PDA

View Full Version : Help identify maker and model of SNY 6-pounder gun



cannonmn
11-03-2007, 07:21 PM
We've been trying to find out the approximate date, model name, and founder of this New York Militia 6-pounder gun. About all we've found so far is that the SNY logo on the breech is very similar to the logo we've seen on some SNY artillery beltplates, so we're fairly sure this is a NY Militia gun.

The gun is 5 feet long, weighs about 650 lbs., and is only marked with the SNY logo, the number "6" on the chase, and the weight marks on the breechface (in old hundredweight style.)

The breech mouldings have been cut in a few places so a Hidden-type percussion lock would fit. That tells us it was probably still in use ca. 1845.

We've contacted the New York State archives with no results. The New York National Guard history office has no information. Can you help?

Here's a little slideshow we did.

http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/myartillery/my%20artillery3/?action=view&current=8f1f9892.pbw

There's a pic of the beltplate with a similar logo on this gentleman's site:

http://www.corinthcivilwarrelics.com/pwbuckle11.html

cannonmn
11-15-2007, 01:28 PM
In the National Archives yesterday, I found some really useful info on this question. RG156 Entry 118 contains records of issue of ordnance equipment to the organized militia, under the act of 1808. There were a great many entries in various forms, from memorandum entries to summaries covering decades. Issues to each state militia are segregated and accounted for individually.

For my project, I found many entries regarding issues of artillery tubes and carriages to New York, over a period from 1818-1840 (these entries contrinued but later ones are outside my scope.)

In most cases, "Brass Guns" entries were kept separate from "Iron Guns."

The most likely entries for my project involved issue of brass guns to New York, such as the following, near the bottom of the page in the attached photo. I apologize for the poor picture quality:

"1828 Dec. 6, (10) To, 40, 6 pdr. brass cannon and 40, 6 pdr. field carriages delivered from Arsenal at Watervliet $ receipt of A.M. Mann, (sp?) Comm. Gen. of the state."

This timeframe makes sense for another reason supported in Entry 118. On other pages, deliveries of 450 "percussion cannon locks" of two different types were shown as taking place in 1835. One type lock listed is described as "jerk-down type" and the other "stock" (sp?) type. My 6-pounder was modified after manufacture by filing off some of the protrusions on the breech to allow fitting of a firing lock.

Again, I don't yet have sufficient information to assure my "brass" 6 pounder was part of this particular delivery, but that transaction stands alone in a relatively long timeframe, from what I've seen. I'm thinking the other 6-pounder "brass cannon" deliveries prior to 1835 were a long time before that, at the latest 1822 from context, and those guns would probably have worn out before the percussion locks were issued in 1835.

If anyone has any data whatever on these two different percussion locks, please advise. I am familiar with the "Hidden" percussion lock issued to Federal artillery, and this may be the "jerk down" type referred to in E118.

I still need to find out who cast the "brass" 6-pounders during this period, so I've begun looking though the ordnance contract records in Entry 78.


http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums2/IMG_5512-7.jpg

Southron Sr.
11-16-2007, 07:02 AM
IF I were researching that particular cannon, here is how I would proceed:

1. Because the cannon LACKS founder & inspector markings, this indicates that the gun was NOT ISSUED to New York under the Militia Act of 1808. ALL CANNON manufactured under contract with the U.S. Ordnance Department (and thereafter issued out to state militias) were RERQUIRED to have inspectors markings, foundry markings, etc.

This leaves a couple of possibilities:

(A) The cannon was a "trophy" cannon captured in Mexico during the Mexican Warand brought back to New York where the "SNY" markings were added.

As most states provided only ONE regiment to be sent to Mexico, I would look at a history(s) of whatever N.Y. military unit(s) went to Mexico and if there is any record of cannon they might have captured and brought back home after the war. That might be your cannon.

(B) There is a possibility that a Mexican, "Trophy" Cannon was re-cast by a founder in New York to produce a that "SNY" 6 Pounder. Supposedly Mexican made bronze cannon had a higher SILVER content in them compared to U.S. bronze guns, which is one reason Mexican "trophy" cannon were highly prized by Americans.

Why re-cast a gun? The original gun could have been battle damaged and/or to "standardize" it so it would match other cannon in possession of the New York militia at the time.

(C) Last, but not least, it could be a cannon that was donated to the state militia by a "public spirited" citizen OR purchased by a group of public spiritied citizens for their local militia unit.

NOW THE 'SHOT IN THE DARK,' "FUN" PART OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH!!! I am fairly sure your state archives have microfilm copies of all (or most all) of the newspapers published in New York in the 1840-1860 time frame.

I would start my "search" by scanning the local papers from the area of the state where the cannon came from, looking for a newspaper article mentioning a Mexican "Trophy" cannon that was brought home at the end of the war or an article possibly about a cannon being donated by a "public spirited" citizen, etc.

On the bright side, a cannon would definitely have been a "newsworthy" item, so you might get lucky and find the complete story of your "Mystery" cannon. GOOD LUCK!

cannonmn
11-16-2007, 07:54 AM
ALL CANNON manufactured under contract with the U.S. Ordnance Department (and thereafter issued out to state militias) were RERQUIRED to have inspectors markings, foundry markings, etc.



Thanks for the info.

1. Do you know what year that regulation went into effect? I know of the marking requirement, but I'm not sure it was adhered to strictly for items that were procured with the knowledge that they were procured to fill a militia requirement. For example, the US did not have any official bronze 6-pounder in 1828. All the official models were iron during that period, with the first resurgence of bronze U.S. artillery occurring in several models ca. 1835. Thus, the bronze 6-pounders issued to New York in 1828 could not have been any current official model, and there were no approved U.S. drawings against which to inspect them, so they could not have U.S. inspector's markings. Is that logic valid or not?

2. I'm not aware of any other examples of a "brass cannon" 6-pounder, made in or prior to 1828, that would be a likely candidate to tell us what the model of cannon issued to New York in 1828 looked like. Does anyone have that information? I haven't found any sources in New York that had the information. The only examples of earlier NY militia 6-pounders known to the New York State Military Museum staff, have iron tubes.

3. An interesting fact that might have some bearing here: I have some pictures of an early bronze 9-pounder gun with "S.N.Y." in block letters on the breech. The only other markings are "12-0-6" on the breech for the weight, and "IM P" on the reinforce, for "John Mason-Proved." John Mason was a civilian, former general, who became proprietor of the Columbia foundry in Georgetown DC in 1815. There is also a large number "9" on the chase and a number like "238" on the breechface. It lacks a complete set of markings as you describe above,. The RG155 Entry 118 volumes show many "brass" 9-pounders issued to New York Militia during the early 19th C. and I'd hazard a guess that the one I have pictures of is one of them.

4. I know there were some nonstandard, non-US-used, non-U.S.-marked ordnance items issued to New York militia. One example is the Ellis sliding lock repeating flintlock rifle. There are few markings of any kind found on surviving specimens, and it is considered a U.S. "secondary martial arm" not standardized nor issued to US troops as far as I know. The same page I posted above, near the bottom, shows the issue of the entire contract run of these weapons to New York Militia (521 rifles.) I suspect those rifles were the 4-shot model and not the 10-shot model, just because a lot more of the 4-shot examples seem to survive, but I don't know that for a fact.

John Holland
11-16-2007, 10:43 AM
cannonmn,

I live in Western New York State. There is a small historical society around Dunkirk that has a privately cast bronze cannon. The bore is about 2.25. The only marks on the tube are "BLW" on the trunnions. No one knew what the "BLW" stood for until one day a skirmisher on another team found some documentation that the Baldwin Locomotive Works of Dunkirk, New York, had cast 3 bronze tubes at the beginning of the Civil War for the town, which were to be used by the local militia. A World War 2 scrap drive accounted for 2 of the 3 tubes. The remaining tube had sunk out of sight in the dirt and was missed. It was rediscovered in the old scrap yard in the 1950's and added to the collections of the historical society. In the early 1960's my skirmish team, the 44th New York, built an appropriate field carriage for the tube. In return for building the carriage, the historical society let us shoot the cannon in the N-SSA for quite a number of years. We even took a 2nd place National for Smoothbore Gun. The historical society received a new director, who, when he found out that the tube was a product of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, declared it to be too valuable to let us use it. That was some 40 years ago. The last time I saw the cannon was at least 25 years ago. Unfortunately the historical society had let the carriage decay and the wheels rot.

I just thought you might enjoy a bit of history on a SNY Militia cannon.

Sincerely,
John Holland
44th New York Vol. Inf., Inc.

cannonmn
11-16-2007, 11:50 AM
Thanks John, if you have a pic of that gun I'd love to see it.

One more thing I found out about my SNY gun is that it has been fired a lot. The bore which would have started at about 3.668 in. is now something like 3.85 in. vertical and a bit less horizontal, don't have the exact number handy, but that indicates a lot of iron has bounced down that bore.

John Holland
11-16-2007, 02:34 PM
cannonmn,

I know I no longer have any pictures of that gun. They were just snapshots anyway with more interest in the gun crews than anything else. If I ever get back to that area I'll see what the historical society has for hours. It was slender, well proportioned, and had a muzzle like a Napoleon.

JDH

Southron Sr.
11-17-2007, 12:25 AM
Dear Cannonmm

Basically,when I begin a research project, I make some quick assumptions that usually are correct-but not always. Here is what I was thinking when I made my first posting:

After years of having iron cannon blow up on a regular basis during either "proof" at the foundry in actual use,(which, needless to say, usually scared the HECK out of the artillery crew and horses!) the U.S. Ordnance Department decided to substitute bronze (then often called "Brass") for iron-this was in the early 1830's. So I was assuming that your SNY cannon dated from the early 1830's or later.

I think that it was in 1816 that Colonel Decius Wardsworth of the Ordnance Department issued orders that attempted to institute a uniform system of artillery standardization. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I know that a few years later the Ordnance Board overruled him-but as part of the acceptance procedure for every gun purchased by the government was that it was inspected by an Ordnance Department appointed inspector that either accepted or rejected the gun based on its quality. IF the gun passed, then the inspector stamped his mark or initials on the gun.

So, the lack of an inspector's initials on the gun would indicate to me, that the gun was not received by the state under the Militia Act of 1808. I still think a fascinating (and time consuming) search of old newspapers from that area of New York state between 1830 & 1861 might yeild you the information on that gun you are seeking. GOOD LUCK!

cannonmn
11-17-2007, 07:38 AM
Thanks for taking the time to share that information, I'm still looking for anything anyone knows on this thing.

I just found some interesting information in a stack of stuff I'd copied at the Archives back in the 1980's, and hadn't looked at since, believe it or not. This information kind of brings me up to the level of advancing a theory on this piece. Basically, my theory is that this is a ghost gun. What I mean by that-nowhere can I find anything regarding an official US "brass" (bronze) 6-pounder gun model that would have been in US arsenals from about 1816-1835. There's no mention of such a model in the well-researched book "Field Artillery Weapons of the Civil War" by Olmstead et al. There is one mention of the possibility in Warren Ripley's "Artillery and Ammunition of the Civil War." On pp. 19, writing of the history of US artillery tube development: "Consequently, with the exception of a few orders, the manufacture of bronze weapons ceased in 1801 and was not resumed until 1836."

I think this weapon was delivered to the U.S. under one of the "few orders" mentioned by Ripley.

The fact that a "brass 6 pounder" in the arsenals is evidenced by the delivery of 40 of them to New York, which I described earlier, and also a lengthy report of the testing of three models of 6-pounder guns in 1827 and 1828 at Fortress Monroe, by Lt. Bell, an Army ordnance officer. The guns he tested included a long iron gun (probably the model of 1819), a short iron gun (model unknown) and a "brass gun." The measurements he tabulated for the "brass gun" are very close to those of my "SNY" 6-pounder.

I think the only reason that both books contained no mention of this model is that at the time they were written, no specimens were known to survive. Also, the Civil War was central to the theme of both works, and this "ghost" model probably played no part in the Civil War.

Gotta run, but I can post some interesting excerpts from Lt. Bell's test reports of 1827/28 later if anyone is interested. The report even states that Bell had the 'brass" 6-pounder bouched with a 1" diameter wrought-iron bouch in the vent, since it was wearing excessively in that area during his 2000-round endurance test. You can see in the slideshow that the SNY "brass" gun has a ferrous-metal bouch that is about an inch in diameter. If you have looked at as many old cannons as I have, you will realize that an iron bouch in a bronze gun is a fairly unusual find.

cannonmn
11-18-2007, 08:33 AM
Here's a portion of the Lt. Bell's report of the second series of tests of three different types of 6-pounder guns. I've annotated it by adding a line for the SNY-marked cannon so you can see how some of its measurements compare with the "Brass gun" that Bell tested. As you can see the measurements I took of my gun (in blue) match fairly closely the "Brass gun" fired by Lt. Bell. The 10-lb. weight difference would probably have been within the tolerance for weight variation of the model, since the two measurements differ by only 1.5 percent.

The gun length measurement is the only significant difference between my gun and the two brass guns tested by Bell (at least as far as I can tell from the data he recorded.) I'm assuming Bell used the "nominal length" measurement which is taken from the muzzle face to the rear of the basering, and this measurement on mine falls noticeably short of Bell's test gun. I suppose that accounts for the 10 pounds by which Bell's gun outweighs mine.

I can't explain the length difference, which would normally be too much for an approved model where the government gives the contractor the drawings and says in the contract to build it to those drawings. Perhaps with this undesignated model of the "brass gun," each of two or more founders built their own patterns, flasks, etc. based on looser guidance from the government.

Or, since there are thought to have been "a few" contracts for these brass guns, there could have been a change in the model that was directed by the government, in the interval between two of contracts, and my gun was delivered under a different contract from the one that produced Lt. Bell's two brass guns.

I'll put the links in below so you can see some of the other parts of the two reports. There are dozens of 8.5 x 14-inch pages in the complete report, so only a very small part of it is presented here.

Lt. Bell conducted his extensive firing tests with the first group of three guns in September 1827. The powder charge for all shots in the first series was 1.5 lbs.

Then he got three new guns of the same types as in the first series of tests, and repeated the tests, with a smaller powder charge (1.25 lbs.) This series is covered in the November report.

His goal in both series was apparently to fire 2000 rounds through each gun, or until a gun became unserviceable. He fired all three guns simultaneously using three lanyards that were pulled as one, and kept up the amazing rate of fire of about one round per gun per minute while firing.

Lt. Bell had the gun tubes firmly mounted on cheeks that were bolted into slots in two one-foot square oak beams, with a third such beam fixed to the rear of the cheeks. All three pairs of cheeks were monted to the same beams which were of course placed at right angles to the line of fire.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums2/IMG_5723A.jpg


http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... G_5718.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums2/IMG_5718.jpg)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... G_5720.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums2/IMG_5720.jpg)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... G_5721.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums2/IMG_5721.jpg)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... G_5722.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums2/IMG_5722.jpg)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... G_5724.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums2/IMG_5724.jpg)

cannonmn
11-21-2007, 11:23 AM
After a few days in the National Archives this week, I have enough information to give the pattern a better name. I think it should be called "6 Pounder Brass Gun, Old Pattern." This more or less complies with the terminology used to record it in various ledgers found in the Archives.

The ledger pages linked below are from National Archives, Washington DC Record Group 156, Entry 100, for the period "Third Quarter 1844." Most of the ledgers in this entry do not have quite as many columns (models) of cannon as this one. Apparently the clerk or scribe who prepared these pages had reports from various locations, including at least Fort Moultrie, SC, including cannons described as "6 Pdr. Brass, Old Pattern" (abbreviated "O.P." as opposed to "N.P." for new pattern.) The "New Pattern" 6-Pounder would most likely (in 1844) have been the M1841.

Based on a number of other documents, some of which are shown in the previous discussion, I'm convinced guns of this model were purchased by the U.S. beginning in March 1812, and were widely dispersed in various forts and arsenals. There were always far fewer of these "brass" 6-pounders than there were of the less-costly "official models" of iron 6-pounders, but the records show many instances of both "brass" and iron 6-pounders having been present simultaneously at the same fort.

What I'm still lacking is any record of either the March 1812 contract, or the follow-on contracts mentioned in various sources. If anyone can provide citations, I'd greatly appreciate it. I've looked through the first two volumes of RG156, Entry 78, containing ordnance contracts, but it seems to begin in about 1816 and has no contracts for these early bronze guns.

The basic measurements of the "SNY"-marked example are:

Nominal length: 48.4 in.
Total length: 55.8 in.
Weight, marked "5-3-09" (653 lbs.)
Basering diameter: 10.5 in.
Bore length: 45.13 in.
Present bore diameter, measured horizontally: 3.82 in.

The bore diameter at muzzle would have been nominally 3.67 in. for a new gun. The worn condition indicates the gun has fired something like 800 rounds, judging from Lt. Bell's test reports of 1827-8.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... G_6189.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums2/IMG_6189.jpg)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... G_6190.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums2/IMG_6190.jpg)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... G_6193.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums2/IMG_6193.jpg)



http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums2/IMG_6194.jpg

cannonmn
11-27-2007, 08:28 AM
By chance I was looking through an old (1992-94) catalog of replica cannons from South Bend Replicas, which contains many small photos of original cannons, located here and there. One that caught my eye was a bronze 6-pounder with a very handsome droopy-winged Federal eagle in relief over the trunnions, located at Fort McHenry, on pp. 52. I'd seen that piece some 20 years before but had totally forgotten it.

The next day (yesterday) I went to Fort McHenry, only about two hours away, and spent a good while photographing and measuring the gun. Fortunately the Fort staff had at some point decided to mount this piece permanently inside the barracks building, out of the elements and more secure than before.

The gun matches my "SNY" marked piece closely in design and dimensions, with the following exceptions:

FORT MCHENRY "EAGLE" GUN.............................."SNY"-MARKED GUN

Trunnions have rimbases....................................No rimbases

Eagle in relief vice belly band.............................Bare belly band remains

Lock-mounting holes left of vent........................Lock mounting holes to right

Original copper vent bouche?............................Vent rebouched, iron

Marked "5-3-26" and "No. -39" on reinforce.......Marks: "5-3-09" on breech face and "6" on chase

I haven't yet measured the "SNY gun" as fully as I have the "Eagle" gun, but will do so this week. The basic measurements I have compared so far seem to be different only by small amounts that could be attributed to gun-to-gun manufacturing variances.

Now we have full details on the two known examples of this basic pattern, and some measurements on two tested by LT. Bell in 1827. I'd have to guess that the "SNY" example is a bit earlier than the "Eagle" gun, because rimbases were an improvement to the strength and endurance of cannon tubes which was introduced relatively late in the muzzle-loading cannon era, generally thought to have begun with the Gribeauval System in France during the 18th C.


The photo shows the "eagle" piece inside the barracks at Fort McHenry as of yesterday.


http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums3/IMG_6483b.jpg

cannonmn
11-27-2007, 12:15 PM
Here are pix of the "Eagle" gun and the "SNY" gun from somewhat the same aspect so you can see the similarity a little better. The second image is from the '92-'94 South Bend Replicas catalog.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums3/IMG_3298.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums3/IMG_6406.jpg

cannonmn
12-16-2007, 10:42 AM
I finally figured out how to post a spreadsheet here, so here are the measurements. Note that the column to the left of the picture contains diameters. The column to the right contains lengths. You can easily see that the muzzle swell of the "eagle" cannon is about 1.5 inches longer than the "SNY" cannon, and the lengths hold pretty steady after that, so the "Eagle" cannon is just slightly longer than the other, and is slightly heavier.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums3/cannondimensions.jpg

cannonmn
12-17-2007, 10:05 AM
I photographed this bronze cannon at Fort Ticonderoga in the summer of 1988. It looks very similar to the "SNY" gun. I didn't record any markings on it at the time, but I didn't examine any of their cannons in much detail. I only "rediscovered" these photos yesterday.

Ft. T. also has a larger bronze gun (must be a 9 or 12 pounder,) which is nearly identical in pattern to the "SNY" gun. It is marked on the breech "No. 20, 11-2-23." It may have other markings, I will have to look at it in person when the weather improves.

Meanwhile I've asked the fort staff if they have any information in their records.

The importance of all of this is that now it looks like we've identified an early "family" of U.S. bronze field guns. I'll tentatively identify the larger gun of this pattern at Fort Ticonderoga as "?? pounder brass gun, old pattern" pending measurement to determine its caliber. I'll post pictures of the larger Fort Ticonderoga piece as soon as I get the old glossy prints digitized.

If someone has already "been there, done that" as far as tying this family together and describing it, please let me know, I don't want to repeat anyone else's work.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums3/IMG_7172.jpg

cannonmn
12-17-2007, 06:12 PM
Here's a 1988 photo of what is probably a 12-pounder gun of what I've termed "Brass gun, Old Pattern" mentioned in previous post. This gun was located at Fort Ticonderoga. So now there are four known examples that seem to belong to the same general family. This piece is marked "No. 20, 11:2:23" (1311 lbs.)

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums3/IMG_7188-1.jpg

cannonmn
12-18-2007, 10:02 PM
The two iron cannons near the magazine at Fort McHenry, in the foreground are (front) a 4-pounder gun and (rear) a 6-pounder gun. Their lines are very similar to the bronze 6-pounder we're researching.

In fact the lengths of the various sections of the 4-pounder are the almost exactly the same as those of the "SNY" bronze 6-pounder. The external tube diameters measured on the iron 4-pounder pictured are slightly larger than those of the "SNY" 6-pounder, presumably to account for the fact that cast iron is not as strong as bronze.

I'd suggest that these two iron guns were cast by the same foundry that cast the "SNY" 6-pounder, since the lines and proportions are almost identical.

This is a significant finding in our search to identify the founder of the SNY gun. The reason is that not all founders cast both iron and bronze. In fact, most seemed to specialize in only one metal. One familiar example is Paul Revere who cast only bronze cannons. I haven't checked exhaustively but this new fact may also eliminate James Byers of Springfield MA., who as far as I have found, only cast cannons in bronze. The list of possible founders is getting very short. We're now looking for founders who cast both iron and bronze cannons.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums4/IMG_6469.jpg

cannonmn
12-18-2007, 10:13 PM
Here's a drawing of the iron 4-pounder pictured above, done by E.N. Rich in 1960. As mentioned, the lengths of the various sections are extremely close to those of the "SNY' bronze gun, and the profile matches quite closely.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums4/IMG_7210a.jpg

cannonmn
12-19-2007, 03:57 AM
I'd suggest that these two iron guns were cast by the same foundry that cast the "SNY" 6-pounder, since the lines and proportions are almost identical.

Now that I've thought about this a bit more I have to backtrack. The statement above may be more like wishful thinking than the truth. The problem with that assumption is that we don't know wnen the government (specifically those in charge of Army artillery material purchases) began providing drawings to multiple contractors to produce a common model.

We do know, due to ample documentation, that the Navy awarded duplicate contracts to both James Byers of Springfield MA and Paul Revere of Boston, for 10 bronze, 8-inch "canon obusier" or naval nowitzers, ca. 1795 (10 from each contractor.) Since the carriages would have come from a different contractor, there must have been some drawings or perhaps textual specificatons included in the contracts, to ensure both contractors' proucts would fit the intended carriage.

cannonmn
12-21-2007, 09:31 PM
Yesterday I was at the National Archives in Washington DC looking through some material that was new to me. I was having no luck tracking down the origin of a particular model of cannon exemplified by specimens at Fort Ticonderoga, Fort McHenry, and even one piece in our collection. Some of my previous posts refer to this unidentified model, the basic lines of which show up in a number of unmarked or minimally-marked bronze and iron pieces.

I had been looking somewhat exclusively in RG 156, records of the Chief of Ordnance. An archivist recommended I try looking in Record Group 92, entries 2117 and 2118, which include earlier procurements (beginning in 1794) made out of Philadelphia.

These entries are huge in volume, occupying hundreds of shelf feet with both bound volumes and boxes, so I felt anything pertinent that I found in that massive amount of material would be a matter of luck, but it was my lucky day I guess.

These two pages indicate a cooperative relationship between two important and relatively famous figures, Col. Louis de Tousard, and the early gun founder Henry Foxall, neither of whom need introduction to students of artillery history.

What these two pages show is that in 1800, Tousard and Foxall got the US government to pay for the better part of a complete set of critical tooling necessary to cast cannons of what must have been a new model or models, in several different calibers. Whether the tooling was optimized for casting cannons in iron or bronze is not indicated in the documents, and in fact, it could probably have been used for either if there were no "dolphins" involved in the patterns. "Dolphins" or "handles" atop the gun applied almost exclusively to bronze guns since the small cross-section of this detail did not lend itself to various mechanical properties of cast-iron. What I am calling "tooling" (modern terminology) are the "models" (usually wooden full-sized models) and "flasks" (large iron coffin-like casting containers which can be disassembeled into pieces.)

The material I was looking at also tends to overturn a widely-held notion that the procurement of bronze artillery pieces was discontinued between 1801 and 1835. This information seems to come largely from Birkhimer, William E., "Historical Sketch of ... the Artillery, United States Army," Chapman, 1884, chapter 10. Despite Henry Dearborn's ca. 1801 direction that all U.S. cannon barrels were to be made of cast iron, Henry Foxall seems to have been casting significant numbers of bronze guns, for the U.S., in many different calibers from about 1805 onward (I need to examine more documents to pin the date down more precisely.)

What I've pictured here is the original document discussing the delivery of two wooden models, which is the very first indication that something was afoot. The second link below shows the page listing the flasks etc., the bulk of what I call the tooling.

The key part of the excerpt pictured is "Delivered to Henry Foxall...2 wooden Models of 6&9 pounder Cannon, made under the direction of Major Tousard." This proves that the two were involved in a cooperative effort regarding some new pattern(s) of cannon.

If we can get some experienced researchers/authors to vet this information, and find a few more details, hopefully we can come up with enough to call this the "U.S. (insert caliber here) Model of 1800" or something similar.

I certainly haven't read all that's been published about this subject, so if someone has already "been there done that" please let me know.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... _7356S.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums4/IMG_7356S.jpg)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... _7361S.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums4/IMG_7361S.jpg)

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums4/IMG_7354S.jpg

cannonmn
01-06-2008, 10:10 PM
One of my primary goals in researching this piece was to find out what founder cast it, since the founder's name is not marked on the gun.

Today I got some unexpected help from another researcher who had made notes while reading through the correspondence the Secretary of War, contained in National Archives record group 107.

As background, many months back I looked through some of the records of Paul Revere's cannon casting business, to see if the cannon could have been cast by Revere and Sons. The Revere Family Papers are extensive, and in a couple of days at a microfilm reader, I couldn't get through much of them, but I did go through those whose written descriptions sounded mostly likely to contain useful information. I couldn't find records that I thought could link my cannon to Revere, so I gave up on that avenue of inquiry.

I've had to shift gears again based on the new information. What the researcher sent me was this:

____________________________________

RG 107, Microfilm reel 6, Secretary of War, Letters Sent

Note: Letters sent are arranged by volumes and page numbers. These are bound volumes containing the office files of letters sent.

Volume 5
p295
SW to Jacob Eustis, 9 March 1812
"You are requested to contact with Paul Revere & Sons to have cast at their foundry at Staghton [sp.?] twelve pair [pieces?] of brass six pounder cannon, six pair [pieces?] of brass twelve pounder cannon, the six pounders to weigh not less than six hundred, nor more than six hundred and a quarter: the twelve pounders not less than twelve hundred nor more than twelve hundred and a half. at fifty cents per pound according to a model which will be transmitted from this department, the surface within and without to be smooth [to be inspected and proved -- 1/2 to be delivered in April, the other half in May."

p376
SW to Jacob Eustis, 7 May 1812
[Revere has requested and recd permission to raise weight of 6-pdr guns. "This must on no account exceed 650 lbs." [Proof to be 4, 3, and 2 lbs of powder for 1, 2, and 3rd trials, shot and two wads each time]

___________________________

This answers a big question I had, as to what founder was contracted to cast "brass" cannons in March 1812. The March 1812 contract date, as one of the last brass cannon contracts awarded prior to 1835, was mentioned by Birkhimer, who did not supply any other information.

This information also brings back the possibility that the "SNY" cannon was cast by Revere, especially since a weight limit of 650 lbs. was mentioned. It weighs 653 lbs., which would probably have been within the tolerance allowed when a maximum weight of 650 lbs. was specified. At 650 lbs., the "SNY" cannon is lighter than either the Fort McHenry cannon, or either of the two "brass guns" tested exhaustively by Lt. Bell in 1827/8 timeframe, mentioned in an earlier post.

Several Revere-cast brass guns are known, and others are suspected Revere products; none bear any maker's markings. The Revere identity was arrived at by comparing contract and delivery information with surviving specimens, such as with the four small field guns belonging to the Newport Artillery Company.

cannonmn
01-16-2008, 01:53 PM
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums5/IMG_9029.jpg

Here's a sketch I made back in the 1980's of an iron 12-pounder gun displayed at the Soldier's and Airmen's Home in Washington DC. As you can see, it is a "dead ringer" for the other iron and bronze guns of this unnamed "family" of cannons cast probably ca. 1800.

There's also some information I found in Toussard's "American Artillerist's Companion" vol. I, pp. 192-194 which I think may describe these guns. I've been looking in far-flung dusty archives for months and this information was sitting a few feet from my computer all the time.


Section III
Iron Guns of the United States

From the same iron of Keeptryst Furnace, which the United States have since purchased, a quantity of cannon have been lately cast at Georgetown, by Mr. Foxall, the same gentleman who made the three pounders noticed in the preceding section. As yet nothing has been reduced to a standard, The following are dimensions which have been adopted for these guns by the two departments.

(discussion of Navy guns omitted as not pertinent to this post)

One hundred iron field pieces have been cast for the War Department out o the pigs made at Keeptryst.

Dimensions

Nature of Gun...Length in diameters...Length in inches and dec....Weight
12_____________14_________________64.12___________ ____12 CWT

6______________14_________________51.35___________ ____6 CWT

They have stood their proof, and are said to be very handsome.

(omitted discussion of battering pieces)

Mr. Foxall has lately been engaged in making brass guns, mortars, and carronades for the War Department. The Chief part of the Brass guns, 24, 18, 12, 6, and 3 pounders, have been made 14 diameters long, and weighing nearly 1 cwt. to each pound of their shot [ed. note: cwt. = 112 lbs]. they are almost the dimensions of the English guns which have the same length, but weigh only 84 lbs. to each pound of their shot. Some of the above guns have been made 18 and 20 diameters long, an weigh 150 lbs. to each pound of their shot. The first are of the exact proportion and weight of the French brass field pieces; the other, being too long for field pieces, are probably intended for battering pieces and to enter embrasures....

Some brass ten inch mortars, with some provets for carrying a 24 lb. shot, to prove gun powder, have been cast at Georgetown; also a great quantity of carronades 42 and 32 lbs. these are made on the English plan, of which we will speak hereafter.

cannonmn
01-16-2008, 11:12 PM
Now to again quote what Tousard says about Foxall bronze 6-pounders:


Mr. Foxall has lately been engaged in making brass guns, mortars, and carronades for the War Department. The Chief part of the Brass guns, 24, 18, 12, 6, and 3 pounders, have been made 14 diameters long, and weighing nearly 1 cwt. to each pound of their shot [ed. note: cwt. = 112 lbs].

This description fits the "Eagle" gun at McHenry in caliber, nominal length, and weight.

For length: "14 calibers" = 14 x 3.667 inches = 51.33 in. (I measured 51.25 in.)

For weight: 6 pound shot x 112 lbs/cwt = 672 lbs. (Eagle gun marked weight equals 670 lbs., certainly fitting the "nearly" Tousard mentiioned.)

I can conclude with a fair degree of certainty, that the "Eagle" 6-pounder at Fort McHenry was cast by Henry Foxall. The closeness of measurements between his 6-pounders and the "Eagle" gun is one factor. More importantly, Foxall is the only contractor I've been able to identify who delivered significant numbers of bronze 6-pounders to the US during the period 1800-1815.

The only other possible supplier of bronze guns at that time was Paul Revere and Sons. They were awarded a contract in March 1812 which included a modest number of bronze 6-pounders, but these all failed under the extremely severe proof test required by his contract. The goverment made a decision not to award Revere any more cannon contracts.

cannonmn
01-28-2008, 10:36 AM
My friend Matt Switlik, author of "The More Complete Cannoneer" sent me pictures of a cannon model at West Point. The story is that one of the workers who was involved in making the then-new stock trail gun carriages built this model to document the older pattern of gun carriage. Note how the brass barrel resembles the "Eagle" gun at Fort McHenry (and the SNY gun for that matter.) The carriage is of what Matt calls the "Watervliet" version, since they were made at Watervliet Arsenal. That carriage pattern dates from ca. 1830 since one dated example is known. The partial carriage in the photo is a Watervliet carriage with some original wood, in our collection. Note that the elevating screw knob is under the carriage, and has two handles in this particular version.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums5/IMG_9163.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums5/WestPt1.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums5/WestPt2.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums5/WestPt3.jpg

cannonmn
02-01-2008, 11:48 AM
Matt Switlik and I visited the National Archives to look for various artillery records. Matt was looking though one of the large volumes in record group 92, entry 2117, records of the Commissary General's Office from Philadelphia, ca. 1790's, and spotted this entry he thought would interest me, which it did.

It shows circumstantially that James Byers, a cannon founder in Springfield MA, was engaged in boring cannons for the government at some time just prior to January 1796, when he turned in his cannon borings (scrap bronze) to the government.

I'm thinking this is about the most likely "fit" to the source of my "SNY" 6-pounder, although I don't have concrete evidence yet. I'm guessing since my 6-pounder lacks rimbases, it is an earlier model than the similar "Eagle" item at McHenry. The "Eagle" gun does have rimbases. Col. Louis Tousard, who worked closely with (and in fact designed the casting patterns for) founder Henry Foxall, would probably have been an advocate of rimbases, since his drawings of brass guns in his 1809 books all show rimbases.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the most likely source of the "Eagle" gun at McHenry, was Henry Foxall in Georgetown, DC.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums5/IMG_9184ss.jpg

.

cannonmn
02-01-2008, 12:45 PM
Here's a link to a letter from January 1795, John Bryant to Samuel Hogden. Bryant is the military storekeeper at Springfield MA, and Hogden is Superintendent of Ordnance and Military Stores at Philadelphia.

The second paragraph discusses Bryant's progress in getting 5 1/2 inch howitzers and 6-pounder guns mounted on carriages. We could infer that the barrels he refers to were cast by Byers, since the author mentions Byers. The primary evidence that the barrels came from Byers is that Bryant is writing from Springfield, where Byers' foundry (or "the governmnent" foundry) is located, and we are fairly certain Byers delivered all of his cannons (produced under government contract) to the government depot at Springfield. Unfortunately the letter is very hard to read in places.

http://wardepartmentpapers.org/images/l ... VA20_3.jpg (http://wardepartmentpapers.org/images/large/1795/YVA20_3.jpg)

cannonmn
02-01-2008, 02:49 PM
This information may have a lot to do with my "SNY" 6-pounder. It is a footnote in Birkhimer's Historical Sketch of the Artillery, US Army, Greenwood reprint, 1968, from 1884 original.

It involves Springfield MA, Jamea Byers, and the State of New York, so it is probably the most pertinent information I've found so far, in trying to identify the founder of this cannon and the date it was cast.

On pp. 259, Birkhimer wrote:


*In 1793, Secretary Knox reported that at Springfield, Massachusetts there were being cast thirty brass guns and twenty howitzers. This was the Government foundry; and however trustworthy the products of private establishments were, it would seem from the following extract from the New York State "arms commissioners" report (1795) that those cast at Springfield were not to be trusted implictly: "The field pieces to be cast by Mr. Byers were to be proved as were those made for the United States. On Sept. 3rd, 1794, the deputy commissary of military stores at Springfield certified that he had proved twelve 3-pounders, and Oct 22nd. 1794, eight 3-pounders and four 6-pounders, all of brass. Nevertheless certain persons deemed it expedient to further prove the pieces before mounting them on carriages. Of twenty-three thus proved, thirteen burst. Another 6-pounder, proved in presence of the maker, the commissioner, General Lamb, Colonel Stevens, and Colonel Beauman, burst also. The pieces were then recast into fourteen guns (the number burst) all of which, except one, stood the test at Springfield. "

Now we know that the State of New York was having its brass guns cast at Springfield, by Byers, during the general timeframe during which I think the "SNY" 6-pounder was cast. We know that Byers had New York connections as far back as 1777, when he began casting cannons for the Colonies in New York City.

I have to say that all of the circumstantial evidence I have at this point indicates the "SNY" piece was cast by Byers at Springfield MA. Things were leading in that direction before I got to this point, but the information quoted above kind of wraps it up.

cannonmn
02-05-2008, 10:50 PM
I was talking to a friend from MA on the phone, telling him a bit about this project, and he mentioned that Mr. Richard Colton, Historian at Springfield Armory NHS was gathering records regarding the early "government" foundry at Springfield MA., run by James Byers. I called Springfield and talked to Richard, who mentioned he had gotten some very detailed records of Byer's cannon contracts with the State of New York from the 1790's, which were in the New York State Archives, in the records of the state comptroller. He emailed them to me today. Here are two of the items, showing many three and six-pounder cannons cast for New York, along with the weight of each. The weight of the SNY gun we have is marked on the breech as "5-3-09" in the old hundredweight system. To get the weight in pounds:

5 x 112=560 lbs

+3 x 28=84 lbs

+1 x 9 =9 lbs.

So the weight of our SNY gun is 653 lbs.

Looking at the 1794 deliveries, all of the 6 pounders weighed much less.

The 1796 list has guns weighing within a pound of that weight, such as the one weighing 652 lbs., but none exactly matching. I'm guessing mine is the gun listed as 652 lbs. A worker may have made a mistake in going from CWT units, marked on the cannon, to single pounds but we have to take the weights listed at face value, and admit that we don't have an exact match with either list. We do know Byers cast at least two guns in 1797, so there's still hope that one day we'll find records of an exact match between an old piece of paper and the old cannon.

I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over that one pound difference, it could well be a record of the cannon we have, with a few different possible explanations for the difference besides a math or clerical error. http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums6/NYStatetoJByers19Oct1794v1p68.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums6/NYStatetoJByers25Apr1796v1p75.jpg

cannonmn
03-06-2008, 10:43 AM
This cannon is very much like the un-numbered bronze SNY 6-pounder shown in this discussion. I just got these pictures from the town in New York which owns the cannon. I have yet to learn whether it has rimbases or not. The markings are slightly different, in that the "SNY" is in a rectangular field of punch marks, and the piece has a registry number "No. 21." It is also 16 lbs. heavier than the other one, but back in those days the technology of casting did not permit as tight a control of cast weight as during the Civil War. I've asked the town for more details on the cannon and will post them later.

The cannon is reported to be 55 inches long (assume nominal length which was what I asked them to measure) with a 3.6 inch bore.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums7/cats1.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums7/cats1b.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums7/cats2.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums7/cats3.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums7/cats4.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums7/cats6.jpg

cannonmn
08-31-2008, 10:02 AM
Earlier in this discussion I posted photos of 6 and 12 pounder bronze guns that clearly resembled the "old pattern brass guns" of interest here. Chris Fox, curator at Fort Ticonderoga has graciously measured these guns in their current storage location at the Fort, and sent the information so we could add it to this study. The "12 pounder brass gun, old pattern" at Fort Ticonderoga is the sole survivor as far as I know.

I can see that the Fort Ticonderoga 6-pounder is very similar to the two "SNY" guns, but without the markings those guns have on top of the chase and reinforce respectively. Also, the "belly band," the slightly raised surface near the trunnions seen on other guns of this pattern is not present, nor does the Ft. Ti example appear to have the horizontal "stirrup" hole through the cascabel. Additional marks seen on the Ft. Ti piece include trunnion markings.

Similarities include the iron vent bouch and the three sighting notches on the basering. The 12 pounder also has an iron vent bouch, and a profile similar to the "brass gun, old pattern" so it is a good bet that it is contemporary with the 6-pounders, and possibly by the same founder.

Whether the Ft. Ti pieces were cast for the U.S. or a state militia is open to speculation at this point, but since the two known New York Militia pieces are well-marked with that identity, perhaps the Ft. Ti guns are US Army pieces.

Ft. Ticonderoga 6 pounder:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums3/IMG_7172.jpg

Cat. no. 1999.1306

Bronze

Bore diameter: 3.75 inches

Overall length: 56 inches
Nominal length (muzzle face to rear of basering) 49.25 inches

Width across the trunnions: 15.5 inches

Marks: Marks on trunnions obscured by later damage. Cascabel marked as follows: "No 4"; "6: [cut into] :1"; "230" stamped into cascabel some time after manufacture. Three lines cut into breech ring, possibly as sight marks: at 12 o'clock, 10.30 and 2.30 o'clock.



Ft. Ticonderoga 12 pounder:


http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums3/IMG_7188-1.jpg


Cat. no. 1999.1232

Bronze

Bore diameter: 4.75 inches

Overall length: 69 inches
Nominal length: (muzzle face to rear of basering) 60.875 inches

Width across the trunnions: 19.5 inches

Marks: A deeply notched foresight is present. Vent is iron and corroded shut. There is neither decoration nor a coat of arms. The cascabel has inventory number ("No 20") and weight marks ("11:2:23").

Slowtrap
02-13-2009, 05:34 PM
Greetings fellas. I'm a new member here and a novice artillery researcher compared to you guys. This is
a very interesting subject and I appreciate all the facts, photos, drawings, etc., etc. on here, but I have a
few questions. I assume that all of the American artillery that are depicted here are based on the French
Gribeauval System that I believe was popular from 1809-1835 in this country. I have a book called Round
Shot and Rammers by Harold Peterson and I've looked all over the internet for specific information on this
artiilery system. I would like to know where I can obtain the exact length, width and weight of Gribeauval
iron 4, 8 and 12 pounders made in America during the 1830s. Thanks in advance for any assistance. :D

cannonmn
02-14-2009, 01:15 AM
Hello. Maybe we can help by rephrasing your question. I think if you made the question a bit simpler it would be easier to answer. What I mean is that yes, some US pieces were similar to some of the Gribeauval system pieces. My understanding is that only the bronze pieces were encompassed by the Gribeauval system. Anyway, if what you really want is the specifications of the American cast iron artillery pieces used during the 1830's, there's a good bit of data available.

I think your best bet would be to borrow or buy a copy of Olmstead's FIELD ARTILLERY WEAPONS OF THE CIVIL WAR. Then you can look at the US System of 1819 and see how some of the pieces, notably the 6 pounder "walking stick" were failures and were soon replaced by thicker-walled models such as the M1831. Some bronze pieces were introduced in 1835, and more in 1838, then the more or less "complete" system of 1841 came along.

Slowtrap
02-14-2009, 04:58 PM
Hello. Maybe we can help by rephrasing your question. I think if you made the question a bit simpler it would be easier to answer. What I mean is that yes, some US pieces were similar to some of the Gribeauval system pieces. My understanding is that only the bronze pieces were encompassed by the Gribeauval system. Anyway, if what you really want is the specifications of the American cast iron artillery pieces used during the 1830's, there's a good bit of data available.

I don't know if that makes it simpler, but appreciate your thoughts and suggestions. From what I've read
the Gribeauval System was used in forging "iron" cannon in early 1800s America because bronze was so
hard to find domestically and expensive to import. I'm not specifically looking for cannon made for the U.S.
military, just iron 4, 8 and 12 pounders made with the Gribeauval System.


I think your best bet would be to borrow or buy a copy of Olmstead's FIELD ARTILLERY WEAPONS OF THE CIVIL WAR. Then you can look at the US System of 1819 and see how some of the pieces, notably the 6 pounder "walking stick" were failures and were soon replaced by thicker-walled models such as the M1831. Some bronze pieces were introduced in 1835, and more in 1838, then the more or less "complete" system of 1841 came along.
At this time, I'm not interested in Civil War, flawed, bronze or cannon of other calibers, so I'm not
sure this book would help me. There should be a better source for American-made artillery during
the 1830s and I hope to find it soon. Thanks again for your assistance.

cannonmn
02-14-2009, 06:47 PM
Good luck, I've never heard of iron Gribeauval-system artillery pieces, I always thought they were all bronze. So if you find out, let us know here, I'll learn something new. If you've got a direct quote we can work on from the book you mentioned, that'd be a start.

Slowtrap
02-15-2009, 07:50 AM
Thanks. I've just read in several places that the French Vallierre, Gribeauval, Year XI and Valee Systems
influenced American makers in producing iron cannon. The 4 pounder on the previous page might be one
example of this influence. I know the lengths and weights of the Valliere artillery and would like the same
for the Gribeaval cannon. I would even settle for them in bronze. :)

cannonmn
05-01-2009, 01:30 PM
Here's some additional information showing that James Byers cast 6-pounder bronze guns for the Colony of New York as early as 1775. Since New York was not at that time a State, the two "SNY" guns, marked with the letters "SNY" were almost certainly not a part of that early production. In addition, both SNY guns discussed above are very well cast and turned, showing no gas holes nor irregularities characteristic of many early pieces attributed to Byers. In my opinion, the two SNY pieces shown are much later Byers products, probably either directly or closely connected to the Byers/New York invoices pictured above.

Whisker, James B., ARMS MAKERS OF COLONIAL AMERICA, Susquehanna University Press, 1992, PP. 53:


Byers, James. On 12 September 1775, the New York Committee of Safety received a "proposal from James Byers of New York City,
brass founder, for making a number of brass field pieces, for the use of the Colony, at the rate of 4 shillings per pound." The
committee "resolved, that this Committee do agree with the said James Byers, to take of him such brass field pieces, 6 pounders,
and of good proof, to the number of five ...provided the weight of each pieces does not esceed 650 pounds." Am Arch 3 at 890 and 903.