Weight of Carriages

[blackjohn]

Ahoy. Just wondering if someone out there has a source that lists weights of carriages. I've checked three, and thus far I've found weights for cannons from 3-pounders on up, but nothing for carriages. At this point, I'm almost ready to assume that carriages are negligble when compared to the guns themselves.

Thanks.

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

maybe a check from one of the manufacturers of repli cannon

they seel cannon, carriage and complete

checking shipping weight would give you an idea of ratio

then using a mutiplier to size up to full size( alot of those replicas are 5/8 or 1/2 size) you could figure it out

please post results if you get some, a interesting idea you have

[Fox]

I don't have any specific info on weight of carriages, but I might be able to help a little. "The solemn, universal, and unalterable adjustment of the gunning and manning of the whole fleet", which was introduced in 1677 includes a table listing the number, type, and combined weights of guns in the different rates of ships in the RN. What it sadly doesn't include is a breakdown of barrel and carriage weights.

For example the lower deck battery of small fifth rate (HMS Rose for example) consisted of 16 demi-culverin (9pdr), which weighed a total of 20 tons.

20

16 = 1.25 tons per gun.

Ward's Animadversions of Warre gives the weight of a demi-culverin barrel as 2,300lb, just over one ton. This suggests that in 1677 the carriage of a 9pdr weighed about a quarter of a ton. However, we must take into account that gun sizes were far from standardized in the 17thC, and between Ward's work in the 1630s and the weights listed in 1677 gun barrels were beginning to get shorter. SO, the 9pdr barrel of 1677 probably weighed less than Ward suggests, perhaps just under a ton, giving a carriage weight of somewhere between, say, 1/4 and 1/2 a ton.

At the smallest end of the scale a small sixth rate ship such as HMS Young Spragge had a total armament of 10 sakers (5-6 pdr) weighing a total of 4 tons.

4

10 = 0.4 tons per gun.

Ward gives a saker's weight as 1,900lb, clearly heavier than in 1677.

Just to confuse the issue further, even the 1677 document gives different weights for guns. Other sixth rates might also have had ten sakers, theirs weighing 5 1/4 tons. Twenty demi-culverins on a fourth rate should have weighed 25 3/4 tons, while on a second rate the same number of guns weighed 30 tons.

It could be that the different weights were to do with different style of carriage, or different lengths of barrel, or both.

I suspect that the reason information on the weight of carriages is so hard to come by is that it is affected by so many variables - what style of carriage it is, the wood it is made from, how much iron work is used to hold it together etc. whereas with a barrel you can be reaonable confident that if you have a lump of metal x wide and x long with a hole x big down it then it will weight x amount.

However, I think it's fair to say that the weight of carriage was not negligable. If we assume that the size (and thus weight) of a carriage is roughly proportional to the size of the barrel, and take the example of the demi-culverin as a control then I think the carriage weight should be somewhere around two thirds of the weight of the barrel.

Of course, someone (Hawkyns?) giving us specific details of carriage weights might alter that, but given the information available that seems a sensible estimate. From my own experience with guns that seems to be reasonable.

[blackjohn]

Thanks Ed.

ps - the people I'm conversing with don't generally like anything but primary source, so things like "Joe Blow sells a repro cannon and it's carriage weighs X" doesn't sit well with them.

[Fox]

Purely out of interest, what's the point of the question?

[Hawkyns]

There are very few proven extant carriages from the period. Most are repros or replacements from long after the date of the original tube casting. Then, as Foxe said, there are way too many variables.

I wish we had more carriage info, but based on archeo finds, and drawings, there is not much to go on.

Hawkyns

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

Thanks Ed.

ps - the people I'm conversing with don't generally like anything but primary source, so things like "Joe Blow sells a repro cannon and it's carriage weighs X" doesn't sit well with them.

Point well taken

I guess my pooper hole is not screwed on so tight that I would not be able to accept anything but the real thing, and that anything but that is to be scoffed at

[Fox]

I think the things is Monsignor that a reproduction without the evidence to support it might be wrong in any number of ways. On the other hand, if a reproduction has the evidence to support it then it's better to look at the evidence than the repro, and draw one's own conclusion.

[blackjohn]

Thanks Ed.

ps - the people I'm conversing with don't generally like anything but primary source, so things like "Joe Blow sells a repro cannon and it's carriage weighs X" doesn't sit well with them.

Point well taken

I guess my pooper hole is not screwed on so tight that I would not be able to accept anything but the real thing, and that anything but that is to be scoffed at

Do you guess that "your pooper" isn't screwed tight or do you know it?

[blackjohn]

There are very few proven extant carriages from the period. Most are repros or replacements from long after the date of the original tube casting. Then, as Foxe said, there are way too many variables.

I wish we had more carriage info, but based on archeo finds, and drawings, there is not much to go on.

Hawkyns

Right. Interesting to note that one of the sources I was checking said that in 1846 (beyond our period, this is true) there were more than 50 designs.

[blackjohn]

I think the things is Monsignor that a reproduction without the evidence to support it might be wrong in any number of ways. On the other hand, if a reproduction has the evidence to support it then it's better to look at the evidence than the repro, and draw one's own conclusion.

Right. If someone built a repro and had documentation for it, and had used all the correct types of wood, I'd have no problem accepting their figures.

Btw Ed, to answer your question as to "why"... game-related fact checking and the ensuing scholarly debate. These particular gamers enjoy scholarly debates. They usually call it gearheading. It's a long story.

[kass]

I just love you guys...

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

was wondering if the humor would be seen in that

actually I could see the arguement in a repro barrel, like metal having had been improved in alloy and all, so that a steel, iron, or bronze, etc used in the day woul not neesary weigh the same today, but if you build a repo carriage to spec the only varible I could see is the iron of the hardware. you can buy repro carriges from the repo companies that are taken from actual cannon, Like all models, one can find ones that are bad examples or good examples, The reason I posted the first post was to give a aproximate to begin with. we solve problems by having somewhere to begin with, we get nowhere by complaining about where to strat. You want a starting point, I gave one. I never saw a guy throw away a dinosaurs head and shoulders because it was not the entire dinosaur. usually they repro the rest.

[blackjohn]

Well, this much I now know, in the 1720s they started doing away with the solid bed carriage and started transitioning to a lighter bedless carriage.

[Monsignor Fitzwell]

I have run through every free archive I can come accross and have yet to see where anyone list it's carriage weight, most are listed for the gun itself, and many claim that is a debateable figure between different manufacturers.

I have run into a few promising archives but they want money to enter and look around. Probably a national archive, or calling up a museum that has a ship on display could get that kind of info

Good Luck

[Captain Jim]

For what it is worth:

During the restoration of the USS Constitution (Old Ironsides) in 1927 the weight of both gun and carriage are given on the gun carriage detail plan for both the 24- and 32-pound guns. They are:

24 Pound Gun:

Gun 3780 lbs.

Carriage 1090 lbs.

Total 4870 lbs.

32 Poun Gun:

Gun 4275 lbs.

Carriage 1215 lbs.

Total 5490 lbs.

More as I find it, or you can search the database at:USS Constitution Technical Drawing Archive

[hitman]

Darn it got a 404 on the link there Captin Jim

[Fox]

There's a double "http://" in the tag there, if you delete one of them the site comes up fine. :)

[hitman]

TY

[Captain Jim]

Fixed