cannonmn
03-14-2009, 08:30 PM
Here's my transcript of the letter, from N.A. R.G. 156, Inventions, Class IB, Box No. 3
__________________________________________________ __
25 Oct. 1837
To Col. Geo. Bomford Albany
Ordn. Office
Washington
Sir,
Under your instructons dated 13th July 1836 I have proceeded to "determine the dimensions and general detail of a new system of Iron Field Artillery" and so far as concerns the lower calibers, I submit for the "final sanction of the Secretary of War" the drawings sent herewith of a Six pdr. and a Nine pdr. Iron Field Gun, two of each having been fabricated and carefully proved in accordance with the Ordnance Regulations.
The trial of a Six pdr. (fabricated in the same manner but of smaller dimensions than the Drawing,) at Old Point, to the extent of 1000 rounds, was very satisfactory, but I should be pleased to have the same gun tested to 2000 rounds. This gun has about 120 pounds of metal to every pound of the shot, while that intended for future use has 125 lbs. The 9 pdr. and 12 pdr. Iron Guns will be full 16 calibers length of bore and have 140 pounds of metal to each pound of shot, being lighter than brass guns of the same length. I submit for the decision of the department, whether the importance of the matter does not demand a trial of all calibers of the iron guns to the extent of 2000 rounds each, with the service charge of one-forth the weight of the shot. If they do not stand firing 1500 rounds, I would increase their dimensions, but if they stand 1500 rounds and upwards, I would adopt them for service and reduce the service charge to one-fifth the weight of the ball, for round shot, and one-sixth for canister shot, for all Field Guns.
The increased strength which has been given to our new Gunpowder in my opinion demands a reduction of the service charge for all Battering Guns to one-fourth of the weight of the Shot for round and one-fifth for grape and canister and double shot. I am prepared to show that these reductions would still leave our service charges stronger than they were in 1816 and especially strong with those of any foreign power.
There appears to be little if any probability that a meeting of the ordnance board can be effected this season. I therefore respectfully urge that the matters addressed in this communication be submitted to the Hon. Secretary of War for his decision.
I am Sir very respectfully yr obt svt,
G. Talcott
LCOL Ordn.
__________________________________________________ _
I tried to match the iron 6 and 9-pounder field guns described in this letter to known contracts for any and all iron cannons ordered by the Army ca. 1836-37. I couldn't do it. I used the easiest reference, the tables in Olmstead, et al, THE BIG GUNS, pp. 287-288 and could not get a match. The two six-pounders are described on the letter's file notation as "malleable iron" and there were at least a few contracts for six-pounders of that material, but none have exactly two weapons and also the correct weight which would be about 720 lbs. per Talcott's letter. Why isn't there any mention of these two particular 6-pounders in the standard works on the subject?
I was surprised to see "The increased strength which has been given to our new Gunpowder in my opinion demands..." just because this is all new to me. Does anyone know what was going on with the gunpowder, was a new manufacturing technique invented then, or what?
I've never heard of the "new system of Iron Field Artillery" apparently being considered at that time. What's that all about?
Unfortunately one of the first things that happens with records arriving at the National Archives is that drawings are separated from the letters that they came with and filed as far apart as possible. With a lot of luck and diligence, you might eventually locate both parts. I suspect the drawings for this letter are somewhere in National Archives II in MD, and I don't get there very often.
images of original letter:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... mdl212.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums30/ArchivesRG156Fmdl212.jpg)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... mdl213.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums30/ArchivesRG156Fmdl213.jpg)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... mdl214.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums30/ArchivesRG156Fmdl214.jpg)
__________________________________________________ __
25 Oct. 1837
To Col. Geo. Bomford Albany
Ordn. Office
Washington
Sir,
Under your instructons dated 13th July 1836 I have proceeded to "determine the dimensions and general detail of a new system of Iron Field Artillery" and so far as concerns the lower calibers, I submit for the "final sanction of the Secretary of War" the drawings sent herewith of a Six pdr. and a Nine pdr. Iron Field Gun, two of each having been fabricated and carefully proved in accordance with the Ordnance Regulations.
The trial of a Six pdr. (fabricated in the same manner but of smaller dimensions than the Drawing,) at Old Point, to the extent of 1000 rounds, was very satisfactory, but I should be pleased to have the same gun tested to 2000 rounds. This gun has about 120 pounds of metal to every pound of the shot, while that intended for future use has 125 lbs. The 9 pdr. and 12 pdr. Iron Guns will be full 16 calibers length of bore and have 140 pounds of metal to each pound of shot, being lighter than brass guns of the same length. I submit for the decision of the department, whether the importance of the matter does not demand a trial of all calibers of the iron guns to the extent of 2000 rounds each, with the service charge of one-forth the weight of the shot. If they do not stand firing 1500 rounds, I would increase their dimensions, but if they stand 1500 rounds and upwards, I would adopt them for service and reduce the service charge to one-fifth the weight of the ball, for round shot, and one-sixth for canister shot, for all Field Guns.
The increased strength which has been given to our new Gunpowder in my opinion demands a reduction of the service charge for all Battering Guns to one-fourth of the weight of the Shot for round and one-fifth for grape and canister and double shot. I am prepared to show that these reductions would still leave our service charges stronger than they were in 1816 and especially strong with those of any foreign power.
There appears to be little if any probability that a meeting of the ordnance board can be effected this season. I therefore respectfully urge that the matters addressed in this communication be submitted to the Hon. Secretary of War for his decision.
I am Sir very respectfully yr obt svt,
G. Talcott
LCOL Ordn.
__________________________________________________ _
I tried to match the iron 6 and 9-pounder field guns described in this letter to known contracts for any and all iron cannons ordered by the Army ca. 1836-37. I couldn't do it. I used the easiest reference, the tables in Olmstead, et al, THE BIG GUNS, pp. 287-288 and could not get a match. The two six-pounders are described on the letter's file notation as "malleable iron" and there were at least a few contracts for six-pounders of that material, but none have exactly two weapons and also the correct weight which would be about 720 lbs. per Talcott's letter. Why isn't there any mention of these two particular 6-pounders in the standard works on the subject?
I was surprised to see "The increased strength which has been given to our new Gunpowder in my opinion demands..." just because this is all new to me. Does anyone know what was going on with the gunpowder, was a new manufacturing technique invented then, or what?
I've never heard of the "new system of Iron Field Artillery" apparently being considered at that time. What's that all about?
Unfortunately one of the first things that happens with records arriving at the National Archives is that drawings are separated from the letters that they came with and filed as far apart as possible. With a lot of luck and diligence, you might eventually locate both parts. I suspect the drawings for this letter are somewhere in National Archives II in MD, and I don't get there very often.
images of original letter:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... mdl212.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums30/ArchivesRG156Fmdl212.jpg)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... mdl213.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums30/ArchivesRG156Fmdl213.jpg)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... mdl214.jpg (http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/cannonmn/miscforumsetc/forums30/ArchivesRG156Fmdl214.jpg)