas, as you pointed out. It was probably no big deal to walk up and buy a few kegs of powder and a few dozen rounds of shot. They would be considered "tools" of the time. But, historically...and by that I mean "recent" - within the last 200 years or so... grenades have fallen outside of the realm of public purchase. It's OK to buy a gun to protect your home, town, (ship) etc. but the really "good" items are reserved for the military. Hollow shot....kind of a grey area. They would fall under the category of cannon supplies, but sort of on the extreme end of the scale. (Probably the same with bar and chain shot.) Nice to have, but are they necessarily NEEDED for self defense? I guess it depends on what the local laws decided. But, there would probably be a better chance of those being available than grenades. Commonly, you would have the military to guard the town or port, and a harbor patrol out looking for suspicious activity. So, with a military presence, would there be a need for the average civilian to own such things? There are many instances in the recent past where the military has given caches of arms to towns to defend themselves, but they were/are locked away in a town armory...in some cases, the armory just being a back room of City Hall. But, even in those cases, individuals weren't allowed to posess them. They were handed out in times of emergency. So, the basic question is, how available were grenades and/or hollow shot to the general public? We know the military had them. What would be nice would be an inventory list or sales slips from some local shops. Foxe (and a few others) are usually pretty good with producing period invoices of such things. If we could find a list that showed either of the two either in inventory, for sale, or sold...then we would have the base question answered. We just need some type of evidence that they were available to the general public. I agree, this is an interesting discussion. For the reenactor, it would be safest to go with the 3" sphere, as you pointed out. And speaking of the Whydah, do we have any records or accounts of its exploits? Any history of who it attacked, or what ships it raided? Brad

Story.... I thought about the swivel gun after reading the discussion in the "Plunder" section with the talk about small cannon to buy. But, I'd never heard the phrase "One Pounder" applied to a swivel gun. Makes sense, though...thanks. As to the answer about where they got grenade cases, I guess the question--and your answer--is what I was getting at. If I were a pirate in those days, I would scavenge any container I could find. Sort of the period equivalent of a pipe bomb. That seems pretty logical. But, it seems historians have associated the spherical casing as the standard "grenadoe". GoF makes some good points. I agree that somewhere along the line, there probably was a manufacturing process geared towards grenades. I do tend to think they were closely associated with hollow cannon shot. But, at some time, they may have taken on a life of their own, and were produced specifically as such. But, besides military use, I'm not sure how much public commercial use drove the market for production. That's why, my personal belief (or best guess) is that most manufactured grenades were originally destined for military use. And pirates either acquired them through taking a military vessel, somehow getting military surplus (black market), or by buying reject casings from a foundry that manufactures hollow cannon shot. In the middle of this century, a farmer could go buy dynamite for various chores around the farm without anyone batting an eye. (Try that THESE days.) But, a person could never order a case of grenades. Back in our period of the GAoP, I doubt the average man on the street could do so either. Which means, outside of government contracts, I can't see much demand for a grenade manufacturer in a settlement. I would guess they were probably only found in or around major ports or naval bases. So, it was probably pretty rare to stumble across someone that had casings...whether they were specifically for grenades, or just reject shells. But, somewhere, sometime, people began to associate the round casings with grenades. I would be curious to see if any of the cannon on the shipwreck sites have the same caliber as the "grenadoes" they found. Lacking a fuze, how can you tell if they weren't just hollow shot? Granted, those with fuzes intact would be a pretty good guess. But, considering the idea of home brewing grenades, who's to say some of the bottles, jars and such that were found on a wreck weren't actually "grenade" casings themselves? I guess it comes down to the question of availability of steel casings, the wealth and strengh of the pirate crew, and what else happened to be available. It does still leave the question of how hollow iron spheres came into use, when so many other options were available. It would be nice if there was an "obvious" answer. I suppose there could be a chance that only a few crews had casings available, and the majority of the pirates of the time used whatever they had on hand. If you are talking about the likes Blackbeard and such, they were very well known and successful pirates. Perhaps in their situations, it was no problem to pick up the top of the line items...even military issue ornance. And along those lines, since most shipwreck salvages are of relatively well known pirate vessels...such as the QAR, it's more "common" to find that type of grenade. Whereas, if they stumbled on to a handful of lesser known pirate wrecks, they may find nothing of the sort. The problem, of course, is how do you verify that the wreck really was a pirate ship? For the most part, the "common" pirates were no more than normal sailor folk, who happened to steal from others. Your average petty thief, if you will... The more you dig into the subject, the more questions arise. Too bad the grenade relics available to us aren't stamped "Port Royal Grenade Mfg Company." That would make things SO much easier to sort out. By the way, thanks for the info about the Serapis and Bonhome Richard. I've never read about it. I'll have to dig into that one a little more. Brad

Nope, no luck. Thanks for trying, though. When I got to work, it loaded in a flash. No luck at home on the ol' dial-up, though. I didn't have much time to look at work, but that English swivel gun looks like a nice little barrel to mount on a naval carriage. Glad to see the site is still around. One of these days, I may just have to give in to the bug. Brad aka Pegleg Pete

Hmm, thanks for the feedback guys. Still no luck. I thought maybe my old link was out of date, so I follewed the one you posted here. Nope. Ok, so maybe it's my browser...so I tried anther...nope. Nada. If I let it sit long enough I get "“http://www.hernironworks.com/” could not be opened because the server stopped responding." Guess I'll have to wait 'til I get to work and sneak on there. Dang. Now that I know I can't check it out, I REAAALLLLYYYYY want to. HarborMaster, I've seen pics of your line 'o guns on the muzzleloading forum. Very nice collection, sir! Cheers! Brad aka Pegleg Pete

I've been trying to access Hern's site for the better part of 2 months. My browser sits there for the longest time, and then finally errors out. The site was usually slow to load in the first place, but I never had it abort in the past. Maybe it's just my slow modem connection. Anyone know if they are still in business? They had a nice little English barrel I had my eye on. It's been so long since I've gotten to the site, I can't even recall what model it was. HarborMaster, didn't you get your barrels from Hern? Or was that GreyStar? Brad aka Pegleg Pete

Well, the only source I found for diameters was in that 1859 book again. It lists cannon size, actual shot sizes, and weight of each. Note, these aren't limited to shipboard cannon. It's just a list of diameters and weights. I'd hate to see the ship carrying 13 inch guns! A single shot weighing 294 pounds...holy smokes! gun size - actual diameter of the shot - weight of the shot 13 in - 12.87 in - 294 lbs 12 in - 11.87 in - 231 lbs 10 in - 9.87 in - 128 lbs 8 in - 7.88 in - 65 lbs 42 pdr - 6.84 in - 42.70 lbs 32 pdr - 6.25 in - 32.60 lbs 24 pdr - 5.68 in - 24.40 lbs 18 pdr - 5.17 in - 18.50 lbs 12 pdr - 4.52 in - 12.30 lbs 9 pdr - 4.10 in - 9.25 lbs 6 pdr - 3.58 in - 6.10 lbs 4 pdr - 3.12 in - 4.07 lbs 3 pdr - 2.84 in - 3.05 lbs 1 pdr - 1.95 in - 1.00 lbs It's odd the 8 pdr isn't listed. I wish the 2 pdr was listed, because that may fall right in the 2 1/2 inch size. So, that could have been a possible source for your 2 1/2 inch grenades. It looks like the "average" 3 inch grenade would have come from a 4 pounder, which would probably have been a fairly common size. I've never even HEARD of a one pounder. I guess the same goes for the three pounder. I've heard the phrase, but rarely in any real context. It's interesting to note the one pounder is the only one that is spot on in weight. It may have been the "measuring stick" for the pound system. Common sizes of cannon? Probably as difficult to pin down as it is to ask what the most popular pirate ship was. It would probably turn into a debate about how they found "such and such" on the Whydah, so it must be true of all pirate ships. Pirates by nature took what they could get. And with all of the nations involved, and all of the various sizes of ships, I'm sure just about any size could be found someplace. For the average pirate ship, they probably ranged in the 2-4 pound range, though. Maybe 6 pounds would still fall in line there. For the most part, you didn't want to carry anything large enough to SINK the other ship. After all, you are trying to raid it, not destroy it. It would be handy to have one or two larger guns to face warships and pirate hunters and the like. My question would be, where would one GET these casings to make grenades. I'm sure the military had plenty of access to them, so they put them to use. But, would they be very common on merchant ships? Could anyone go up to the local foundry and buy reject casings? Or even "regular" grenades, for that matter? Pirates mostly looted commercial ships. I doubt the average sailing vessel had a stash of them on board. There wasn't any "Pirate Depot" where your average pirate could go and buy piratical supplies. I would guess that, even in those days, you would draw suspicion to yourself if you walked up to a foundry and asked for a crate of grenade casings. So, I wonder how common they actually were? Possibly a black market type of thing? If you had the right connections, you could lay your hands on some. They may have been a fairly rare commodity, and you considered yourself a lucky sailor to come across some. On an interesting side note, have you ever watched "Master and Commander"? Kind of a slow moving show, but they did quite a lot of research there. There's a bit of artistic license here and there, but some of it is spot on. If you've ever noticed the grenades, they are pretty much the same size as the cannon shot the guy picks up when he jumps overboard. Coincidence? Possibly. But, maybe the movie crew did some research. It would make sense to have the same size as the guns you carry. In that case, you could even use actual cannon rounds in a pinch. No need to rely on "rejects". Just refuze them, and you are good to go. From the size of those shot, I'm guessing 12 to 18 pounders? Brad aka Pegleg Pete

Shortly after posting my last response, I did some digging around in my references for any further information. I didn't find too much more about grenades of the period, although I did find a small paragraph about wood fuze construction. But, as I was searching, I remembered a phrase that I was told early in my collecting days. When it comes to munitions, form follows function. There were quite a few times when I wondered why a particular ordnance had a certain feature or shape to it. That phrase soon became cemented in my brain. Always, always, there's a reason an ordnance object is designed the way it is. GoF, your parting question was "Does anyone have a clue what "shape" the stink pots would have been?" Interesting question. Which leads to another question...why are grenades of the period spherical? The idea of a ball shaped grenade was seriously pondered in the years prior to WWII. Why? Because they thought that many of the soldiers were familiar with throwing a baseball, so it would feel more natural to them. As can be seen in most every design, even then, they still didn't go with a totally spherical design. In fact, in the last hundred years or so, there have only been a few (3 or 4) designs worldwide that even come close to a perfect sphere. Obviously, baseball came WAY after the GAoP, so it wasn't because people had grown accustomed to throwing that shape. So, why would they do so in the years of the GAoP? Certainly, a sphere is a very difficult shape to cast. Especially a hollow one. Why not just a can or bottle shape? Actually, the process it takes to cast a single hollow shell is pretty labor intensive. It's amazing they used the design at all, even for cannon. I wonder if that doesn't answer the chicken or egg question. Perhaps the first grenades WERE cannon shot rejects. What would be a more logical reason to make them that shape? Maybe it's just because they already had a manufacturing process for the round shot, so they adapted it for grenades, too. Difficult to say for sure. They obviously had other shapes of containers they were making at the time. Pure speculation...but something to ponder. Form DOES follow function...at least in ordnance. Maybe not in period clothing. And, as to the size of the 2.5 inch grenades...you asked why they would bother making an exploding cannon round for a cannon of that size. Well, it must have been effective enough to make a grenade that size. So, it's possible the same effect would be realized in a cannon round. Basically, the cannon is just a means of pitching the grenade a few hundred yards farther. Just thinking and typing out loud. Ok, enough for now.... Brad aka Pegleg Pete

I don't have a solid answer for you about pre 1730 grenades. My best guess would be "probably". I believe as long as hollow shells have been manufactured, they could, and probably would be used as grenades. One thing you can pretty much figure is that even by the time of the Civil War, things were pretty crudely made. It's logical to think that if anything, the manufacture process would have either gone unchanged, or gotten better from the time of the GAoP. So, without any solid references, items from the time of the Revolutionary war to the Civil War are a pretty good place to start. Now, that doesn't mean that ALL grenades were made from reject cannon shells. I don't believe that 1859 manual is saying that, either. It just states that reject hollow shot was often used. Which makes sense, really. If you went to all the work to make a sand mould, including the central core, it would be a waste to just melt down the rejects. Especially if you had a good secondary use for them As you pointed out about the 2.5 inch grenades, that's pretty small. Although there are a few examples of hollow cannon shot down to about that size. Some Civil war hollow shells were only 3 inches in diameter. I've always kind of wondered which came first...hollow shot and then grenades, or grenades, which they figured out you could shoot from a cannon. Chicken or the egg, and all that. As to your question about a casting seam... One reference I have to casting cannon shot describes making a sand mould from 2 copper halves of a "casting model". Each copper half was placed in a box, sphere side up, and casting sand was packed in around it forming half of the mould. When both halves were complete, they were fitted together and molten metal poured in. The addition of a centeral core complicated things a bit, but basically, that was formed from a better grade of sand molded into a smaller sphere and placed in the center of the two halves. It's kind of hard to follow what they are describing, without seeing illustrations. I can post the description in full if you would like to read it for yourself. According to this reference, since the 2 halves of the mould are sand, often times, the sharp edges crumbled off, so when the halves were married up, they formed an imperfect fit, which resulted in a raised edge, or seam. Because of that, after casting, the shot was usually polished by putting a bunch of them into a tumbler and the seams are worn off, and the balls polished by their own friction. So, if we are talking about reject hollow shot, they would probably skip the polishing procedure since there's no need for it. But, it's totally probable that grenades were cast in the same fashion. I guess the reason I brought it all up in the first place was to give a possible explaination as to the different sizes produced. I would assume the 2.5's were made specifically for the grenade launchers. Also, the manufacturing process I just described may not apply to all castings. There's a good chance that some of the smaller ones could have actually been poured in a hinged mould. I have no proof to back that up, but there is some evidence of moulds being used in other casting, pottery and glass blowing manufacture. Story...I'm sorry, I can't indulge you with any "solid" information. There is certainly a lack of information out there. My collection, and "knowledge" (if you want to call it that) falls mainly in the timeline following the Civil War up until post WWII. I've only got a few references of things prior to that. This thread just kind of crossed over both of my hobbies, so I figured I would chime in with the little bit of reference I had found. Geeze, sorry folks. I just read through all of this, and it seems I've written a short novel. My apologies, I'm sorry to have taken up so much space. I will try to keep my answers short in the future. Cheers. Brad, aka Pegleg Pete

Actually, those aren't demilled surplus grenades. They're reproduction junk. Although, this may be a good use for them. They've been clogging the market for years. They aren't totally round, though. They're 2 1/4 inches wide at the midseam, and 2 1/8 wide from the bottom of the collar to the base. The top half is more flattened than the bottom half. They have a hole in both bottom and top, which could be a problem. But, they are made of a cast iron shell, so they are quite heavy. As to Captain Midnight's photo...very nice work. Although, the fuze plugs wouldn't have been varnished or finished in any way. Pretty much just bare wood.. And, as others have said, there wouldn't be a fuze like you show. Later on, there were fuzes added, but they were of a black, thick cord...similar to the Bickford fuze used during the early World wars. This is my first post after lurking for a year or so. It just so happens, that I'm a collector of antique grenades, and this is right in line with my studies. Although, I'm trying to keep with the piratical frame of mind. My mentor and good friend has a website that shows the "French Modèle 1847 Hand Grenade", which is about a century later than we are talking, but it gives you a pretty good idea. At that point, the only thing that really changed was the use of a friction igniter instead of a "fuze". You can see it here at http://inert-ord.net/19cent/grenat/index.html. Scroll down a little over half way down the page to see the ball grenade. You may have to copy and paste that link into your browser, because I haven't gotten the URL links to work yet, as I'm on a Mac, and I be a newbie to this forum. Also, I will probably have to smooth things over with him if a thousand people start linking to the page. But, as you can see, most times it's just a down and dirty construction. A plain wooden plug is more probable than a varnished one. As to the construction and purpose of grenades, in a book by John Gibbon entitled "Artillerist's Manual" from 1859, he states that "Any kind of shell, unfit for firing either from being defective in form or solidity, may be used for the purpose." So, basically, that means that any hollow cannon shot that was unfit to be used in a cannon was reworked to be used as a grenade. Kind of killing 2 birds with one stone. The shot was already cast, so instead of wasting it, it was used for a grenade. The average size was from a 6 pounder cannon, since the size was neither too small or too large to use. But, in reality, anything within reasonable diameter and weight could be used. So, that's my first post. Hello mates! I may need to change my screen name in the future. It has meaning to it, but Me name ain't Pete. Cheers Brad...aka Peg Leg Pete